House of Commons
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 6 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
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects on Scotland of the rate of inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues, including the state of the economy. Inflation is being pushed higher by rising global commodity prices. This is a global problem that requires global solutions.
Graeme Morrice
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is now clear that the Government’s VAT hike in January helped to drive up inflation, which is squeezing family incomes, hitting consumer spending and holding back strong growth. Will the Minister now speak up for families and businesses in Scotland and urge the Chancellor to reverse the VAT rise to help to boost consumer confidence and bring down inflation?
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that he would have done exactly the same in relation to VAT, and a cut in VAT would do nothing to reverse global commodity price rises. It would, however, do a lot to reverse the Government’s hard-won credibility for getting the deficit down. Of course, credibility on economic matters does not seem to be important to the Opposition.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
In answer to my written parliamentary question, the Office for National Statistics confirms that, in four of the past five years, the rise in domestic gas prices far outstripped the rate of inflation—this is before the latest rise—while family incomes are at best static. What steps can the Government take to protect already hard-pressed families from these escalating costs in the coming winter?
David Mundell
The Government are concerned about the rise in fuel prices, especially gas prices. One of the measures we have taken is to ensure that the poorest families have protection in relation to their fuel costs.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will welcome the inquiry Ofgem announced today into Scottish Power’s price rise and the way in which it announced the change to consumers. Does he agree that it is completely inappropriate for energy companies to add to the increased cost of living in Scotland by deciding to hike domestic bills? What personally is he doing about this?
David Mundell
There is widespread concern in Scotland about these actions, especially about the recent fuel cost rises announced by Scottish Power. As the hon. Lady knows from previous questions, the Secretary of State and I have raised these issues with the energy companies.
Ann McKechin
Although it is very nice to meet up, I think that Scottish consumers are looking for action as they face a rise of an average of £198 a year in their bills while wages are being frozen, prices are rising at well above the target inflation rate and borrowing is now £46 billion higher than expected because of the decrease in economic activity. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for a plan B, and for the temporary cut in VAT that Labour has called for?
David Mundell
It will not surprise the hon. Lady when I say most certainly not. In setting out those woes, she has not acknowledged her part as a Minister, and that of her party, in bringing this country to the verge of bankruptcy, or the need to take the tough action that this Government have taken. She also knows that the shadow Chancellor is in a majority of one in setting out his proposals—
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the Union; and if he will make a statement.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the Union; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the Union; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
The Government firmly believe that Scotland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom, and that the United Kingdom benefits from having Scotland within it.
John Stevenson
I agree wholeheartedly that Scotland benefits from being part of the Union. I represent a seat that is just over the border in England. Does the Minister agree that England benefits from being part of the Union, and that it is in the interests of all of us that Scotland and England remain part of the United Kingdom?
Graham Evans
The Union is of great benefit to all the United Kingdom, but my constituents still want fairness between Scotland and England. Bearing that in mind, what plans does the Secretary of State have to review the Barnett formula?
Michael Moore
My hon. Friend will recall from last night’s debate on the Scotland Bill that we recognise that this is an issue across the United Kingdom. However, we are committed to reviewing it when we have resolved the current financial problems that we inherited from the Labour party.
Mr Hollobone
Would not a separate Scotland simply not have been able to survive the global banking crisis on its own, and if it had been separate would it not now be heading the way of Ireland and Greece?
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point because the scale of the financial disaster that befell the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland would have placed a crippling burden on Scotland. By being part of the United Kingdom we shared the risks; we are now sharing the recovery, which is the right way forward.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that while the future of the constitution is hotly debated, there is no place for leading Unionists to describe the supporters of Scottish independence as neo-fascists?
Michael Moore
I think it is incumbent on us all to ensure that we use moderate and appropriate language in this debate.
Angus Robertson
In view of what the Secretary of State has just said, is it of benefit to the Union and Scotland that the Scottish Affairs Committee is chaired by someone who last night described Scotland’s majority party of government as neo-fascist?
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman should take up the issue with the hon. Gentleman himself. In this House, we do not challenge one another’s honour or otherwise. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to raise as he will. [Interruption.] I have made my position clear—it is important to be careful about our language and to debate the substance of the issues.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on establishing a commission on the West Lothian question.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
5. What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on establishing a commission on the West Lothian question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on a range of issues. The Government remain committed to establishing a commission later this year to consider the West Lothian question. Does the Minister agree that timing is of the essence here? This is a difficult question and the commission will need to consider its recommendations, after which this House will need time to consider the outcome. It would be much better if this were done at a time of constitutional peace rather than at a time of constitutional crisis. I respect my hon. Friend’s passion on this subject. She, of course, has a Bill before the House that touches on these issues. I understand that it will be heard on the first Friday of the September sitting, which will give the whole House an opportunity to debate the issues. I will convey my hon. Friend’s call for urgency to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing we want, having passed the Scotland Bill and with new powers devolved to Wales, is another expensive parliamentary assembly or talking shop in England, as the British Parliament here can cope with English matters, but decided by English MPs?
David Mundell
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have always expressed the view that there is no desire for an English Parliament—and the same two people have always written to me afterwards to say that I am wrong.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this issue is much more complex than Conservative Members sometimes allow? A good example arose in the debates on university tuition fees before Christmas. That might have been regarded as a purely English issue, but it had tremendous consequences for Scotland.
David Mundell
I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point. This is a complex issue, which is why the coalition Government are committed to establishing a commission to look at it. I hope that it will be able to take evidence from people such as the hon. Lady.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister is right when he says that there is no great demand for an English Parliament. Does he not accept that the proposal to have two classes of MPs in this House, which is coming from many supporters of the proposals of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), effectively amounts to setting up an English Parliament in this building? Is that not inevitably the road that his Government will go down if they accept having two classes of MPs in this House?
David Mundell
I do not acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point because the devolution settlement means that different MPs in this House already have different responsibilities, depending on whether they are from Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales. The Government are committed to look at the West Lothian question, which is a substantive issue that the previous Government ignored, and will set up a commission later this year.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
4. What steps the Government plan to take to ensure a stable economic environment for businesses in Scotland.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
12. What steps the Government plan to take to ensure a stable economic environment for businesses in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
“The Plan for Growth” published in the March Budget set out a programme of reforms to create the right conditions for private sector-led growth. This month the Government launched the next stage of the growth review with the central purpose of creating the right conditions for businesses to be established, to invest, to grow and to create jobs.
Alun Cairns
At a time when the Treasury is bringing about stability to the banking sector and banking regulation, does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP’s drive for further independence in Scotland could destabilise Scotland’s financial markets?
Michael Moore
There is no question but that uncertainty over the nature, number and timing of the questions that will be asked about independence will be no good for the Scottish economy.
David Rutley
In Scotland and across the United Kingdom, small and medium-sized companies are vital engines of growth and job creation, for which improving access to funding is a vital priority. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to address the challenge and whether those steps include working with organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland?
Michael Moore
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the critical issue of access to finance. Unless we get enough lending to small and medium-sized businesses, among others, we will not get the economy growing again. That is why creating the conditions in which businesses start, grow and invest appropriately is central to “The Plan for Growth”, and it is why Project Merlin sets out very tough targets for lending to businesses across the UK.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that businesses’ access to fast broadband is also essential for business growth? Does he share my concern that many constituencies in Scotland, such as mine, do not have such access? What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government regarding that?
Michael Moore
That was one of the key issues that the hon. Lady wanted to raise when I met her a week or so ago to discuss the economy in Ayrshire. As a Government, we are committed to the implementation of superfast broadband across the United Kingdom, and we are in discussions with the Scottish Government on how they should go about that in Scotland. Such provision is vital in Ayrshire, the borders and all parts of the country. I am happy to work with her and others, including the Scottish Government, to ensure that we achieve it.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to read the Government expenditure and revenue study published this morning, which shows that the Scottish economy is outperforming that of the UK and carrying a lower deficit? Will he take the opportunity to congratulate the Scottish Government on their efforts to promote stability through economic growth and recovery?
Michael Moore
That is a typically interesting interpretation of the figures in this morning’s report, which show that, on pretty well every measure, Scotland is running at a deficit. That highlights the volatility and difficulties associated with the different measures. It is vital that we get Scotland’s economy back on the right footing. That is why, as a Government, we are cutting corporation tax, keeping interest rates low and reducing the burden on national insurance. I am happy to work with the Scottish Government, who have fantastic powers at their disposal to ensure that the economy grows. We need to work in partnership.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Clyde coastguard station in Greenock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on a range of issues of mutual interest, including the future of Scottish coastguard stations.
Mr Reid
May I pay tribute to David Cairns, who had been campaigning to save the Clyde coastguard station before his tragic early death? The waters around Argyll and Bute, with all its islands, peninsulas and sea lochs, present a unique challenge to seafarers. If the Clyde coastguard station is closed, however, all the valuable local knowledge of the area held by the people who work there will be lost. Will the Minister draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport and urge him to keep Clyde coastguard station open?
David Mundell
It is appropriate that there is mention of David Cairns, who gave distinguished service as a Scotland Office Minister, at this first Scottish questions since his tragic death. I assure my hon. Friend that his points will have been heard, as they were in the recent Westminster Hall debate in which he took part. The Department for Transport will make no announcement on the future of coastguard stations until the Transport Committee has reported.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the comments that have been made about David Cairns.
As the Minister will know, concern is sometimes expressed in Scotland about what he actually does. In a spirit of co-operation, may I offer him an opportunity to allay that concern by expressing, in clear and unambiguous terms, his opposition to the disastrous plans of the Department for Transport to close the coastguard centre in Greenock? Will he stand up for Scotland in that regard?
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scotland Office always makes the case for Scotland, and for facilities and resources in Scotland. I welcome the approach of my colleagues in the Department for Transport, who say that they will listen to all representations following their consultation and await the report of the Select Committee on Transport.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Clyde coastguard is important to the west coast of Scotland. As one who represents a west coast constituency, I believe that we have already suffered from the loss of Oban coastguard a decade or so ago. Does the Minister agree that—as the doughty fighter Anne McLaughlin is always reminding me—we need Stornoway, Shetland and Clyde coastguards on the west coast as a maritime insurance policy?
David Mundell
I would characterise the hon. Gentleman himself as a doughty fighter for the station in Stornoway. He has made significant representations, and they have been heard. My colleagues in the Department for Transport will announce their conclusion after the Select Committee has delivered its report.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the power to set rates of corporation tax.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues. The Scottish Government included the devolution of corporation tax among its requests for amendments to the Scotland Bill. To date, the Government have not received any detailed proposals from the Scottish Government.
Ian Lucas
On the same day the Business Secretary said that the logic of devolving corporation tax was irresistible, he subsequently said that he fully supported the Government’s position in opposing it. Is not the Business Secretary a bit of an embarrassment both to Scottish business and to the Government, and is it not about time he started speaking to the Secretary of State for Scotland about important matters such as corporation tax?
Michael Moore
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Business Secretary and I are at one on the issue.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
8. What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the Scottish agriculture industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly discuss a range of devolution issues with the Advocate-General. We regularly discuss devolution issues in relation to the Scotland Bill, which is delivering the Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution settlement.
Anne Marie Morris
No doubt the Minister is acutely aware of the importance of reform of the common agricultural policy to farmers both in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Given the importance of agriculture to the economy, does he agree that it is essential that we secure a deal for our farmers that is fairer and more transparent?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister’s mellifluous tones diverted me from the fact that the content of his answer did not relate to the question that had been asked. I am sure that he will now talk about agriculture and not about devolution.
David Mundell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can inform the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was in Brussels last week, where he made the very points that she has just made.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
9. What recent discussions he has had with the Advocate-General on devolution issues.
Miss McIntosh
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Has the Advocate-General yet received an update on the progress made by the expert group set up by the Scottish Government, which is examining the role of the United Kingdom Supreme Court?
David Mundell
The Advocate-General wrote to the chair of the Scottish Government expert group, Lord McCluskey, offering a meeting, but has now received a response from the group’s secretariat saying that, owing to their timetable, members of the group have not had time in the first instance to receive submissions or hear evidence. What appears to have happened is that an expert group is set up by the First Minister one week, meets the following week—with no evidence taken in any week—and reports the week after.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
That was a most disappointing response. Will the Government start supporting the integrity and independence of Scots law, work constructively with the Scots group chaired by the eminent Lord McCluskey and promise to do nothing to reform the Supreme Court until the group has reported?
David Mundell
I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, like his colleague, Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of the Scottish National party, would have sought to disassociate himself from the appalling comments that the First Minister has made about Lord Hope, which Jim Sillars described as “foolish” and “juvenile”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. It is very discourteous to the Member asking the question and to the Minister answering it. I want to hear Sir Menzies Campbell.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
What possible confidence can we have in the findings of a group that is unwilling to meet the Advocate-General, who last year established an inquiry for precisely the same purpose as this group has been established?
David Mundell
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an extremely good point. As I said in my initial response, it seems incredible that a group set up to consider this very complicated issue is not going to take evidence or receive submissions. I am pleased that the Advocate-General has in any event made his information available to the group, so that might give us some confidence in the report it produces.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to promote Scotland as a destination for international inward investment.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
The trade White Paper sets out a strategy for creating opportunities and providing the conditions for private sector growth through trade and international inward investment. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment will visit Scotland in July.
Mark Menzies
Does the Secretary of State share my fear that the Scottish Government’s plans for a referendum on separation will undermine this Government’s efforts to create jobs in Scotland?
Michael Moore
My hon. Friend is right to highlight what we are focusing on as a Government. “The Plan for Growth” seeks to give us the most competitive tax system in the G20, to ensure we are the best place in Europe to start, grow and finance a business and to bring about further investment and a flexible work force. None of that can be done if we have the uncertainty that the independence referendum casts over the Scottish economy.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Olympics offer a splendid opportunity for promoting inward investment to Scotland? In that regard, is it not tragic that the torch, having visited Land’s End, will fly over John O’Groats?
Michael Moore
My hon. Friend makes his point as eloquently as I would expect him to and I am sure that those who are organising the trip will have heard his points.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
14. What assessment he has made of the outcomes of his recent visit to Central Ayrshire.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
The seminar I hosted in Irvine last month discussed how to tackle the high level of youth unemployment in Ayrshire. The Scotland Office is working with key partners such as Jobcentre Plus to focus resources on the most challenging areas identified at the seminar. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government on this complex issue.
Mr Donohoe
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. One of the areas of major concern identified at the seminar was the high unemployment among those aged between 16 and 18, which seemed to have slipped off the radar. It was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was present at the meeting, who made that very important point. What is the situation, what assessment has been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and what is going to be done about that issue?
Michael Moore
First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his full participation in the seminar? It was the first in a series that we will hold across Scotland to tackle a deep-rooted problem, not just in Ayrshire but elsewhere, that has defied Governments through the ages. He rightly points out that my right hon. Friend was at that seminar; we continue to discuss the serious challenges in relation to youth employment and I will be happy to discuss those further with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, Ayrshire has some of the worst rates of unemployment and youth unemployment in Scotland. In 2007, Scotland had the highest levels of employment in Britain, but it now has the lowest levels of employment and the highest levels of unemployment. What more can the Westminster Government do to work with the Scottish Government to take concrete steps to address the problem?
Michael Moore
I make two observations to the hon. Lady. First, we need to get the economy into a place from which we can see sustained, strong and balanced growth, which would be a complete contrast to the situation we inherited from her Government. On her second point about working with the Scottish Government, she is right to highlight the serious economic powers that they already have and it is vital, as I said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) earlier, that we work together to ensure that we do the best for people across Scotland.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
15. What discussions he has had with members of the Scottish Executive on the funding of the Forth road bridge replacement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
This issue was raised in discussions between my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister on 9 June. As announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State on 13 June, the Government are bringing forward to 2011 the power for Scottish Ministers to make prepayments, which will allow work on the Forth replacement crossing to begin.
David Mowat
I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that two major bridge schemes are about to take place in the UK: the Forth road bridge, to be funded by the Treasury and by the means that he has just given us, and the Mersey gateway in Cheshire, to be funded substantially by tolls. How can the Government justify that difference in the same country?
David Mundell
The justification is devolution; it is a decision of the Scottish Government to proceed with the Forth replacement crossing on the basis that there will be no tolls on it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 June.
Happy anniversary, Mr Speaker.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I was unaware of that event, Mr Speaker, but I join the hon. Lady in wishing you a very happy anniversary.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Craftsman Andrew Found from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Corporal Lloyd Newell from the Parachute Regiment and Private Gareth Bellingham from 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. They were talented, brave and dedicated soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice overseas for the safety of British people at home. We send out our deepest condolences to their families, their friends and their colleagues.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Prime Minister for that response, and may I associate myself and my constituents with the moving tributes that he has just paid.
A year ago today, the Chancellor stood up in the House to deliver his first Budget. Given that on the Government’s own assessment, their efforts will have a statistically insignificant impact on child poverty, may I recommend that the Prime Minister watch the BBC documentary, “Poor Kids” to find out how the other half lives? Does he regret allowing his Chancellor to take money away from families with children, rather than from the bankers who caused the financial crisis in the first place?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at the programme that the hon. Lady mentions; but even in a difficult time, this Government put more money into child tax credits for the poorest families. We have frozen the council tax, and we have actually taken steps to help working families. Neither that Budget nor the subsequent Budget actually raised child poverty, because of the steps that we took. We inherited a complete mess from the Labour party, but we are dealing with it in a way that protects families.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister confirm that this country will not contribute a penny towards the Greek bail-out, other than what we contribute to the International Monetary Fund?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. We are senior members of the IMF. We sit on the IMF board. We obviously have responsibilities as members of the IMF, but what I am clear about is that we were not involved in the first Greek bail-out; we are not members of the eurozone; and we are not going to become members of the eurozone as long as I am standing here. I do not believe that the European financial mechanism should be used for Greece. We have made it very clear within Europe that we do not think that that is appropriate, and I do not think that that should happen.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Craftsman Andrew Found from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Corporal Lloyd Newell from the Parachute Regiment and Private Gareth Bellingham from 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment? They all served their country with dedication and bravery, and our hearts go out to their families and friends.
Armed Forces day is coming up this Saturday, and that is an opportunity to remind us all of the service that is provided by our armed forces in Afghanistan, Libya and all around the world. It is a moment to recognise the service that they provide with honour and courage for our country.
We support the mission in Libya, but in the past week, both the First Sea Lord and the Commander-in-Chief, Air Command have raised concerns over the prospect of an extended campaign. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that sufficient resources are in place to maintain Britain’s part in the mission at the current rate of engagement?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our armed forces and particularly in looking forward to Armed Forces day on Saturday, when we will be celebrating the contribution they make to our national life and the enormous amount they do to keep us safe.
The mission in Libya, similar to the mission in Afghanistan, is funded out of the reserve, so it does not put additional pressures on the defence budget. I have sought and received assurances from the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, that we are capable of keeping up this operation for as long as it takes. That is vital. I would argue that the pressure is building on Gaddafi. Time is on our side, not on Gaddafi’s side. When we look at what is happening in Libya, where we see a strengthening of the revolt in the west of Libya, more people deserting Gaddafi’s regime, the growing unpopularity of his regime and our coalition holding strong, I think time is on our side, the pressure is growing, and I believe we will take it to a satisfactory conclusion.
Edward Miliband
I am absolutely with the Prime Minister that we should keep up the pressure on the Libyan regime. As he knows, we provide our full support for the mission, but do not the concerns that have been expressed by members of our armed forces point to something very important—the need to look again at the strategic defence and security review, precisely to make sure that we have the right capability and the right focus? The Foreign Secretary described the Arab spring as a more important event than 9/11, but the national security strategy published last year does not mention Libya, Egypt or Tunisia. Is it not right, in the light of the changes we have seen, to look again at the strategic defence and security review to make sure that we can sustain the conflict in Libya?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the question, because that is an important point. One of the reasons for having a National Security Council that sits weekly is all the time to ask whether we have the right resources and the right strategy. We have had a review of the national security and defence review over the past year, but that strategic defence review put in place mechanisms to take account of the fact that we may well be fighting two conflicts at the same time. It also established the necessity of having very flexible armed forces for exactly the sort of operations that we are fighting and dealing with in Libya. Having not had one for 10 years, it seems strange to want to have two strategic defence reviews within one year. We have the right flexibilities in our armed forces and they are performing magnificently in Libya. If anything, I would like to speed up the implementation of the strategic defence review because so much of the new equipment that we are looking to have—drones and so on—would be more helpful if we had it right now. So, far from being the wrong strategic posture, it is right and it is good that we are putting it in place.
Edward Miliband
I think it will come as news to the wider defence and security community that there has been a review of the original strategic defence and security review. If indeed there has been a review since the Arab spring took place, why does not the Prime Minister publish the results of that review? Let us have a consultation with the experts who know about these issues. As he will see, there is clear concern across our military about some of the issues. Finally, let me say to the Prime Minister in all sincerity that when our military chiefs raise legitimate concerns about the conduct of our operations, surely, “You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking” is not the right thing to say. In retrospect, was that not very crass and high-handed?
The Prime Minister
I have huge respect for the people who run our armed services. They do an incredibly good job. They are highly professional people and they are involved in the National Security Council. They were involved in drawing up the strategic defence review. The only point that I have tried to make in recent days is that when we are at war, as we are in both Afghanistan and Libya, it is extremely important, whether one is a political leader or a military leader, to think very carefully about what one is about to say.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Is the Prime Minister aware of the decision, abruptly made, to close the passport office in Wick, which has obliged a six-year-old boy to make a 300 mile round trip for an interview and another constituent to travel to Newcastle? Is that acceptable?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, I will look closely at the point my hon. Friend raises, but in the modern age we have all sorts of ways of carrying out interviews that do not necessarily involve people having to travel to a passport office. What matters is having an efficient service so that people can get the documentation they need so they can go on the holiday they want.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Q2. Given the number of U-turns the Prime Minister has made, including on sentencing, NHS reform, the forestry sell-off and school sports, it is a wonder that he knows which way he is facing, but will he now have the front to ensure that relief measures are put in place for those women who are hardest hit—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I did not hear the entire question, but that is the trouble with—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a reminder of the importance of Government Back Benchers keeping calm and quiet, not least so that the Prime Minister can hear what is being said. How helpful that would be!
The Prime Minister
It would probably also help if Members did not read out the Whips’ bit at the beginning of their question, so that we could hear the second part of the question, which in this case was, I think, about the important issue of women and pensions. I do think it is right to equalise the pension ages of men and women at 65, and that is going ahead, and I also think it is important to raise the pension age to 66, because the fact is that people in our country are living longer. That is a good thing, but we have to make sure we can pay for good and decent pensions for the future. The alternative is that we stick our head in the sand and end up either cutting pensions or building up debts for our children, which, frankly, would be irresponsible. This Government are taking difficult decisions, but they are the right ones.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that there is still too much homophobia in sport, especially football, and that the event he is hosting today in Downing street will go some way towards tackling that prejudice?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree, and I am delighted to be hosting a party for Britain’s lesbian, gay and transgender community at No. 10 Downing street today. That there are so few out players in all sports is an issue. I applaud those who have come out and will be attending my party tonight, and I hope that that will encourage schoolchildren to recognise that homophobic bullying is completely unacceptable in our society today.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Q3. If the Prime Minister is serious about tackling the issue of runaway fathers, as he said last week, why is he making it harder for single mothers to get maintenance payments, by charging them to use the Child Support Agency?
The Prime Minister
We are going to carry on funding a child support agency mechanism—it is right that we do—but it is not wrong to ask people to make a contribution to that. Taxpayers are currently putting in a huge amount of money, and they will carry on doing so, but to ask the people concerned to pay towards the costs does not reduce the impact of what I said last week at all. People walking away from their responsibilities and not funding their children should not be allowed to happen in Britain today.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Q4. Next year will be the centenary of the death of Captain Robert Falcon Scott of the Antarctic. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this brave historic son of Plymouth left a significant scientific legacy that is still helping to shape the world’s environmental agenda today?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. That centenary is important, and I am very pleased that so much is going on across the country to celebrate it, especially in his home city of Plymouth. It is not just the scientific discoveries that are important; so too is the inspirational figure—the adventurer, the explorer—and Captain Scott’s incredible sense of duty and adventure. That is what inspires young people today.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister has been forced to abandon his original sentencing plans. Will he now change his mind on the proposal to prevent police from holding the DNA of those arrested for, but not charged with, rape?
The Prime Minister
We inherited an unacceptable situation, with a DNA database that had grown out of control, and without proper rights for people. We put in place a better system. There is always room to see whether it can be further improved, but we have taken a big step forward from the mess we were left by the last Government.
Edward Miliband
It is a bit late to be looking at the proposal; it is in the House of Commons and about to have its Report stage. Let me explain to the Prime Minister his own policy. Around 5,000 people each year are arrested on suspicion of rape but not charged—[Interruption.] I know he wants some help from the Home Secretary. In certain cases those individuals have gone on to commit further offences and been convicted as a result of their DNA being held on the national database, but his proposal is that the DNA of those arrested but not charged will be disposed of straight away. I ask him again, why is it right to discard the DNA of those arrested but not charged with rape?
Mr Speaker
Order. The answer of the Prime Minister will be heard. I remind the House that the more noise there is, the greater the difficulty in getting down the Order Paper.
The Prime Minister
I understand that there is some worry that in this Government we actually talk to each other. That is clearly not the case—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor has raised this issue, but it is perfectly clear that he and the leader of the Labour party do not speak to each other at all. I have the proof, because this week the shadow Chancellor made a huge announcement on a massive VAT cut, and yet it was only—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Let us focus on an answer to the question, or we will move on to the next question. I call Mr Ed Miliband.
Edward Miliband
Let me give this lesson to the Prime Minister: it would be better to talk to his colleagues before they put forward a policy, not after. Instead of listening to the Home Secretary, why does he not listen to Angie Conroy from Rape Crisis? She says:
“with the reporting of rapes on the increase and conviction rates still shockingly low, the evidence this database provides is vital. The more of this data we hold, the more chance we have of catching rapists.”
She goes on to say:
“This really is a no brainer.”
Is this not another policy on crime that is careless, not thought through and out of touch? Why does he not think again?
The Prime Minister
First, if the right hon. Gentleman actually understood the policy, he would know that the police are allowed to apply to keep DNA on the computer, which is not something he mentioned. What we tend to find with his questions is that he comes up with some idea, gets it completely wrong in the House of Commons and we all find out afterwards that he has given us a partial picture. That is what his questions are all about. It is not surprising that he does not want to talk—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I am not surprised that he does not want to talk about the issues his party has put forward this week, because I do not suppose he knew about them.
Mr Speaker
Order. The House needs to simmer down and take whatever tablets are necessary.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
As a parent, I am appalled that the Labour party advocates burdening our children with ever more unsolicited debts, which it is putting forward with its reckless raft of unfunded tax cuts and spending commitments, of which the VAT cut is the latest—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will now resume his seat. I call Valerie Vaz.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Q5. There are 400 avoidable deaths from epilepsy and related conditions each year. My ten-minute rule Bill asks for two things: an immediate referral to a tertiary specialist and; in education, support for children, with an assessment and additional support so that they can fulfil their potential. Will the Prime Minister meet me, the Joint Epilepsy Council and Professor Helen Cross to see how we can progress those provisions, which will save not only costs, but more importantly, lives?
The Prime Minister
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and Helen Cross, whom I know well. She works at Great Ormond Street hospital and is an absolutely brilliant clinician. I am keen to improve the support that we give to people with epilepsy. Obviously, one of the steps that we are taking is to put in place more personal budgets and more single assessments, which I think will help with epilepsy. My understanding is that, although there are many good things in the hon. Lady’s Bill, there is some concern that it could have too much of a medical approach to special educational needs, something that I actually have some sympathy with, but which I know many professionals have concerns about, so perhaps we could talk about that when we meet.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government have made an assessment, and if so the results, of what a proposed cut in VAT would do to the British economy at this stage of the cycle?
The Prime Minister
My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, which is that to make an unfunded cut in VAT right now, when the concerns are about debt and deficit, would actually be the height of insanity. What is now clear is that Labour’s plan B stands for bankruptcy.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Q6. The Prime Minister frequently tells us that we are all in this together, so can he explain why banks have been rewarded with a £2 billion tax cut on their obscene bonus pools while parents of disabled children are being penalised with a benefit cut of £1,400 a year? How is that fair?
The Prime Minister
I will tell you what this Government have done, and that is to put in place a £2.5 billion bank levy, raising more than Labour’s bonus tax every single year, but I have to say that, if Opposition Members want to see irresponsible people who are earning a lot of money pay proper taxes, perhaps they will explain this: why did they vote against the measures on disguised earnings in the Finance Bill which will raise £800 million from people who are giving loans to themselves to dodge taxes? [Interruption.] Well, I think that that is probably a detail that the leader of the Labour party was not really aware of.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Although of course we should not make a unilateral contribution to the Greek bail-out, does the Prime Minister not agree that we have something which would help regenerate the Greek economy and put right a 200-year wrong—the marbles, which we should give back?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Q7. Is the Prime Minister aware that 670,000 people, two thirds of whom, according to his Government’s equality impact assessment, have a disability, will lose up to £13 a week because of his changes in housing benefit under-occupancy rules? Is not that a complete betrayal of his Chancellor’s promise not to balance the Budget on the backs of the poor?
The Prime Minister
I have looked carefully at that issue, and I know there are concerns, but the point I would make is this: I think it is right that we reform housing benefit, because the costs had got completely out of control under the previous Government, rising to £22 billion; and I think it right that housing benefit reflects the size of a family rather than the size of a house. But, we have actually made an exception for people with carers so that allowance is made for that in housing benefit. So, I think that that is fair, but I have to say to Opposition Members, it is no good saying that you are in favour of welfare reform and cutting the costs of welfare while never being able to find a single part of the Bill to agree with.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Q8. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the new report by the all-party paediatric mobility reform group, “My Wheelchair is My Shoes”, showing how, through partnership working, we can deliver the wheelchairs that transform young people’s lives? Will he meet me and Whizz-Kidz ambassadors to discuss how the Government might take that forward?
The Prime Minister
Certainly. I know Whizz-Kidz well. It is an excellent charity that does a brilliant job, and I will certainly arrange a meeting for the hon. Gentleman. The point I would make on wheelchairs is that that is exactly where the health reforms, with greater choice and with greater opportunities for GPs and patients to choose, should come in, so that people can get the wheelchair of their choice when they need it, rather than as it is at the moment where you have to take what you are given.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In four of the last five years, there have been no mistakes made in setting school examination papers. Since 16 May this year, there have been 10 such mistakes made. What does the Prime Minister intend to do for those among the 250,000 young people affected who will lose out either on their university of choice or on university completely because of this staggering incompetence?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right; this is not an acceptable situation. I have discussed it this morning with the Education Secretary, who in turn has discussed it with Ofqual, which is taking the toughest possible action to root out this failure and to make sure that it does not happen again.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Q9. The Prime Minister will be aware that the former Labour Secretary of State, Lord Hutton, has described current proposals on pension reform as the best chance we have to deliver a sustainable system that is fair both to scheme payers and to the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to these major, long-term issues, we should build the broadest possible consensus; and will he seek the support of Members on both sides of the House for his proposals?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the way he puts it. The Hutton report is a good report. This is not about attacking or downgrading public sector pensions; it is about a way of making really good public sector pensions affordable into the long term and respecting all the accrued rights that people have. We need to win this argument on the basis of fairness. It is right for the taxpayer to put money into public sector pensions, but we need to know that they are affordable for the long term. The steps that Lord Hutton puts forward are therefore absolutely right. I hope that the Labour party will take a responsible view and recognise that we need to make this change for the long-term good of our country.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Q15. Eighteen months ago, one of my constituents required knee surgery and was pleased to hear that he had to wait only six weeks. He now needs another operation and has been told that he has to wait 10 months. He is in agony and unable to walk. He is understandably angry and wants to know if this is what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the NHS was safe in his hands.
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady gives me the details of the individual case, I will certainly take it up and look at it. The fact is that we have not changed the waiting list targets that have been in place in the NHS for a long time—in particular, the 18-week target that is part of the NHS constitution. Average waiting times have actually come down in recent months. The clear lesson is this: were it not for this Government putting in an extra £11.5 billion—money that Labour does not support—we would see all waiting times going up.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
Q10. On 18 July last year, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated, with regard to the decision to sign Britain up to the eurozone bail-out mechanism:“While these decisions were taken by the previous Government, this Government judges them to be an appropriate response to the crisis.”Does this remain the Government’s position?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend is pursuing this issue with his normal dogged tenacity. The facts of the case are very clear. The last Government—at the death, as it were, after the election but before the new Government were formed—signed us up to the European financial mechanism that we are still having to pay out under. This Government have got us out of that by tough negotiation in Brussels so that we will not have to contribute after 2013.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s and the Leader of the Opposition’s expressions of condolence for the soldiers who have fallen in Afghanistan? Those who serve are the lions of our country, and we must always do everything we can to repay the debt of gratitude we owe them.
The October 2010 strategic defence and security review has been overtaken by events, and the world is now a fundamentally different place. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister again: will he do the right thing for the armed forces and for the country and order a new chapter to this now outdated review?
The Prime Minister
I very much respect what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly his fitting tribute to the armed forces, but the idea of totally reopening the defence review at a time when our armed forces are engaged and are doing such a fantastic job is the wrong one. The defence review was all about making sure that we have flexible armed forces so that they can be committed to different parts of the world and have the backing they need. It was about getting rid of the main battle tanks in Germany and putting money into the enablers and the forces of the future. Libya shows that it is working, and I think we should stick with it.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Q11. Will my right hon. Friend welcome those campaigning outside Parliament today for high-speed rail in order to bring thousands of much-needed jobs to the midlands and help to address the north-south divide, and will he confirm that it will come to Yorkshire?
The Prime Minister
I happily confirm all those things. I believe that if we are really serious about rebalancing our economy and ensuring that we get growth across the country, and not just in the south-east, the time for high-speed rail has come. That is why it has my strong support.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Q12. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that she is prepared to be sacked because of her opposition to Government policy on high-speed rail. Will the Prime Minister take her up on that very kind offer?
The Prime Minister
I prefer to focus on the fact that in one year as Welsh Secretary, she has secured something that 13 years of Labour Welsh Secretaries never achieved, which is the electrification of the line between Paddington and Cardiff.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
An agoraphobic man from Middlesbrough received so much money from state benefits that he set up his own illegal loans company. At the trial, the judge described him as receiving a staggering amount of money on benefits. Does that not show that our welfare system is broken, and will the Prime Minister pledge to redouble his efforts to reform it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the people who send us here want us to sort out the welfare system. They want it to be there for people who genuinely need help, but they want us to ensure that anyone who can work and is offered a job cannot live a life on welfare. Government Members have put forward the legislation and voted for it. What a pity that the Labour party talks about it, but did not have the guts to back it when the crunch came.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Q13. Most people know that Rochdale is the home of co-operation. Next year is the United Nations international year of co-operatives. Will the Prime Minister consider visiting Rochdale to show support for mutualism in the 21st century?
The Prime Minister
I note the excellent record of Prime Ministers visiting Rochdale, and what can happen to them when they get there. I will certainly put it in the diary. I am a strong supporter of co-operatives and mutuals. I think that they have a huge role to play not just in our economy, but in the provision of public services. We will make some announcements about that, perhaps in Rochdale, in the months to come.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister demonstrated his strength of character in talking about multiculturalism. In view of the fact that I have a Christian first name and a Sikh surname, I try to combine the best of my traditional Indian values with my core British values. Does he agree that we can learn a lot from our Indian partners in this respect, many of whom define themselves by their nationality first and foremost, regardless of their ethnic or religious background?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his work on this issue. It is vital that, as a country, we build a stronger national identity. Of course people can have all sorts of religious and cultural identities, but it is very important that we build a strong British identity. He is living proof of that.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Q14. Tomorrow, the European Parliament will decide whether to increase the EU’s carbon reduction target to 30% by 2020. That was a commitment in the coalition agreement. According to reports, the vote will be very close, but it will not pass because just one Conservative MEP out of 25 will vote for the 30% target. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that all his MEPs will honour the coalition agreement and vote for the 30% target tomorrow?
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear that we are committed to the 30% target and nothing is going to change that. I will do a deal with the hon. Lady. I will work on my MEPs if she promises to work on hers, who in recent months have voted for a higher EU budget and new EU taxes, and against an opt-out on the working-time directive. They even voted against scrapping first-class air travel for MEPs. Perhaps she would like to fly over and give them a talking to.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
With the National Audit Office estimating the cost to the economy of criminal reoffending at £10 billion a year, does my right hon. Friend agree that the need to reduce reoffending from the unacceptably high rates that we inherited from the previous Government must be the priority of any penal policy?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience in this matter from his career before coming to this place. We have inherited a system in which each prison place costs £45,000, half of prisoners reoffend within a year of getting out, half of prisoners are on drugs, and more than 10% of prisoners are foreigners who should not be in this country in any event. The key thing we have to do is reduce costs in the criminal justice system by making prison work and reforming prison, rather than by cutting sentences.
Petition
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I rise to present a petition from the residents of Torbay on the recommendations in the Walker review and the Government’s response to that review, which my petitioners are asking to be implemented. I am talking about the additional support for people on low incomes, the extension of the Water Sure scheme and an annual payment to South West Water in order to bring water and sewerage charges closer to the national average, rather than 40% higher.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Torbay,
Declares that the Petitioners welcome the Government's commitment to fair and affordable water and sewerage services; and further notes the recommendations contained in paragraph 4.18 of the consultation document “Affordable water: a consultation on the Government's proposals following the Walker Review on Charging”.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enhance the Water Sure scheme, to introduce a social tariff to benefit water consumers on low incomes and to introduce an annual payment of £40 million to South West Water from public funds to reduce water bills so that they are close to the national average for identical services.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000931]
Points of Order
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that they would want to be extended to them in such circumstances?
Angus Robertson
I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, about Standing Order No. 122C, which governs rules for motions of no confidence in a Select Committee Chair, and states:
“A resolution by a committee expressing no confidence in its chair shall not have effect”
unless
“the majority of the membership of the committee, including at least two members from the largest party represented on the committee, and at least one member from another party, vote in favour of the resolution.”
Will you confirm that the membership of the Scottish Affairs Committee is five Labour, four Conservative, one Liberal Democrat and one from the Scottish National party? Does that not mean, then, that it will fall to two Labour members of the Committee to decide whether it is acceptable for the Committee Chairman to remain in office after describing the Scottish National party as “neo-fascists”?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Standing Order and offered his analysis of the situation, and it falls to the Committee to decide what, if any, action it wishes to take. There is no matter of order on which I need rule.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not my wish to extend Prime Minister’s Question Time, and I realise the number of Members who were trying to catch your eye. However, in order that there should not be any misunderstanding, may I say that, although the point of view on Libya put forward from the Front Benches may, for all I know, remain the majority view in the House, there is a different point of view? That is the desire to bring about a genuine ceasefire as soon as possible. It should be understood that the view that has been expressed in the House today is not by any means the view of all of us.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, in a disorderly but engaging way, has now made the position as far as he and perhaps others are concerned very clear. We are grateful to him.
Smoking in Private Vehicles
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
12:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 66 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision for a ban on smoking in private vehicles where there are children present; and for connected purposes.
My constituency is ranked 15th in the British Lung Foundation’s ranking of constituencies for children at most risk of passive smoking. The parent smoking hot spots table shows that almost 29% of households in Stockton North contain parents who smoke. In addition, the number of adult smokers is significantly higher than the England average, as are deaths from smoking. Also, more women smoke in pregnancy than the national average.
We are all aware that passive smoking is harmful to children’s health. According to the tobacco advisory group at the Royal College of Physicians, more than 300,000 children in the UK present to their GP with passive smoking-related illnesses every year. It also estimates that passive smoking causes about 20,000 new cases of wheezing and asthma in UK children each year, and makes a conservative estimate that that costs the NHS £22 million a year in hospital admissions and treatment costs.
In north-east England we are working hard to address the issue, including through action by charities such as Fresh, and we have had some great success. Smoking rates in the region dropped from 29% in 2005 to 22% in 2009, a welcome step forward in the fight against tobacco. Fresh tells me, however, that some 84,000 children in north-east England are still exposed to second-hand smoke in the home, a figure that must come down.
A recent YouGov poll showed that 90% of smokers in the north-east of England worry about the impact of smoking around children, and that 78% support a ban on smoking in cars carrying children younger than 18. That support is even higher elsewhere. When the British Lung Foundation teamed up with Mumsnet to find out the views of parents on smoking, it found that more than 85% of them supported a proposed ban on smoking where children are present. The research also showed that 83% of smoking parents said they would support legislation to protect children.
The science is clear. Experts say that children are particularly vulnerable to passive smoke, as they have quicker breathing rates. It goes without saying that consistent exposure to second-hand smoke can lead to a lifetime of respiratory problems. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has shown that smoking in cars is dangerous to children even after the cigarette is extinguished. Levels of second-hand smoke in cars can be extremely high, because of the restricted area in which the smoke is circulated.
A study by Aberdeen university showed that smoking in a car exposes children to levels of smoke that compare with the levels in a smoke-filled pub, which we fortunately no longer have to endure. The fact that children can be exposed to such an environment in cars is reason enough to introduce a ban on smoking in private vehicles when they are present.
In the Government’s tobacco control plan for England, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”, they say that they want people to recognise the risk of second-hand smoke and to decide to make their homes and cars smoke free. Frankly, that is not good enough. We need a ban, and healthier children. I am told that the Government’s marketing strategy for tobacco control will set out further details on how they will support efforts to encourage smoke-free homes and family cars. Perhaps they will take the right action, but they need to be decisive.
We already have legislation to ban smoking in vehicles carrying passengers in the course of paid or voluntary work, including buses, trains, planes and taxis. I remember when it was considered normal for people to light up on public transport. Most would agree that attitudes have changed significantly. I cannot see how it can be a real hardship to anyone to stop smoking in private vehicles. The benefits will be tremendous. Given the significant health impact on children, who are unable to remove themselves from such cars, the Government should not dismiss calls for a ban.
Some will say that the car is a private space in which the Government should not intervene, but is the space in the back of a car not the child’s private space? Some adults invade it with dangerous smoke—[Interruption.] They do! They invade it with dangerous smoke. Some have asked why I am not pushing for a blanket ban on smoking in private vehicles. I believe that adults can make up their own minds about the dangers of smoking. We need to protect children.
Opinion research by the British Lung Foundation highlights the growing consensus among parents and children for legislation to protect children from passive smoke while they are travelling in cars. Its petition calling for legislation has already been signed by more than 16,000 people. The foundation’s research shows that just over half of eight to 15-year-olds surveyed were exposed to cigarette smoke when confined in a car, and that 86% of children in the UK want people to stop it. Rather worryingly, almost a quarter of the children surveyed reported that they had said nothing when someone smoked in the car, because they were too embarrassed. One in 10 said that they were too scared to say anything.
I would ask those who believe that legislation would be ineffective to look at car legislation on seat belts, mobile phones and drink-driving. Most if not all people adhere to such laws without the police becoming heavy-handed. For example, information provided to me by the House of Commons Library demonstrates that when wearing seat belts was made compulsory in 1983, the wearing of seat belts increased significantly. Before the law, 40% wore a seat belt, and 90% afterwards. A 1985 report estimated that that change saved around 7,000 fatal or serious casualties, and 13,000 slight casualties in the first year alone.
There are precedents from elsewhere for a ban such as the one I propose. Were such a ban introduced, we would be joining several countries where smoking in cars carrying children is prohibited. In the USA, legislation has been introduced in states including California and Maine; in Canada, there is legislation in British Columbia and Ontario; and in Australia, Queensland and Tasmania have introduced legislation.
Professor John Britton from Nottingham City hospital has looked at the lessons from Canada, where a national media programme was supported by legislation in some provinces. Data provided to him demonstrate that provinces that implemented legislation on smoking in cars with children saw a dramatic drop in exposure to smoke compared with states that focused only on education. In one case, the proportion fell from 21.4% to 13%.
UK politicians want action too: 36 MPs signed my early-day motion, and 78 signed early-day motion 214, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), which is on a similar issue. In Wales, the chief medical officer, Dr Tony Jewell, announced that he wants to start a debate on smoking in cars carrying children, and the public health department in Jersey is currently considering whether to ban smoking in cars altogether.
The health costs can be illustrated no better than by someone who has spoken openly and honestly about her smoking. Sharon Gould from Leicester told the British Lung Foundation that she started smoking when she was 14. Throughout her son Ben’s childhood she tried to give up smoking but did not manage to quit until three years ago. She would occasionally smoke in the car when he was present—always with the window down—and she also smoked in the home. She always thought, “Just one won’t hurt.” However, she was not aware of the serious dangers of passive smoking on Ben’s health—a child who was found to be asthmatic. Sharon is unaware of any family history of lung disease, so believes that her son’s asthma has been caused, in part, by passive smoking. She said:
“I don’t know if passive smoke was the whole cause of Ben’s asthma, but I know that it’s part of it…. It is vital that all parents understand the dangerous effects of passive smoke on developing young lungs.”
I have had particular support for the Bill from many members of the all-party group on asthma, who I am sure have all heard similar stories to the one told by Sharon. I would also like to thank the organisations that have lent their support to this cause, including the British Lung Foundation, Action on Smoking and Health, Fresh in the north-east and the British Heart Foundation. I am especially pleased to have secured support for the Bill from Members on both sides of the House. Polling indicates that the public are strongly in favour of a ban, and I hope that all Members will seek to protect the health of children in their constituencies. That is why I have brought the Bill before the House.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My opposition to the Bill is not based on self-interest: I do not smoke, I have never smoked and I am unlikely ever to start smoking. In fact, as it happens, I do not actually enjoy going into smoky places. However, many of my hon. Friends might not be surprised to see me here today, because I also voted against the smoking ban in 2006. My opposition to this Bill is similar to my opposition to the original ban, and is threefold: first, it is rooted in my strong belief in freedom; secondly, it is rooted in my belief in parental responsibility for bringing up children; and thirdly it is based on the complete lack of evidence surrounding the proposal. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) is continuing to champion the extension of the nanny state into every aspect of the British public’s lives, because it is something that the Labour party excelled at during its time in office, and is still trying to do today. The proposal is excessive, intrusive and insulting to British parents who smoke.
In England, smoking has already been banned in a vehicle unless it is used primarily for private purposes by a person who owns it or has the right to use it, or is used at work by only one person or has an open cab. The suggestion of banning smoking in private vehicles while a minor is present is yet another unwarranted intrusion on individual freedom. The Government should have no role in regulating the private lives of adults making decisions as adults. Adults should be free to smoke in a private vehicle providing they do not light up or smoke in a way that distracts from safe driving. Of course adults should show courtesy to others in a private vehicle, but that does not require the nanny-state legislation proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
I would like to know how the hon. Gentleman would implement and enforce his proposal. Perhaps he envisages a scenario where children go around informing the authorities that their parents might have broken the law. Given that the Labour party is so upset about cuts to the police budget, does he really think that the police should be taking time out from catching burglars, rapists and other serious offenders to go around stopping cars to see whether anyone might have smoked in them while a child was on board? Does he think it a serious enough matter for the police to concentrate on? I presume that he would also like cars to go around with tinted windscreens, which might be the only upshot of his proposal. The whole thing is completely ludicrous.
On top of that, there is a substantial lack of evidence surrounding the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. The scaremongers have bandied about the claim that second-hand smoke is 23 times more toxic in a vehicle than in the home. However, in a journal for the Canadian Medical Association, MacKenzie and Freeman failed to locate any scientific source for this claim, and it remains unsubstantiated.
I wonder why the Government give such credence to the opinions of people at ASH, or Action on Smoking and Health. Members of the anti-smoking lobby, including ASH and SmokeFree, have received a large amount of Government funding, despite being charities. In 2009, the Department of Health gave ASH £191,000 for a report called “Beyond Smoking Kills”, which came on top of a direct grant from the Department to the tune of £142,000. Surely public policy should be protected from the vested interests of any single-issue group, including the pharmaceutical industry on the one hand, and vociferous, substantially taxpayer-funded lobby groups such as ASH on the other. In addition, the Department published a report by Professor Linda Bauld, who was commissioned to provide an academic review of the smoke-free legislation that was implemented in 2007. However, Linda is a member of ASH, so there was surely a clear conflict of interest in the report that the Government commissioned.
This proposal is also a solution looking for a problem. Let us look at the evidence on second-hand smoke exposure. A study carried out by Sims et al concluded that second-hand smoke exposure in children declined by nearly 70% between 1996 and 2006—that is, before any ban on smoking was even introduced, which reinforces the point that this Bill is clearly over the top and unnecessary. A survey of smokers showed that 85.3% do not smoke in a car with children in any event, while 6.5% said that they would seek permission before doing so. Again, this proposal is a solution looking for a problem.
We are here to defend the freedoms of people in this country, not to interfere in every aspect of everybody’s lives, as the Opposition would like us to do. This proposal would be one infringement on people’s liberties too far. Whether hon. Members decide to vote against it or allow it to wither in the long grass is a matter for them, but one thing I know for sure is that the Government should have nothing to do with such a ludicrous infringement on our liberties.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Opposition Day
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Economy
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 206 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I should notify the House that, as a consequence of the fact that no fewer than 38 right hon. and hon. Members have applied to speak in the debate, I have imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. There is no time limit on speeches from the Front Benches, but it would be appreciated by the House if Front Benchers would tailor their contributions accordingly. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that on 22 June 2010 the Chancellor announced his first Budget with a target to eliminate the structural deficit by 2015-16 through an additional £40 billion of spending cuts and tax rises, including a VAT rise; further notes that over the last six months the economy has not grown, in the last month retail sales fell by 1.4 per cent. and manufacturing output fell by 1.5 per cent. and despite a welcome recent fall in unemployment, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that future unemployment will be up to 200,000 higher than expected; believes the Government’s policies to cut the deficit too far and too fast have led to slower growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment, which are creating a vicious circle, since the Government is now set to borrow £46 billion more than previously forecast; calls on the Government to adopt a more balanced deficit plan which, alongside tough decisions on tax and spending cuts, puts jobs first and will be a better way to get the deficit down over the longer term and avoid long-term damage to the economy; and, if the Government will not change course and halve the deficit over four years, demands that it should take a step in the right direction by temporarily cutting VAT to 17.5 per cent. until the economy returns to strong growth and by using funds raised from repeating the 2010 bank bonus tax to build 25,000 affordable homes and create 100,000 jobs for young people.
A year ago today, in his first Budget statement to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a clear choice. He said that rapid deficit reduction was the overriding priority, and that it would involve fiscal tightening of such scale and severity that it would have to begin immediately. He said that the faster we cut, the better it would be for confidence. He said that there was no choice, and that the markets demanded this action. He also said that no alternative was possible and that anyone who said otherwise was a deficit denier.
The Chancellor ignored the evidence that budget deficits had risen rapidly in every country after a global financial crisis caused by the irresponsible behaviour of banks around the world, claiming instead that the root cause of Britain’s deficit was too much spending on the NHS, schools and the police. He ignored the evidence that Labour’s balanced deficit reduction plan to support jobs and halve the deficit over four years was working, that the UK economy was already recovering, that tax rises and spending cuts had been pre-announced, and that we were over-achieving on our deficit reduction plan in line with the G20 commitment.
Ed Balls
I will take as many interventions as hon. Members want me to, but I am going to establish my argument first. I think that the House knows that I enjoy interventions, and I will absolutely take them all—Members should not worry!
The Chancellor also ignored the fact that we were not in the euro, that our debt maturity was long—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that I have done this many times before, but I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to have some regard to the way in which our proceedings are viewed by the people whose support we were seeking only 13 months ago. I do not care whether this sort of behaviour was traditionally thought to be a good thing; it is not, and if people behave like this and expect to be called, they will be disappointed.
Ed Balls
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In the Budget debate, I took 16 interventions from Members on the Government side of the House. I will take interventions, but not from people who shout and are aggressive while I am still establishing my argument. Let me establish my argument; then I will take interventions. I will start with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) in just a moment.
The Chancellor insisted, despite the fact that we were not in the euro, that our debt maturity was long and that our long-term gilt yields were historically low and had started to fall well before the election. He made the economically illiterate and preposterous claim that, like Greece, Britain was on the brink of bankruptcy. Having already abolished the child trust fund and the future jobs fund, he announced in the Budget immediate plans to take billions more out of the economy through a combination of deep spending cuts and tax rises. That included an increase in VAT to 20% and a cut in tax credits for thousands of families. It also included cuts to housing benefit, pensions and disability benefits. The Chancellor boasted in that speech that the Budget was progressive, not regressive, and that it would be an extra £40 billion fiscal hit in this Parliament. Labour Members warned him of the dangers, but the Chancellor said it would work. Let me cite what he said a year ago:
“These forecasts demonstrate that a credible plan to cut our budget deficit goes hand in hand with a steady and sustained economic recovery, with low inflation and falling unemployment.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 168.]
Things did not turn out that way last year.
Since the Prime Minister foolishly said in October that the economy was out of the danger zone, we have had the biggest fall in consumer confidence for 20 years; our economy has flatlined and not grown at all since the autumn; inflation is now higher than in every country except for Estonia and Turkey; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has declared the Chancellor’s Budget to be regressive, not progressive; and child poverty is expected to rise this year, next year and the year after, with women hit harder than men and families with children hit hardest of all. I have to say that this anniversary—unlike your anniversary, Mr Speaker—is not one worthy of celebration. It is certainly not an anniversary worthy of a 40th birthday party bash at Dorneywood. I do not know whether you were invited to the party at the weekend, Mr Speaker. I was not, which might be because I am not a Knight of the Garter.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way so early in his speech. While we are on the issue of credibility, will he explain why his sudden, completely unfunded £13 billion tax cut did not appear to be either agreed or even discussed with the shadow Cabinet? When the former Labour Chancellor was asked nine times this morning whether he agreed with it, he failed to endorse it. Why is the shadow Chancellor so isolated?
Ed Balls
The former Labour Chancellor is not in the shadow Cabinet, as the hon. Gentleman will know—[Interruption.] He chose not to stand for the shadow Cabinet. We voted against the VAT rise earlier this year. The Leader of the Opposition said some months ago that it should be reversed. I repeated that claim last week and what I know, as it happened last week, is that when I go to speak to my leader, he understands the issues and backs me up, which is more than could be said for the Education Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Environment Secretary, the Lord Chancellor—and, I fear, quite possibly for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, if things carry on as they are.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says he talks to his leader, so will he tell us when he released this information about the VAT cut to his leader—was it before he told the shadow Cabinet or did he treat his leader like just any other member of it?
Ed Balls
I have to say that that is a ridiculous question. At a time when the economy has flatlined, confidence is down and our borrowing is up, is it surprising that I am asked questions like that? Of course I discussed all aspects of my speech with the Leader of the Opposition some days before I gave it. We agreed on this strategy because we think this VAT rise is a mistake. Families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are being hit by having to pay £450 more in VAT, so one would have thought that he would be backing rather than opposing our plan to give them some help.
Ed Balls
I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman again now; I might do later.
The reason why the VAT cut is needed now is that things are getting worse, not better. In recent weeks, we have seen manufacturing output and job vacancies falling and the biggest fall in retail sales for more than a year. The Chancellor likes to boast that a net 370,00 jobs have been created in the last 12 months; what he does not like saying is that 70% of those extra jobs were created in the six months before the spending review and only 29% in the six months after it. That is why his Budget forecasts of a year ago have gone so badly awry.
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts for growth have been downgraded three times. Unemployment is now forecast to be 200,000 higher, while inflation is forecasted to be well above target this year and next year. The result of this stalled recovery, higher unemployment and higher inflation is that the Government are now forecast to borrow a further £46 billion more than was forecast in last year’s spending review. Public borrowing in the first two months of this year is higher than it was in the first two months of last year.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Chancellor said yesterday that he does not want to comment regularly on the OBR’s updates. Given that it is downgrading its forecasts every time he opens his mouth, it is hardly surprising.
Ed Balls
Whether or not the Chancellor comments, the fact remains that since the last OBR forecast, Britain’s growth forecasts have been downgraded by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Everybody else is downgrading growth forecasts; we will have to wait for the OBR finally to catch up.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the shadow Chancellor for finally giving way. I must push him a little bit harder. When did he discuss his VAT cut with the shadow Cabinet? Will he tell us that?
Ed Balls
That tells you, Mr Speaker, how on the defensive Conservative Members are about the economy. The shadow Cabinet decided—[Interruption.] Look, just shouting does not get people to listen; the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has got to learn that. The shadow Cabinet decided that the Opposition would oppose the VAT rise. In January, the Leader of the Opposition said it should be reversed. Last week, two days before I made my speech, I discussed the matter in detail with the Leader of the Opposition—[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] What do they mean, “Aah”? I discussed it 48 hours previously with the Leader of the Opposition, who backed me 100%—in marked contrast to the Prime Minister’s inability to grasp the detail, to stick with a policy or, most importantly, to support his own Cabinet members.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On that particular point, why is the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) reported as being unhappy and feeling that she had not been consulted? Why did he not consult the shadow Cabinet?
Ed Balls
I do my politics on the record. I am not going to comment on that kind of trash. [Interruption.] In view of all the Cabinet Ministers who have been briefed against in recent weeks by the Treasury—the Defence Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Lord Chancellor—perhaps the Chancellor should take a leaf out of my book on how to do things.
It is the contention of Labour Members that the Chancellor is wreaking long-term, as well as short-term, damage on British investment, incomes and employment. We know from the downgraded OBR forecast that our economy is already £5.6 billion worse off than it would have been if the Chancellor had got it right. The danger is that these policies will have a long-term impact, leading to a return of the long-term unemployment of the 1980s, a new lost generation of jobless young people and a permanent dent in our nation’s prosperity.
Ed Balls
I will give way in a few seconds.
The test for the Treasury is not whether it can eventually get back to growth, but where it will make up the lost ground in jobs and living standards.
In this debate, I challenge the Chancellor to agree with me on three propositions: first, his plan is not working; secondly, he has the opportunity to change course; and, thirdly, there is a better and fairer alternative economic policy for our country—better for jobs, better for living standards, and a better, fairer way to get the deficit down.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Why does the shadow Chancellor think the Government are so surprised that he has announced a policy of cutting VAT when we cut VAT during the downturn and we voted against the increase in VAT that they imposed? Does he think that it is a sensible political strategy for the Government to highlight the fact that we want to cut VAT and they want to put it up?
Ed Balls
I find that baffling as well. The fact is that cutting VAT was an effective stimulus, as the IFS said, which led to strengthening growth and falling unemployment a year ago. Now that cut has been reversed, and our position on the policy has been consistent. We propose not a move all the way from the Government’s deficit reduction plan to halving the deficit in four years, but a step along the road. That would be the right thing to do, and it would deliver for the constituents of Government Members a boost of £450 a year for a family with children, and of £275 a year for a pensioner couple. Why do they oppose action that would put money in people’s pockets and help to get the deficit down in a fairer way?
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says that he likes to do his politics on the record. On the “Daily Politics” show on 14 March, he said:
“We’ve made no commitments at all, it would be totally irresponsible for an opposition to behave”
in that way. What is responsible about an unfunded £51 billion tax cut?
Ed Balls
If that was written by the Whips, they will have to do better. What I said was that it would be completely irresponsible for me as shadow Chancellor to make a commitment now to a reverse in the VAT rise for our next election manifesto. Of course I cannot make an unfunded commitment for the next manifesto. The rise in VAT this January was a mistake. It was the wrong tax to raise, it was unfair, and it has depressed confidence and stopped people spending at the wrong time for the recovery. The Chancellor does not have to agree with us that he should not have raised VAT, but he should agree that he did it at the wrong time, and he should temporarily reverse it until the recovery is secure. We now hear from Conservative Central Office that the proposal to cut VAT only temporarily until the recovery is secure would have to be in place for four years of this Parliament. That tells us that the Conservatives think that the recovery will not be secure for the whole of this Parliament, which is precisely the argument that I am making.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not the fact that the deniers here today are the Government who deny the collapse in consumer confidence? No one on the Government Benches is doing anything about it, and the economy will not kick-start again unless we tackle it.
Ed Balls
I will give way in a second.
The fact is that the scale of the fiscal hit to demand and growth in Britain this year and next is unprecedented. It is happening when interest rates are already low, so they cannot be cut, and when other countries are trying to reduce their deficits at the same time. Confidence is also hit by the public debate about when mortgage rates will have to go up because of the Chancellor’s own-goal on inflation through the rise in VAT. That is why there is a problem. Instead, all we get from the Chancellor and the Conservative party is excuse after excuse.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the OBR, the IMF, the EU, the OECD and the CBI, each of which supports the Government’s policy and says that any deviation would be a mistake. What is his answer to them?
Ed Balls
It is good to see the IMF supporting the Government of the day. The IMF not supporting the Government of the day would be a catastrophe, and exactly the same has always been true, historically, for the OECD. There is no doubt that business has a growing worry about what is going on. There is also a growing worry in Ipswich, not least shown by a Labour local election victory there just a few weeks ago. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is not in the Chamber, but obviously this local campaign is catching on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) on his campaign to save school crossings, to get more funding for them from schools or parent-teacher associations, and his lobbying of the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that education in Ipswich gets the extra money it needs. “Save Sure Start from Cuts”—it is obviously all catching on.
Ed Balls
I have plenty more; we will come to them in a second. Just think, “Good publicity, good publicity, it’s all good publicity.” It did not do the hon. Member for West Suffolk any harm; it did not do him any good either.
We do not hear much from the Chancellor these days about snow being the explanation for the contraction of the economy at the end of the year, because as he knew at the time, it also snowed in America, Germany and France, and they all posted stronger growth. In fact, Denmark, Ireland, Greece and Portugal were the only other countries with falling output in the last quarter of 2010. The Chancellor of all people, a regular skier on Europe’s slopes, should have known that even in winter it does not snow in Greece and Portugal. Instead we hear a new weather-related line. He blames the global headwinds, factors outside his control—rising oil prices, food prices, the eurozone, the Japanese earthquake, all reasons why prudent Chancellors should always be vigilant and choose caution over complacency. It is ironic to hear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister blame the rest of the world for Britain’s economic difficulties, as they did the opposite for their last four years in opposition.
Compared with other countries facing the same global headwinds, we are doing worse. We have gone from being in the top half of the EU economic league, to fourth from bottom in the past few months. It is no wonder that the OECD Deputy Secretary-General said a few weeks ago that
“we see merit in slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation if there is not so good news on the growth front”.
Even the IMF has said that
“there are significant risks to inflation, growth and unemployment”.
The excuses are not working, and the Chancellor is starting to be rumbled.
Andrea Leadsom
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that when the Government took office, our country was on credit watch for a downgrade? Does he welcome the fact that this country’s borrowing rates are similar to those of Germany and nowhere near those of Portugal and Greece? Does he further recognise the impact that his proposal effectively to reduce VAT rates right now, unfunded, would have on our current national deficit?
Ed Balls
The irony of a Conservative MP opposing tax cuts in VAT for families while allowing a tax cut, compared with last year, for the banks, is almost overwhelming. As everyone who studies the figures and not the political spin knows, we went into the crisis with lower national debt than France, Germany, America and Japan. Every country had a rise in its deficit, so of course we did. The fact is, however, that our gilt yields were very low and falling month by month before the general election, even as the opinion polls narrowed—
Ed Balls
No, no, no.
Three months before the general election, the polls said that the Conservatives would get a majority. As the polls narrowed, our long-term interest rates fell, entirely disproving the point that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) makes.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about responsibility earlier, but does he take responsibility for the appalling fiscal position we were in when we had the largest debt in peacetime?
Ed Balls
It is fine for the hon. Gentleman to be thinking of his intervention rather than listening to the answers, but the fact is that we had a lower budget deficit and lower national debt than we inherited in 1997. The IFS, in its report, “The public finances: 1997 to 2010” said:
“By 2007–08, the public finances were in a stronger position than they had been when Labour came to power in 1997.”
That entirely disproves his point.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that one reason for the remarkable fact that the world economy is growing steadily while Britain is flatlining, is the report from UK Trade & Investment that says that although UK inward investors are coming forward to build factories and growth in Britain, they are not being drawn down as the RDAs have been abolished? The Government are destroying the engines of growth.
Ed Balls
I am sure that was one of the proposals in the so-called strategy in the Chancellor’s Budget.
As I have said, there is growing concern in the business community. There is even concern in the Conservative fraternity. As my friends on The Daily Telegraph said in a recent editorial:
“These figures should be giving George Osborne some sleepless nights.”
They should indeed be giving the Chancellor sleepless nights at No. 11.
Ed Balls
Give me five minutes.
The Chancellor has clearly been paying some attention. There is no plan B yet, but there has been a change in the rhetoric. Now the Chancellor says that the economy is “choppy”, but that
“Changing course would be a disaster for our credibility”
and would lead to a Greek crisis here in Britain—a Greek crisis that the Chancellor now absurdly claims he has narrowly avoided in the past.
Ed Balls
Well, at least that was not an animal noise.
Something has been puzzling me in recent months. Why does this Chancellor have such a love of the nautical metaphor? Navigating through choppy waters, steering a steady course, sailing into strong global head winds—where does he find all those boating metaphors? But this, of course, is the Chancellor who likes to spend his summers gossiping on the yachts of his friends.
I have said many times in the past year that the Chancellor must learn the lessons of history if he is to avoid repeating the mistakes of history. I am sorry to have to raise that rather unfortunate episode in his history again. I know that it is a bit irritating for Members, even a bit annoying, but the Prime Minister said that I was the most annoying person in politics, and I must live up to my reputation.
As a matter of fact, my reign at the top table did not last very long. A few days later, The Sunday Times conducted a poll asking the public who was the most annoying person in British politics. It turned out that the Prime Minister is just as annoying as me, it turned out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more annoying than me, and it turned out that the Deputy Prime Minister is more annoying than all of us. But who is the most annoying person in British politics today? It is still Lord Mandelson, the Chancellor’s yachting partner.
I know Lord Mandelson well. He is a good friend of mine. [Laughter.] He is, actually, and I know that he will agree with me on this. If the Chancellor and his friend the Prime Minister have found us annoying so far, they should bear in mind that this is only the beginning; and when the Chancellor boasts that he narrowly avoided a summer Greek crisis, we know what he is really remembering.
Christopher Pincher
A man is known by his friends, and I think the shadow Chancellor has just proved that.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked a fair amount about the newspapers that he reads, such as The Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Eastern Daily Press. It must be very interesting for the shadow Home Secretary in the evenings. Perhaps he has also read the Tamworth Herald, which has revealed that unemployment in Tamworth has fallen to the lowest level since 2008 and that investment has been made in Tamworth by Ocado and BMW. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we are doing so badly, how does he explain those developments?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am glad that the exchanges so far have been good-natured, but may I remind colleagues of the merits of brief interventions? A lot of Members want to make speeches, and I want to help them to do so.
Ed Balls
I think the question that people will be asking in the hon. Gentleman’s local newspaper is this: why does he oppose a tax cut that would provide £450 for every family this year, and would boost failing confidence?
The hon. Member for West Suffolk does not seem to have turned up. It is so disappointing that he is not here, as he was last time, because I had a very good contribution for him.
Let me now set aside the Chancellor’s wild and nonsensical political attempts to draw parallels between Britain and Greece, and make a serious point about what is happening in Greece and how it affects the United Kingdom. The issue now is not whether Britain does or does not contribute to a further EU financial package for Greece. Like the Chancellor—I think—I believe that that would be the wrong thing for our country to do. It seems to me that we have reached a point at which talk of more temporary liquidity austerity packages, and further tough talking, is no longer working.
EU Finance Ministers must face the fact that Greece needs economic growth to succeed. Otherwise, it will be stuck in a debt trap. It is now very hard to see how Greece can stay in the single currency without a change of strategy on fiscal austerity and a substantial restructuring. The fact is, however, that it is precisely because the UK is outside the eurozone—and thank goodness we are; I will take an intervention on that if any Member wishes to intervene—and because our banks are less exposed to Greek debts than those in Germany and France that Britain should be an honest broker in these discussions. We are in a position to present an objective argument for immediate and co-ordinated action to restore jobs and growth and start reducing the debt, along with a sustainable, long-term plan for its reduction. However, we can do that without being accused by the people of Greece that we are merely looking after our own interests.
Ed Balls
In one second.
For the first time in 14 years we have a Chancellor and a Prime Minister who are on the sidelines, silent, irrelevant and ignored. I believe that whatever the outcome of the present crisis—whatever happens in the eurozone and to Greece—people will say that we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not there, who did not deliver, who was out of his depth, and who could not contribute to the long-term reforms that were needed.
Mr Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. The United Kingdom can make an important contribution to the debate, but it obviously should not lend money directly to Greece. Is he saying that he thinks the only way out for Greece now is a rescheduling of its debt and agreement on the fact that there must be a change of pattern to secure the necessary growth and enable the economy to accelerate?
Ed Balls
In a moment I will deal with the parallel with the United Kingdom. Let me say first, however, that the lesson of history shows that it is not possible to deal with a solvency crisis by providing liquidity package after liquidity package, because that does not reach the heart of the issue. On the contrary, it makes the position worse and worse. At some point people will have to face up to that. Package after package has been agreed, but that has not worked. The debt has not gone down; it has gone up.
History teaches us that three things are necessary to the credibility of a plan, whether it involves monetary policy or fiscal policy. First, the plan must be for the medium term; secondly, there must be political support for it; and thirdly, it must work. If it does not work, that will eventually rebound on political support, as we have seen in Greece in recent weeks.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said about both Greece and the need for a plan, but if a plan is to be implemented the country concerned must have control of its exchange rates, interest rates and fiscal policy, and that is not possible inside the eurozone.
Ed Balls
Let me deal with precisely that point by returning to the subject of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding what I consider to be a rather tawdry attempt to use what seems to be a political claim that a sovereign debt crisis exists here in the UK to give the Liberal Democrats an excuse to ditch everything in their manifesto and support a Conservative party policy, the fact is that the plan is not working here either.
The Chancellor likes to play this game. A few weeks ago, he told the “Politics Show” that if he “abandoned” his plan,
“Within minutes Britain would be in financial turmoil.”
As I have just said, the Greek Prime Minister’s experience shows that simply talking tough does not make someone credible and does not boost market confidence if the plan is not working.
The reason why there is now a question mark over the Chancellor’s credibility is that in recent weeks and months we have had an economy that has not been growing; fewer people in work and paying tax than there should be; and more people on benefits than there should be. That makes it harder to get the deficit down. We have had stagnant output for six months and we have forecasts being downgraded left, right and centre. This is not about bad news now and short-term pain. All that makes it harder to get the deficit down and undermines our long-term credibility, investment and confidence. As the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, who is now head of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said:
“You do not gain credibility by sticking to a strategy that isn’t working.”
That is the situation we are now in.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Whichever number we use—the £12 billion or the £51 billion unfunded tax cut—can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where that money might come from, or is he happy to bundle up further debt that we can then pass on to our children and grandchildren?
Ed Balls
No, no, no.
A year ago, we had a balanced plan: people paid their fair share, there were spending cuts and there were tax rises, but it was cautious and was not a pre-ordained political timetable or a headlong lunge. That is what the Chancellor should be doing now. He should be adopting a more sensible approach to deficit reduction, which would allow him temporarily to reverse the VAT change right now. He should also reopen the spending review and have a steady approach to spending cuts. A 20% cut in police budgets, front-loaded, is complete criminal justice madness. He should take up our plan to repeat the bank bonus tax, build houses and get young people back to work. As I have said, a temporary VAT cut now would put money into people’s pockets, boost confidence, push inflation down and give our flatlining economy the jump-start it urgently needs. That would be a better way of getting the deficit down.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that the UK taxpayer will still be contributing to any bail-out of Greece through the International Monetary Fund, but will he comment on the fact that if Greece does fail and subsequently other countries follow that failure into default, that could precipitate the end of the IMF? The loans that the UK taxpayer is making to the IMF would then never be repatriated.
Ed Balls
The IMF is there to help countries through situations like this. We are a shareholder and a contributor to the IMF and that is quite right. It is a different matter our putting liquidity money into a eurozone strategy that patently is not working because it is flawed. My argument to the Chancellor is that it is ironic to see a British Conservative Chancellor backing the German Finance Ministry’s view over sanity and common sense. We have not seen that in our country for a very long time.
Charlie Elphicke
I put it to the shadow Chancellor that this is not just about the business of the unfunded VAT cut that he proposes; it is also about some £10 billion-plus of spending commitments on the Welfare Reform Bill. Billions here, billions there—that does not add up to a credible economic policy from the Opposition.
Ed Balls
“I’ll protect border services, blasts Elphicke”, reads the headline.
“The UK Border Agency will not suffer due to Government spending cuts,”
claims the Dover MP. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate with me about credibility and support for spending cuts, I will have it every day of the week.
It is the Chancellor’s credibility that is in trouble.
Ed Balls
I have taken lots of interventions and I am coming to my conclusion.
That is why we have consistently said that the Chancellor should have a plan B. At the end of August 1992, three weeks before Black Wednesday, the then Prime Minister and his then special adviser stood in front of the Treasury at 8 am and said:
“There are going to be no devaluations, no leaving the ERM. We are absolutely committed to the ERM. It is at the centre of our policy. We are going to maintain sterling’s parity and we will do whatever is necessary, and I hope there is no doubt about that at all.”
That was almost certainly written by the current Prime Minister. Hon. Members have to learn these lessons. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said a moment ago, that back then the pound was constrained by a fixed exchange rate. It was very hard for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the day to change course, even though they could see that their policy was not working. Had we joined the euro—and as we have all said, thank goodness we did not—that would have been an even greater constraint on UK economic policy, but neither constraint exists now. The objectives for monetary and fiscal policy have lain squarely in the Chancellor’s gift and this is the fundamental problem: he has made a political decision to set a political timetable for a political goal that defies economic logic, and the evidence is growing week by week that he has got this wrong. The lesson of monetary and fiscal policy too, over the past 20 years, is that changing course when things are not working is not a knee-jerk reaction and does not damage credibility. It is the only way of being in control of our destiny and averting the crisis being forced on us.
Let me quote some wise words:
“The weak thing to do is just to keep ploughing on and say, ‘I can’t possibly change, because I might have a difficult time at a press conference.’ The tough, strong thing to do is say, ‘Yes, we can make these plans better’.”
That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday, explaining the U-turns on sentencing and the NHS. He has obviously learned some lessons from his time as special adviser to Norman Lamont. My only plea today is that the Chancellor starts learning the lessons of history too. The cautious thing to do is not to plough on and hope for the best, but to act now before we lose more ground. Unlike Norman Lamont, who was tied to the exchange rate mechanism, the Chancellor can choose. He does not have to box himself in this way, so stubbornly. He does not need to make the Major-Lamont ERM mistake all over again.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the previous Government’s policies when they embarked on a very timid programme of tax increases and public expenditure cuts a year and a half ago. Does he not accept that that was completely inadequate then and that the only reason it was accepted was because the international markets knew that there was a general election coming and that his party was way down in the polls? They lived for a better day.
Ed Balls
I have been, in a friendly way, critical of the Chancellor’s engagement and participation in international affairs and matters of global economic management, but he does go to the meetings and sign up to the communiqués. As the Chancellor in June 2010, after the general election, he went to the G20 and signed up to the communiqué that said that Governments should halve the deficit in the next four years, which was precisely the plan we had, which they tore up. We are not going to take lectures from the Conservatives on credibility. As I have said, the credible approach is not to plough on regardless when things are not working but to change course before it is too late.
This is my conclusion.
Ed Balls
I have taken loads of interventions and I am not going to do doubles.
The fact is that the path that our economy is being taken down is, I think, the wrong one, and the evidence is supporting that. It could prove very dangerous for growth, for jobs, for public services, for our living standards, for the deficit and for our mortgage rates too.
Ed Balls
No, I am going to conclude.
At the very least, it looks set to be a path of slower growth and higher unemployment than needed to be the case. There is an alternative, it is more credible than the current plan, not less, and it is not too late to change course. The Chancellor has a choice; he is not stuck, this time, in the ERM or the euro. He cannot fall back on the idea, as back then, that Labour supports his policies, because we have set out a very clear and different alternative, including on VAT, this year. Most of all, he cannot say he has not been warned. We are on a path of slower growth, higher unemployment and more child poverty than was forecast a year ago. The Chancellor has a choice. On the anniversary of his first Budget, he should agree with our motion and admit he got it wrong. If he is prepared to start putting economics before politics, it is not too late to change course.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the fact that in the last year a record 520,000 new private sector jobs were created, with the second highest rate of net job creation in the G7, exports grew by 13 per cent. and manufacturing activity was 4.2 per cent. higher and the latest labour market data showed the largest fall in unemployment for more than a decade; notes that the Government inherited a budget deficit forecast to be the largest in the G20; further notes that the previous administration and now Opposition has no credible plan to deal with the deficit and that the Shadow Chancellor’s recent proposal for a temporary cut in VAT has been widely criticised for lacking credibility and would put the stability of the economy at risk; notes that the Government has introduced a permanent bank levy that raises more revenue than the previous administration’s one-off bonus tax and that the Government has set out a credible plan that has been endorsed by the IMF, OECD, European Commission and the CBI, that has led to greater stability, lower market interest rates and an affirmation of the UK’s credit rating that had been put at risk by the previous administration; and notes that this stability provides a platform for rebalancing the economy and the Government’s Plan for Growth that includes reducing business taxes, investing in apprenticeships, creating a new Green Investment Bank, reforming the planning system, reducing the burden of regulation and reforming the welfare system to make work pay.”
I very much welcome this debate, and it was certainly worth attending for that priceless phrase, “I do my politics on the record”. That is right up there with, “There will be no whitewash at the White House”, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “No more boom and bust”. Really, we must put that phrase away, because we will need it in the weeks ahead.
It is good that we are discussing the economy, and the shadow Chancellor made a speech about what has happened to the economy over the past year—the subject of this debate—but he completely failed to mention that exports are 13% up, manufacturing is 4% up, investment is 6% up and, most importantly, the 520,000 net new jobs in the private sector. Remember the question a year ago, “Where will the jobs come from over the next year?” Well, we have had 500,000 answers from businesses around this country—indeed, the second highest job creation rate in the G7—but that is not a fact that we are likely to hear from the Opposition, because they are determined to talk this economy down. That is the truth.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
What estimate is the Chancellor using for the time lag between his fiscal actions and their effect on growth?
Mr Osborne
The decisions that we took in the first few weeks on coming to office provided stability for the economy. That can be seen in the fall in market interest rates and the affirmation of our credit rating. Those things happened within weeks. Of course, some of the structural reforms that we are taking will take longer to come into effect, but that is why our package includes immediate action to bring stability; medium-term action to bring down tax rates, which is happening now; and of course the long-term reforms that I will talk about. That is the point that I should like to make to the hon. Gentleman and others.
I said a year ago, not recently, that the recovery would be choppy. How could it be anything other than choppy, when we are recovering from the greatest recession since the 1930s, the biggest banking crisis in our history, landed with the biggest budget deficit in peacetime? That is the inheritance that the Government has had, and yes, there have been other factors—international headwinds, such as the oil price—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Well, there has been a 60% rise in the oil price, which has apparently passed the Opposition by. In the words of the International Monetary Fund, despite all this,
“the repair of the UK economy is underway”,
and the truth is that the Opposition simply do not want to hear it. They broke it, and they cannot bear to see anyone else fixing it.
Nadhim Zahawi
I can inform the Chancellor that, in the west midlands, unemployment has fallen by 28,000 this quarter. At the height of the previous Government’s economic drive, employment in the west midlands still shrank.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes two good points. First, there was a very welcome recent reduction in unemployment—the biggest fall for a decade. Secondly, he draws attention to one of the most staggering facts about the past decade: private sector employment in the west midlands fell in the decade leading up to the financial crisis. That shows how unbalanced the British economy became under the last Labour Government.
Mr Osborne
I will give way, and then I will come on to the shadow Chancellor.
Toby Perkins
If the Chancellor feels that the economy was so unbalanced, can he explain why he was still saying in 2008 that he would follow Labour’s spending plans?
Mr Osborne
We fought the 2005 election and, sadly, lost it, saying that Labour’s plans were unaffordable. In 2008, we made it clear that we were coming off Labour’s spending plans. [Hon. Members: “You didn’t.”] We did. I happened to be there—I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was. We came off Labour’s spending plans in 2008, and thank God we did, because we earned a mandate to make the necessary changes to put the economy back on track.
Mr Osborne
I will take a couple of interventions in a short while, but let me make the point that, since the shadow Chancellor took office, two things have happened. The first thing is that the measured economic credibility of the Opposition has steadily fallen, and the other thing is that the reported divisions in the Labour party have steadily increased. If anyone wants to know why its economic credibility is falling and why the divisions are increasing in the Opposition, the speech that we have heard told it all: not one word of apology, not one passage of serious reflection about why it all went wrong. The shadow Chancellor started talking about the fact that the Prime Minister was the special adviser in the early 1990s. He himself was the special adviser for the past decade in the Treasury—not a mention of the fact that he was the chief economic adviser when the advice was so catastrophic, not one mention of the fact that he was the City Minister when the City exploded. That is the record of the right hon. Gentleman.
The amnesia reached new heights in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech last week to the London School of Economics. Consider this recent quotation from the speech that he gave—this is from the man at the centre of British economic policy making for last decade:
“when I am asked in interviews what I would be doing differently to cut the deficit, the first thing I say is that I wouldn’t be starting from here.”
I can assure him that none of us would like to be starting from here, but the main reason why we are is sitting right opposite me.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it says everything that we need to know about the Opposition’s economic policy when the shadow Chancellor’s immediate reaction to the IMF report was, “They don’t know what they’re talking about”?
Mr Osborne
It went beyond that—my hon. Friend makes a good point—not only did the shadow Chancellor attack the IMF, but he also attacked in the speech that I have just mentioned the IMF’s acting managing director. So he laid into the Governor of the Bank of England a couple of months ago, and he is now laying into the IMF’s acting managing director. Anyone who disagrees with the shadow Chancellor, which means most of the world, has become his political opponent.
Ian Austin
I want to apologise to the Chancellor for something that I said yesterday. On who said what in 2008, I said yesterday that the Chancellor had praised the previous Government’s spending plans in 2008, despite now condemning what he refers as a decade of over-investment. I was wrong, and I want to apologise. In July 2008, it was in fact the Prime Minister who praised Labour’s then spending plans. He said:
“we are sticking to Labour’s spending totals.”
It was in 2007 that the Chancellor said that a Conservative Government would match our spending plans.
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman should get better handouts if he is one of the shadow Chancellor’s close advisers. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] I have answered the question. At the 2005 general election, we fought against Labour’s spending plans. In 2008, the year that he mentions, we came off Labour’s spending plans. Thank God that we did, because it has given us the mandate and the power to put the public finances back on track.
The extraordinary thing about the shadow Chancellor is that he takes credit for the things that went right. On Bank of England independence, he has completely written out of the script the then Prime Minister and Chancellor. He now takes sole credit for keeping Britain out of the euro, although, as far as I am aware—I am happy to take an intervention—the Labour party’s official policy is still that we join the euro in principle. Is that right? I do not know whether the policy has changed. [Interruption.] We have heard quite a lot from the Labour party in the past couple of hours about being on top of the detail. Surely, the shadow Chancellor knows what his party’s policy is on the euro. [Hon. Members: “He doesn’t.”] Oh, dear. Let me give him a clue. When I became Chancellor, I had to close down the euro preparations unit in the Treasury.
Of course, the shadow Chancellor takes credit, but he is nowhere to be seen when the discussion turns to the fiddled fiscal rules, the failed tripartite regulation, the doubling of the debt, the bank collapses and the destruction of our pensions—none of those things has anything to do with him at all. Now, he is at it again. This is what a member of the shadow Cabinet said a couple of weeks ago:
“he increasingly thinks his party is heading for the buffers and doesn’t want to be in the cab when the collision comes.”
His boss was called Macavity, and it turns out that Macavity has a kitten—son of Macavity. There is a reason for all this: because he cannot construct a credible story about the past that does not cast himself as a villain, he lunges forward in opposition from one incredible uncosted policy to another.
Mr Osborne
I will take interventions, but let me make this point.
Since this is an Opposition day, let us examine the latest idea of a £51 billion—£13 billion a year—unfunded commitment on tax. This means that the shadow Chancellor has presumably abandoned the Darling plan for this year, because the commitment was not funded in that plan, and that members of the Opposition Front-Bench team were not only too embarrassed to mention it at Treasury questions yesterday but, as we now know, they were not consulted. The shadow Cabinet was not consulted.
I will give way on this point. On television at lunchtime, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), was asked eight times whether he supported the policy of the shadow Chancellor and he did not give an answer. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will tell us whether the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer supports his plan—yes or no.
Ed Balls
The previous Chancellor was the last man to cut VAT temporarily to get the economy moving. What is the right hon. Gentleman talking about? Let me ask him a very precise question. He says the cost of this temporary VAT cut, which I said should be in place until the recovery is secured, would be more than £50 billion. Exactly how does he get that figure, and how many years does that mean we will have to wait before the recovery is secured, following his reckless deficit reduction plan?
Mr Osborne
The figure is calculated like this: if we implemented it, we would be in a fiscal crisis. That would delay the recovery by at least four years. That is how I come to £51 billion.
Barry Gardiner
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that a year ago the predictions in terms of unemployment did not reflect the 510,000 new jobs which he boasted at the Dispatch Box today about having created in the economy. He will also remember that the OBR predicted 2.6% growth, which has not happened. How does he account for the fact that, despite the 500,000 extra jobs in the economy, growth has flatlined and the 2.6% growth predicted has not been achieved?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the 520,000 net private sector jobs that are being created. It is also the case, as we saw yesterday, that the tax receipts have not only held up, but are ahead of forecast. The IMF said that an interesting question arises when that is put alongside the GDP figures. These forecasts are independent. That is one of the fundamental changes that we made. The Office for Budget Responsibility is independent. It is also a central forecast, rather than a cautious forecast, as used to be the case. That was another important change we made. We shall see as the economic data come in. We should welcome the public finance data last week and we should certainly welcome the unemployment data.
I give way to my constituency neighbour.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I am grateful to the Chancellor. Does he agree that manufacturing is the key to the long-term prosperity of our country, and that under Labour the number of people employed in manufacturing halved?
Mr Osborne
Indeed. The share of manufacturing as a proportion of our economy halved as well. That is how unbalanced the British economy became. Financial services boomed—we all know that; manufacturing halved as a share of our economy. One of the things that we are seeking to do is rebalance our economy.
Mr Osborne
Let me make a little progress and then take some more interventions.
We are all being asked to vote tonight on the proposition put forward by the shadow Chancellor. We are all being asked to support his motion calling for a big unfunded tax cut. This is what the Financial Times commented when it heard about that. It said that the shadow Chancellor’s argument “increasingly sounds irrelevant”
and that it is
“favoured by those who are unwilling to face up to the true problems facing Britain’s economy today.”
The Economist said that the shadow Chancellor’s speech was
“steeped in cynical electoral politics, thinly disguised as an economics lecture.”
Well, there is always The Guardian, isn’t there? Not on this occasion. The Guardian said that the shadow Chancellor’s economic policy was the “wrong prescription”
and went on to say:
“The big job for Labour . . . is not to dream up a couple of policies but to work out a cogent position on the deficit”
and that there is
“No sign of that yet.”
No sign of a cogent position on the deficit—that was not a comment from the Government, the right-wing press or the IMF, but from The Guardian. That shows just how alone the shadow Chancellor is.
Mr Osborne
Let me make this point, then I will take interventions.
The position is worse even than that. Hon. Members might remember reading a couple of weeks ago about those leaked documents about project Volvo, the secret plan drawn up by the shadow Chancellor to rebrand his party. The president of Volvo Cars rushed out a statement saying:
“If only the Labour Party had been like today’s Volvos—dynamic, agile and innovative—perhaps the UK economy would have been in a better place than it finds itself today.”
Kevin Brennan
While the Chancellor is on that subject, can he give a simple answer to a question—yes or no? Did he have advance knowledge that The Daily Telegraph had obtained the shadow Chancellor’s private papers, or any advance knowledge of the stories that it planned to write—as he raised the issue, yes or no?
Mr Osborne
This is a debate about the economy. We all enjoyed reading those papers in The Daily Telegraph.
To get the better economy that we all want to see requires the three things that this Government have provided—
Alec Shelbrooke
Is it not also telling that after the Opposition have spent a year banging on about the American model and what the Americans were doing, we heard nothing today about the fact that President Obama had to introduce austerity measures because his massive input of billions into the economy did nothing except raise unemployment and increase the deficit?
Mr Osborne
The interesting thing is that in the United States the debate in the Congress has turned to discussions about the US budget deficit. The proposal from President Obama in his speech at George Washington university bears some striking similarities to the British Government’s plan, and is similar in pace, scale and composition between tax and spending measures. It shows that this is the discussion that the world is having, but it is not a discussion of which the shadow Chancellor is a part.
Ed Balls
To follow up the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and because this is a serious matter, I would like to give the Chancellor a second opportunity to answer. I answered his questions and questions from the Government Back Benches on my conversations with the Leader of the Opposition. Did the Chancellor have any advance knowledge or sight of papers taken from me which went to The Daily Telegraph without my knowledge? I would like him to answer the question.
Mr Osborne
We all read those papers in The Daily Telegraph. They revealed that the shadow Chancellor knew before the then Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House of Commons that the 10p tax rate that Labour Members all voted for would hit the poorest in our country.
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman may not have voted for it, but the rest of his colleagues did. That is the absolutely astonishing revelation from those papers.
Kelvin Hopkins
I hope the Chancellor will not describe me as a henchman. Writing yesterday, Lord Skidelsky said that taking £112 billion out of the economy in the next four years will be a massive fiscal contraction, and he described it as
“the royal road to stagnation, not recovery.”
What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to Lord Skidelsky?
Mr Osborne
Of course there are economists, including Lord Skidelsky, who have made their views clear, but there are just as many—indeed, more—economists on the other side of the argument. The economic institutions that govern our world—the IMF, the OECD, and the European Commission, which does not govern our world, but produced a recent report on the British economy—all made the same point. We can set ourselves completely against world opinion, as the shadow Chancellor has done, because he cannot admit that the country had huge problems coming up to the financial crisis. He cannot do that or he would put himself centre stage. That is what this is all about, but the world has moved on and the Labour party has not yet moved on with it.
Mr Redwood
The Red Book says that current public spending will rise 3.8% this year in cash terms and it is running a little higher than that at present. Given that there is to be a public sector pay freeze, is it the intention that there should be a real increase in public spending this year? Does that not put the debate into some kind of context?
Mr Osborne
My right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that although we have had to take very difficult decisions—everybody understands and sees that—we are not facing the sort of catastrophic scenario painted by the Opposition. The shadow Chancellor talked about Greece perhaps having to default and leave the euro, and as it is not in primary balance and it has a big budget deficit, that would lead to even more draconian cuts. The truth is that if we had not put in place a credible, measured, staggered plan to reduce the budget deficit, we would have been forced by the international markets into making much deeper cuts.
Mr Osborne
I have taken several interventions, and I will take some more after I have made a little progress.
The Government have put in place three measures: first, a credible plan to deal with the deficit; secondly, a plan for growth that supports the private sector and rebalances our economy; and thirdly—astonishingly, the shadow Chancellor did not mention this—a plan for the banking sector, to ensure that we deal with the problems we currently face while also preventing a repeat of the banking crisis in future.
Let me address each of those in turn. In terms of the budget deficit, our understanding is based on the following points. Britain has a large structural deficit; it emerged before the recession began; it will not go away automatically as the economy recovers; and it puts our whole economy at risk. We only have to look at what is happening in other parts of Europe to see that that is the case. Almost all the independent observers of the British economy agree with those points, including the crucial fact that we had a structural deficit before the crisis struck. The OECD and the International Monetary Fund estimate that before the crisis Britain had the largest structural deficit of all the G7 countries.
Tony Blair states in his memoirs that
“from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit.”
[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says, “Rubbish.” I thought that he conducted his politics on the record, and I am not sure that Tony Blair would have agreed with that; the last time he checked, he was the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury in 2005.
My predecessor as Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, says that by 2007
“we had reached the limits of what I thought we should be spending.”
What is the shadow Chancellor’s view? It is this:
“I don’t think we had a structural deficit at all”.
No one agrees with him on that; he is in complete denial.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
At that point in 2007, what did the then Government do? They increased spending by £90 billion, far above the level of inflation, and going against the advice we now know they got from the Treasury. Was that not seriously negligent?
Mr Osborne
The entire economic record of the previous Government was negligent, which is why no one is going to trust Labour with the economy again.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I hear what the Chancellor says, but just before the collapse of Northern Rock in 2007 did he not write in The Times that his party would match Labour’s spending totals? Why is he now pretending that did not happen?
Mr Osborne
I have already been asked that question three times, and I have answered it, explaining that—[Interruption.] Well, I will repeat it. We fought the general election in 2005 arguing that Labour was borrowing too much. We came off Labour’s spending plans in 2008, in the approach to the last general election, and thank God we did, because it gave us the mandate to take the difficult decisions we have had to take.
Mr Osborne
Let me just make the following point before taking another intervention. The majority of Labour Members voted for the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) to be their leader. He did not get the job however, but this is what he would have said in the acceptance speech he never delivered, and it goes to the heart of the challenge we face:
“Step one is to recognise what is obvious: that we did not abolish the business cycle. We should never have claimed it. You can’t in a market economy. And public spending plans cannot depend on it. Nor can you write your own fiscal rules and then be the judge and jury for how they are calculated and when they are met.”
That is absolutely right, and it is why last May we created the Office for Budget Responsibility, a step that the shadow Chancellor opposed in Parliament when he was a Treasury Minister, although I hope his party now accepts it. That is also why a year ago we introduced the budget plan to get the deficit down and have a credible programme for recovery—and which is why we are having this debate today.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Chancellor’s analysis of what went wrong under the Labour Government is completely right. However, does he agree that our current strategy must be about growth as well as reducing the deficit through making cuts? I know he understands that and would like to achieve growth, but we cannot achieve it, either in our own economy or in Europe, if 4% of our GDP is taken up with the costs of over-regulation, as has recently been suggested. The bottom line is that we have to deregulate, but we cannot deregulate European legislation without overriding it, and negotiation is not working.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a crucial element of our strategy must be to undertake structural reform of the British economy in order to reduce regulation and the burdens on business and make our economy more competitive. We would have to do that in any case, even without the recovery from recession we are having to undertake, but the truth is that it has been made more difficult by the accumulation of all the red tape over the past few years. It is remarkable that when we propose important changes—although not changes that go as far as we would like—to employment tribunal law, Labour opposes them. Those are basic changes that would enable more people to be hired and to be in work, but they are opposed by the Opposition. [Interruption.] We can tell by Opposition Members’ reactions that they simply do not understand what it takes to create jobs in the private sector.
Charlie Elphicke
The Opposition not only want to hold back the growth agenda; they also have a series of unfunded spending commitments and go in for gimmicks and bandwagon chasing. They will not be a responsible Opposition, or electable at the next general election, if they carry on in this way.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the last week alone, not only has the shadow Chancellor made a huge unfunded tax promise, but Labour voted against the welfare Bill, with its billions of pounds of savings. It is perfectly right for an Opposition to say, “I don’t agree with that, and I’ve got an argument with you on this,” but Labour’s voting against the entire welfare Bill was a catastrophic error of judgment, and we will remind it of its failure to reform the welfare system from now until the end of this Parliament. The Labour leader recently said that his party had become known as the friend of the welfare scroungers and the bankers. He was absolutely right about that.
The shadow Chancellor’s central argument was that the reason why we are undertaking this deficit reduction plan is because it is all part of some great partisan ideological plot. I therefore have a question for the shadow Treasury team: presumably therefore, the Bank of England is part of this plot? Is that the case?
Mr Osborne
So it is a Tory plot, is it, and the Bank of England is part of it? What about the IMF; is it part of this Tory plot? The right hon. Gentleman probably thinks the CBI is part of it.
What about PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund: is it part of the Tory plot? It is based in Los Angeles, so it must represent the international branch of the Tory plot. It said this:
“We think the UK is implementing what is probably the best combination of fiscal and monetary policies”
in the western world. These groups—the serious commentators—have all come to the same conclusion as the coalition Government: that we need a credible deficit reduction plan to get our market interest rates right—to make sure that, even though we inherited a budget deficit higher than Portugal’s, our market interest rates are similar to those of Germany.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Who is paying the price for this approach to reducing the deficit? The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently pointed out that the inflation rate being experienced by the poorest families is 60% higher than that being experienced by the highest-earning families.
Mr Osborne
The truth is that the whole country has paid the price for the disastrous economic policies of the previous Government. There is no easy way to reduce the largest deficit in our history, but the Opposition oppose every single measure we introduce. That is incredible and it is precisely why they have been rumbled—rumbled by the serious economic press and by everyone else.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Is the truth not that the Opposition’s two policies—cutting VAT and halving the structural deficit over this Parliament, rather than eliminating it—mean just one thing: more borrowing? Does more borrowing not just mean one thing: us paying more interest? Is it not morally disgusting that when we came into government a year ago we were spending £120 million a day just to service the interest on their debt, which they now want to increase?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right. The debt interest payments would have increased to £180 million a day if we had not pursued our current policies. That became one of the largest Budget items under the Labour Government. Deficit reduction has avoided the interest payments that we would have had under Labour.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Chancellor will be aware that Ireland is locked into a serious deficit reduction plan. He may also be aware that next week, as part of its budget for jobs, a targeted VAT cut to 9% will kick in for the tourism sector and last for 18 months. It follows similar cuts made by France and Germany to 7% and 5.5% respectively. Does he rule out targeted VAT cuts to support jobs and growth in particular sectors at the same time as deficit reduction, because that is what other countries are doing?
Mr Osborne
We put forward in the Budget targeted cuts for business. We are cutting corporation tax by 2% this year and a further 3% in coming years. We have put in place more generous research and development tax credits to help businesses. We have cut the small companies tax rate—
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman says that they supported it, but the plans I inherited from Labour’s March 2010 Budget, which presumably he voted for, were to increase the small companies tax rate. We reversed that and cut taxes. We are also taking more than 1 million low-paid people out of tax and trying to get the unemployed back into work.
I was in Northern Ireland on Friday, meeting the political leaders and visiting a very successful manufacturing business in Ballymena, and the point I make to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is that we are consulting on the future of corporation tax rates there, reflecting the fact that it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which has a much lower rate of corporation tax.
Mr Osborne
I have just taken an intervention from that side.
The first requirement to fix the mess is a plan to deal with the deficit. The second requirement is the plan for growth. While the shadow Chancellor was letting the debt build up, the underlying competitiveness of our economy declined and the UK fell from fourth place to 12th in the international rankings. More than 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing. Regional inequality, which we heard about during Prime Minister’s questions, worsened during Labour’s 13 years in government as the gap between the regions increased. As I pointed out earlier, private sector employment in the west midlands fell. Those imbalances have become deeply entrenched and cannot be fixed overnight, but we are undertaking the long-term structural reforms necessary to make that happen.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is emerging that there has been a 17% increase in home repossessions. How can the Chancellor justify his plan to the families affected and say that it is working?
Mr Osborne
We have extended the mortgage interest relief scheme—I inherited a plan for it, too, to end—and of course are trying to avoid repossessions, but there was a large number of repossessions under the Labour Government, and that is because—[Interruption.] I certainly inherited a huge economic mess from the Labour party. The truth is that one of the problems we are having to deal is the enormous housing boom, which was bigger than that experienced in any other major western economy, including the United States of America. We are putting in place those structural reforms, cutting corporation tax, creating more apprenticeships than the country has ever seen, lifting the low paid out of tax, reforming our planning system, reducing the burden of regulation, accelerating education reform, introducing the green investment bank and passing the landmark welfare legislation.
Mr Osborne
I will make some progress.
All those policies involved difficult decisions, but they have been opposed by the Labour party. There is one live example that I want to raise: public sector pension reform. The Government want to reform our public sector pensions system to ensure fairness for public sector workers and taxpayers. We asked Lord Hutton, Labour’s former Work and Pensions Secretary, to propose a solution. He produced an interim report and a final report. It is comprehensive, excellent and fair and the coalition Government back it. As everyone knows, we are in negotiations with the public sector trade unions on how it should be implemented. Sadly, a minority of union leaders seem more interested in strike action than in trying to reach a fair deal. At least their position is clear. What is the view of the Labour party? Complete silence. Will someone intervene and answer that?
Mr Osborne
Right, what is the hon. Gentleman’s view of John Hutton’s report?
Kevin Brennan
The Chancellor is not asking the questions; I am intervening. Where is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Why is he going out in the middle of negotiations and breaching the good faith of those he is negotiating with? That is the question we need an answer to.
Mr Osborne
We are engaged in those negotiations, which the Chief Secretary and the Minister for the Cabinet Office are leading for our side. I have asked a very simple question: does the Labour party back public sector pension reform as set out by John Hutton? [Interruption.] That says it all.
Mr Osborne
Will he answer my question? No? I am not taking an intervention. [Interruption.] The question we have here was put by John Hutton himself—
Nadhim Zahawi
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Member for Rhondda retract the disparaging remark he has just made about the Chancellor?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Nothing has been said that is unparliamentary, but some of the behaviour in the Chamber could be a little better than it is currently. That is not a point of order for me, but a matter for each Member of the House.
Mr Osborne
John Hutton said that he would like the leader of the Labour party
“to endorse the report I produced, yes, because I think it does strike the only fair balance”.
Mr Osborne
It is his report, Labour’s former Work and Pensions Secretary, and I want to know whether the Labour party backs it. [Interruption.] Unbelievable. Will the shadow Chancellor shake his head or nod?
Ed Balls
I set out our position on these matters very clearly on Sunday. We agree that we need pensions reform and are studying the detail of the Hutton report, as everyone is. We thought that the increase in contributions before it was published was a complete abuse of the report and that the way the Government are rushing to increase the age of retirement is deeply unfair, especially to women in their 50s. The whole handling of this by the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been totally and deeply shambolic.
Mr Osborne
Let me take that answer and dissect it. First, the shadow Chancellor deliberately confuses the state pension age with public sector pension because he does not want to answer the question. Secondly, he says that he is studying the Hutton report, but how long does it take him to read it, because it has been out for three months and an interim report was produced last year. Unbelievable.
I will end my speech shortly, because Mr Speaker requested that we ensure that many Members get into the debate. The third thing that is required, which was totally unmentioned by the shadow Chancellor, is a plan to reform the banking system and financial services. That is a central part of any British Government’s economic policy, but we heard not a word on it from him. We know why, of course. It is the same reason that we discussed on the deficit: he was the man who designed the regulatory system that failed. He was the man in the Treasury who designed the tripartite system of regulation; it was his idea, and it failed.
This is what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said—and he does not say this kind of thing very often:
“We set up the FSA believing the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution. That was the big mistake. We didn’t understand just how entangled things were. I have to accept my responsibility.”
When the former Labour Prime Minister accepts responsibility, is it not time that the man who was advising him accepted his responsibility, too, and admitted that the tripartite system failed and needs to be replaced?
Ed Balls
The tripartite system was put in place following the repeated failure of self-regulation and of the regulation of the Bank of England in the period before 1997. I have said on the record loud and clear that we did not regulate the banks in a tough enough way, but throughout that period the current Chancellor personally attacked me for being too tough with regulation and for going too far. The idea is to replace a tripartite system with a quartet system that is even more complicated and byzantine, and we will look at that in detail in the coming months, but the Chancellor is playing a very dangerous game.
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman did not apologise for the tripartite system; he defended it. That is what he just did.
Now, the shadow Chancellor has just—I think for the first time—set himself against the regulatory changes that we propose. He says that he wants to study them, but I set them out at the Mansion House not this year, but last year, so he has had more than one year to study them.
Mr Osborne
And he says that he is really worried about them.
So, there we have it: the shadow Chancellor is against putting the Bank of England back in charge of prudential regulation; against the financial policy committee; and against the financial conduct authority, which is going to be tougher on behalf of consumers. The independent banking commission, which includes experts from throughout the banking field, has been working on the issue and come forward with an interim report. We have backed the principles of that report, but what does the shadow Chancellor have to say? Absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing about the plan that he would put in place. That is the truth.
Nadhim Zahawi
That goes to the heart of this debate—the credibility that the shadow Chancellor talks about. The public are deaf to the Opposition’s arguments because of their political opportunism and the cynical way in which they are dealing with the most important issue facing our nation.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am glad that I gave way to him so that he could make that important point.
Mr Osborne
I think that the hon. Lady is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Prime Minister, and given that he will never be here to speak for himself, she must speak for him.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chancellor for giving way, and I am proud to be the PPS to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
The Chancellor was so busy yesterday calling me “new” that he did not answer my question, and he did not listen to the shadow Chancellor just then or answer his question, either. Will he explain how his increased complication of the regulatory system will prevent further bank failure?
Mr Osborne
Of course, I welcome the hon. Lady to her—[Interruption.] I will answer the question that she puts. I have merely observed in the past that being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to someone who never comes to Parliament is not a very onerous job, but that is good, because she can think up important questions to ask me.
Our judgment, with which the hon. Lady is entitled to disagree, is this: what was missing from the tripartite system was an ability to assess systemic risks throughout the economy. No one was looking at overall debt or leverage levels—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says, “Rubbish”. When the Royal Bank of Scotland wanted to buy ABN AMRO after the credit markets had closed and after the run on Northern Rock, the regulatory system allowed RBS to do so. That is what went wrong, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to go on defending the system that led to the biggest banking crisis in our entire history he can be my guest.
Ed Balls
When we reformed the Bank of England in 1997, we introduced a second deputy governor for financial stability. It was the job of the deputy governor in the Bank of England to monitor those things, and what has the Chancellor now done? He has added a third deputy governor, so there are now going to be three, and that is a more complex system. He is making a political case, but I do not know whether he even understands the financial and economic case.
Mr Osborne
What I understand is that the system the right hon. Gentleman put in place to ensure financial stability completely failed, and the scales have fallen—
Mr Osborne
Let me conclude now.
The scales have fallen from the eyes of Labour MPs. They realise that they have a shadow Chancellor who has to spend the next four years defending his record, and they are completely silent as they realise that they are going to be talking about the past, not the future.
Mr Osborne
I am not giving way. Let me conclude my speech.
That is because the shadow Chancellor is a man—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can we be a little calmer? Mr Bryant, I know you are very excited, but I am sure that people will give way.
Mr Osborne
The shadow Chancellor is a man with a past, but no ideas for the future. The Leader of the Opposition may be uncomfortable having him in the shadow Cabinet, but we are not, because he is going to be a living reminder that people can never trust Labour with the economy again. Meanwhile, the rest of us have got to get on and clear up the mess he left behind.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw attention to my interests as registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
My remarks will concentrate on the housing market, their theme being that that sector, which is fundamental to the healthy operation of the overall British economy, and after showing good signs of a recovery a year ago, is currently stagnant. It is in an extremely parlous position, and there is no evidence of the growth that is fundamental to delivering the jobs and the future prosperity that we need, but while the Government continue with their current policies, we will continue to see a seriously underperforming housing market which, in turn, will contribute to a seriously underperforming British economy.
The interrelationship between the housing market and the wider economy is widely understood. The recession of 2008 had its origins very much in housing. We saw the beginnings in the American subprime housing crisis; the contagion spread rapidly; and it was no coincidence that Northern Rock constituted the first evidence in the UK of the problems that were to engulf us. The crisis was the product of unsustainable lending that had fuelled an unsustainable bubble in this country and a number of others, and the consequences were dire.
That was not the first time we have seen such a process of adjustment after unsustainable growth in the housing market. It has been a pattern over the past 40 years, because there were growth bubbles in the 1970s, the 1980s and the mid-2000s. However, unlike the adjustment after the bubble of the Lawson boom in the late 1980s, the consequences for the public of the recent adjustment—which was painful in many ways and had a dramatic impact, as house prices fell by some 20% and the output of new homes fell by slightly more than a half—were far less damaging and severe than those of the previous recession of 1990-91.
Repossessions have been mentioned, and the following is very telling. Although in 1990-91 repossessions reached some 75,000 annually, with the disaster and tragedy for all people affected matched of course by a huge incidence of negative equity, this time, although the fall in the value of houses was more extreme, the level of repossessions was very much lower—peaking at about 40,000 and falling away, although, sadly, the evidence is that it is rising again—and the problem of negative equity did not blight the lives of millions of people as it did during the 1990s. The difference was that the Government and the Monetary Policy Committee had recognised the importance of swift and clear action to respond to the unprecedented challenges of the recession—through low interest rates plus a series of measures designed to restore confidence in the market, and through public sector investment to help to mitigate the impacts of the declines of private investment and people to retain their homes rather than suffering repossession. All those actions helped to mitigate the impacts of recession.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I recognise that the low interest rate is one of the reasons that the number of repossessions was so low. On the other hand, the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit was to tackle inflation, and yet we are now seeing the challenges that an ongoing low interest rate present to people on fixed incomes, whom he seeks to defend because they are suffering as a result.
Mr Raynsford
I will not go into a detailed diversion on the whole issue of inflation. The Governor of the Bank of England has made very clear his view that the inflationary factors are not such as to create a fear of long-term damaging consequences and that it is right and appropriate to maintain the low-interest regime to ensure that we do not damage further the prospects for growth—the main theme of my remarks.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am listening to my right hon. Friend with interest, and I agree with what he is saying. While the interest rate reduction has helped on this occasion, on the previous occasion under the exchange rate mechanism strategy the deflationary effects of high interest rates created 1 million extra unemployed, and that unemployment, certainly in my constituency, caused many people to hand over their keys and walk away from their mortgages.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes an important point. These factors are all interrelated. The lower impact of unemployment in this latest recession, compared with those of the 1980s and the 1990s, is undoubtedly one of the factors that has contributed to its having less severe consequences.
A year ago, before the Chancellor presented his first Budget, we were seeing recovery in the housing market. New housing starts were beginning to rise and confidence was returning, and it was reasonable to expect that real growth would be sustained through 2010 and 2011. Instead, the market has stalled. Prices are static or slightly falling. There has been a continuing very low level of starts, and consumer confidence is at catastrophic levels. For only the third time in its 37-year history, the GfK NOP consumer confidence barometer has been below the -30% level. That is an indication of just how devastating is the lack of confidence in current market circumstances.
Why are we in this situation? In part, it is the consequence of the Chancellor’s overall economic strategy and the way in which he is managing the British economy and damaging confidence. The confidence issue is not unique to the housing market. It is a much wider issue, as everyone will recognise, although it has a devastating consequence for the housing market. The situation is also the consequence of maladroit policies being pursued by the Government. I would be interested to know how the Chancellor approaches the Localism Bill, which his colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government are taking through Parliament with the confident claim that it will devolve more and more control to local neighbourhoods to be able to say no to developments that they do not like. As we heard in his latest Budget, he wants the default position on housing and other planning applications to be yes, but I am afraid that the truth is that most of the communities who have been given the prospect of far greater control over planning decisions want the default position to be no. There is a fundamental tension between the growth aspirations that he talks about and the actions of this Government, which are in many ways damaging growth.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that during the last decade of the Labour Government housing starts were at their lowest since the 1920s because of top-down planning control that did not work?
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that during the period leading up to the recession we saw a continual increase in housing output. Net additions to the housing stock—the measure favoured by the DCLG as the best and most accurate measure—showed growth of 10,000 to 15,000 a year from 2001 to 2007. In 2007, net additions to the housing stock, at over 200,000, were the highest for 20 years. That was the position: there was a growth trend. We were seeing increased housing output and getting near to the target of 230,000 homes that the Barker report had indicated was necessary. All that has been put at risk. The number of new starts is now only just over 100,000; consumer confidence is absolutely shattered, as I have described; and the confidence of developers is severely damaged by the fear of such maladroit changes to the planning regime.
We have also seen inept cuts in public expenditure. The Homes and Communities Agency played an absolutely vital role in helping the housing sector through the crisis of the recession and giving confidence back to developers through schemes such as Kickstart and HomeBuy Direct and investment in housing associations. All those programmes have been cut back, except one. Six months after HomeBuy Direct was cut, the Government realised that they had made a terrible mistake, so they rebadged it as Firststart, or something like that. However, I am afraid that the others have gone, and the investment levels of the Homes and Communities Agency, at 65% below what they were under the previous Government, mean that the outlook for affordable and social housing is extremely grim.
We have a Government who talk about growth, but their actions are damaging to growth. The housing market, as a microcosm of the overall economy, shows that while current policies continue we have no prospect of getting the growth we need, the homes we need, and the jobs that will come from that, because the housing market has huge multiplier consequences for the economy as a whole. I hope that the Chancellor will not continue to base his case merely on the arithmetic of deficit and will look at what is happening in the real economy and the damage that his policies are doing.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I found many of the comments in the shadow Chancellor’s speech absolutely astounding. He began by talking about economic illiteracy despite the facts that he was in the Treasury when the previous Government announced that they had abolished boom and bust, and just a few days ago he proposed an unfunded cut in VAT costing £13 billion a year and £50 billion over the course of the next four years—a £50 billion increase in our national debt. Clearly, when he was talking about economic illiteracy, he was talking about himself.
The truth is that in 1997 Labour inherited a golden legacy. National debt was low, growth was robust, and the budget deficit was a third of what it is today and falling rapidly. Now we find ourselves in a situation that could not be worse. The national debt has grown from £350 billion in 1997 to £920 billion today. Servicing that debt costs £43 billion in interest this year—more than we spend on the defence of our country or on the education of our children—and, despite the effect of the fiscal actions that this Government are taking, it will rise to almost £70 billion in four years’ time.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the levels of debt that the Government inherited. It is also important to put on the record that many economists and observers of the national finances say that the debt may be significantly higher, depending on how we measure it and which liabilities we take into account. The situation we inherited, as bad as it sounds in his description, could be even worse if we factor in all the liabilities that the previous Government left behind.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some very reliable estimates of unfunded liabilities of central Government standing at over £1 trillion, which would more than double the national debt—not to mention private finance initiative liabilities potentially worth £300 billion.
How can we prevent this from happening again once this Government have brought down our debt? There is a possibility that some time in the future, the public may, against their better wisdom, elect another Labour Government. Perhaps we should consider capping the national debt at a percentage of GDP, so that future Governments who think that they can spend like there is no tomorrow are held back. I am pleased to announce that on 12 July, I will present a ten-minute rule Bill, provisionally titled the national debt cap Bill, to suggest just such a measure.
We have heard a lot from the Labour party about the cuts being savage and reckless. It is easy to make those accusations without looking at the facts. The fact is that the cuts have not even started yet. The first fiscal year of cuts will be this year. It is important to go into the specific numbers. There will be cuts of 0.6% in real terms this year, 1.1% next year, 1.3% the year after and 0.8% in 2014-15. That averages out as a cut of about 0.9% in real terms each year. That is a total cut of 3.7% in real terms. Although such a cut cannot be dismissed, that is the absolute minimum that is necessary to bring sanity back to our public finances.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has gone through the figures. Will he say what they will mean in reality for public sector workers in Bromsgrove? How many will lose their jobs?
Sajid Javid
What it will mean for all workers in Bromsgrove, including public sector and private sector workers, is that there will be more jobs. They are essential to restore economic credibility. As a result of the announcement of the Government’s credible plan, interest rates are lower in Britain than they were before. Importantly, despite the deficit still being at 10% of GDP, which is higher than in Spain and many other European countries that are facing problems, our interest rates are almost on a par with Germany’s.
If hon. Members want to talk about savage cuts, why do we not consider the great example of Denis Healey? The country was brought to its knees and a bankrupt Britain was ordered by the International Monetary Fund to make cuts that amounted to 3.9%, not over three or four years, but in one year. If that is not a good enough example, let us consider what is happening in the United States, which failed to put its house in order when it had the opportunity and did not introduce a credible plan to tackle its deficit. As a proportion of GDP, its deficit and its national debt are not too different from ours. It is now being forced to introduce cuts in one year of 3.8% in real terms. It is no wonder that the IMF, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the OECD are all behind us.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the United States, where unemployment is rising because it failed to tackle its deficit early enough. In contrast, in my constituency, Siemens has just announced 600 new jobs. That is proof that our Government’s policies are starting to work.
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
If we want to make the cuts less painful, that is possible. This does not all have to be about losing jobs. I noticed yesterday that local councils are still advertising for walking co-ordinators, obesity strategy officers, cycling officers and energy island administrators. If the public sector wants to make the cuts less painful, it has the power to do so.
Hon. Members talk about the unfairness of the cuts, but let us look at some of the changes that the Government have boldly introduced. We have put a cap on the amount of benefit that people can claim at the equivalent of about a £35,000 gross salary. What is unfair about that? Why should a family on benefits receive more than the average working family receives in salary? We have put a cap on housing benefit to ensure that claimants cannot live in better accommodation than ordinary, hard-working families. We recently suggested a cap on how much someone living in social housing can earn. There are Opposition Members who are earning a household income of more than £100,000 a year and who continue to live in social housing for about £175 a week. That is unacceptable and the public will find it unacceptable too.
The Chancellor asked why the Opposition do not have a policy on public sector pensions. I suggest that one reason is that the leader of the Labour party was elected and put in place by the trade unions and that many Labour Members get the majority of their funding from trade unions. I would therefore expect nothing else from them.
What alternatives do we have? That question brings me back to economic illiteracy. The shadow Chancellor seems to think that we can force the bond markets to buy our bonds. He seems to think that despite this country being forced to issue £4 billion in bonds a week—that is the amount we borrow plus the amount we have to refinance—and despite the competitive nature of the bond market, bond investors will just purchase our bonds willy-nilly. That is unacceptable economic illiteracy. The truth is that bond investors have a choice. Because of that, we are stranded and have no choice but to deal with the deficit.
In my last two minutes, let us look at the countries that have failed to take action. I have already mentioned the United States, which had huge quantitative easing programmes of $600 billion and $1.7 trillion. It has reached the ceiling on its debt cap and is in serious trouble. It will shortly have to follow similar plans to ours. The shadow Chancellor mentioned the eurozone. He was right to point out the problems in Greece, but wrong to suggest that he has never supported membership of the euro. It is the policy of the Labour party to join the euro, and its last manifesto offered a referendum on the euro. The problem with the euro was created by political dishonesty. Politicians in Europe were not willing to tell the truth about the euro and say that there could not be a single currency without fiscal union.
I suggest that there is similar political dishonesty from the Labour party. It is a party that, like Alice, lives in Wonderland. It believes that one can keep spending without any consequences and that one can abolish boom and bust.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is said that there are three stages of a Government’s life. First, they blame their predecessors for all the wrongs of the world, including the decisions that they are making themselves. They then get into their stride and take responsibility for their own policies. Eventually, they make decisions that make the public unhappy, and things go downhill from there. I suspect that this Government may get through all three stages rather quickly.
As we have heard, today marks a year since the Government gave their first Budget. I hope that this anniversary marks the beginning of the Government entering the second stage and taking responsibility for the pain that they have inflicted on families in my constituency and throughout the country over the past 12 months.
We have heard repeatedly from Government Members that the previous Labour Government were wasteful with taxpayers’ money. That is simply not true. The Government should stop patronising the electorate and stop using the unhelpful credit card analogy. The national debt is in no way analogous to a credit card. The balance sheet contains both assets and liabilities. The Labour Government paid for additional infrastructure, roads, schools and hospitals. Even so, until the collapse of Northern Rock, we had a lower national debt than we had inherited from the previous Tory Government in 1997. We should ask how much our assets are worth compared with our liabilities, as one would if one inherited a home worth £200,000 with a £20,000 mortgage on it. The next generation will receive not only the debt, but the assets. One example is Building Schools for the Future.
Government borrowing was invested in production, such as the planned loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, which would have aided an export-led recovery. The country would have seen a return on that investment. Instead, this Government took yet another decision that led to the stagnation of growth and the rotting of assets, which will be passed on to the next generation. That is typical of Government policy over the past year. They have made quick, deep cuts that have saved a little money in the short term, but they have had no adequate plan for the future and blame the Labour party for the consequences.
Labour’s bail-out of the banks was universally seen as essential to combat the effect of the global financial crisis on Britain. I will concede that mistakes were made on our part in banking regulation, but the Tories in no way opposed our measures at the time. In fact, until recently deregulation has been central to Tory policy. For months after the collapse of Northern Rock, the Prime Minister continued to promote bank deregulation. He stated that plainly in a speech to the Institute of Directors in April 2008.
It is, of course, more comfortable for the Government to blame everyone else, but it is time they took stock of the effect that they are having on the people of this country. For example, since last year’s Budget consumer confidence has clearly collapsed, with the figures consistently showing consumer spending dropping. That drop in personal spending power is the first since the 1980s.
Margot James
Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is bound to be restraint on the part of consumers considering the enormous level of household debt? Should not the Government learn from the public? The public are holding back, and the Government need to hold back.
Pamela Nash
I would argue that the Government’s policies in the past year have done nothing to increase the confidence of this country’s consumers. The British Retail Consortium and KPMG’s retail sales monitor shows that the total value of retail sales last month represented
“the worst drop in total sales since we first collected these figures in 1995…high inflation and low wage growth have produced the first year-on-year fall in disposable incomes for thirty years.”
Worse still, according to the BRC the main cause of inflation is not just wages or consumer-driven increases but external shocks such as the VAT increase.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I agree with many of the points that the hon. Lady is making in her thoughtful speech. However, my recollection of last year’s Finance Bill debate is that the House divided on a Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party motion to overturn the decision to increase VAT, and the Labour party abstained. Can she explain why?
Pamela Nash
I cannot explain why, but I hope that our shadow team will answer the hon. Gentleman’s query at the end of the debate.
The VAT increase has already had a considerable effect on stretched budgets in homes throughout the country. It has hit the poorest in our society hardest, as have this Government’s two Budgets as a whole. It has meant that people are living in fear for their personal domestic budgets, as they do not know what the future will hold. The decision to increase VAT, a regressive tax, illustrates the priorities of the Tory-led Government.
The Chancellor’s claim in the Chamber a year ago today that the emergency Budget was “progressive” was frankly laughable. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that it was regressive, and that half a million more children in the UK will end up in relative poverty by 2013. That is disgraceful. The Government are feeding the cycle of poverty and repeating the mistake of Thatcher’s Government in the ’80s. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box today and claimed that his Government were helping people out of poverty, but the experts beg to differ.
Young people are particularly affected, and they have a right to feel victimised by the Government. There have been a series of failures, leading to their generation being hard done by. Thousands of young people will now be saddled with up to £40,000 of debt after completing a degree. I am glad that my constituents still benefit from Government-funded higher education in Scotland, but even they leave university with considerable debt from the living and material costs of what is usually a longer term of four years at university.
When a young person graduates from uni, they then have to find a home. Unfortunately, the average age at which a person in the UK can afford their first home has risen to 37 under this Government. The national drop in house prices has had a smaller effect in Scotland, as the prices were much less inflated originally than in the south of England. Despite that, Scots are still just as affected by the difficulties in obtaining a mortgage without the considerable deposit of about 10% that is often now required.
After leaving university with so much debt, people have to cope with low and frozen salaries, if indeed they are lucky enough to get a job. Many remain without a job, as unemployment is hitting young people and Scotland in particular. We had the lowest unemployment rate in the UK in 2007, but we are now closer to the highest after four years of the SNP’s budget mismanagement.
The scrapping of the future jobs fund was yet another massive blunder by the Government. To label it a waste of money and say that the jobs created were not real is frankly offensive. I have met numerous future jobs fund workers in Airdrie, Newarthill and Shotts who enjoyed their six months in the programme, learned essential skills, improved their self-confidence and, in many cases, ended up creating a role for themselves and being kept on. At the very least, they were helped to find a similar job once they left their placement.
Unfortunately, the new Work programme is more likely to make the poor poorer than it is to get Britain back to work. There are two major problems with it. First, the promise that it will give 2.4 million unemployed people jobs over the next five years depends entirely on economic growth, evidence of which remains to be seen. There are currently 2.43 million people unemployed and 2.4 million out of the labour force, but in the last quarter there were only 469,000 vacancies. Secondly, the Work programme operates on a payment-by-results basis. Although I welcome the fact that good results are required for taxpayers’ money to be spent, in today’s limited job market are not private companies much more likely to pick individuals who are not long-term unemployed?
The majority of unemployed people are looking for a job. Many have the wrong skills, or are in the wrong place, and unfortunately they have little hope of gaining funding for retraining at the moment. The housing market also makes it almost impossible for them to relocate. With limited means, people are supposed to pay for increased food bills and sky-high energy bills. Despite the fact that I now spend almost half my time in Westminster, away from home, I still received a letter last week, like many people in Airdrie and Shotts, telling me that my electricity and gas bill is going up by £20 a month.
Fuel bills are also rocketing, and people are rapidly finding themselves struggling to cope. At a recent meeting with my local citizens advice bureau, we discussed the fact that the people who are now coming to us for advice are not just those on benefits or very low salaries but people in a variety of salary brackets, who are seeing their wallets empty much earlier in the month. If those on half-decent salaries are struggling, how are those on benefits and the minimum wage even beginning to cope?
The Government have spent their first year in power causing successive growth forecast reductions and prolonging the effects of the recession on both families and businesses, and a generation of young people has been put on the scrap heap. When are the Government going to stop blaming everyone else and find a plan B that will get the UK working again?
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), who spoke with considerable passion about the plight of some of her constituents. However, I am sure she will recognise that the best way of tackling the poverty that she described is by getting our economy working more effectively, incentivising people who want to create wealth and spreading more jobs. That is the way to tackle the problems that she articulated.
On that note, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team on sticking with the tough decisions that will rebuild our economy and prevent it from spiralling further into debt, and in so doing lay the foundations for future growth. We must stick with our plan. There is no need for a plan B.
Let us get this correct: we inherited an economy built on credit and public spending. That is not a climate that will encourage wealth creation. We cannot keep taxing private enterprise in order to fund an expanding public sector. We need to incentivise our wealth creators and set the economy free. It is clear from recent economic figures that the economic fundamentals are strengthening. Indeed, John Cridland, the director general of the CBI, said this weekend that we are well into recovery, even though it does not quite feel that way.
Lilian Greenwood
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she not share our concern that although we are supposed to be in recovery, the growth figures keep being downgraded?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I was just getting to the explanation for that, which is the one that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave at the Mansion House last week. He dissected the growth figures, which showed that although financial services were contracting, in the rest of the economy we were in a period of growth. We need to rebalance our economy, and to take it away from a large financial services sector and more towards manufacturing and other sectors.
I shall continue, because time is brief and many colleagues want to contribute, by bringing the debate to life with some real-life examples, and by drawing the attention of the House to some areas where we are making considerable progress. First, there is a genuine improvement in manufacturing—the Government amendment mentions an increase in activity of 4.2%. I have the privilege to represent a considerable amount of manufacturing industry, which is situated particularly in the west Thurrock area and in Purfleet. Among the large operations in my constituency is a Unilever plant that manufactures, among other things, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, Flora margarine and other spreads. The company very recently relocated its manufacturing operation for jars of Hellmann’s mayonnaise from the Czech Republic to Purfleet. Why? Because it was more cost effective. Do not let it be said that the UK cannot compete internationally for manufacturing presence.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The latest manufacturing output numbers show a clear decline, not an increase. There was an increase over the last year, but that was largely because people restocked after running their inventories down during the crisis. Does the hon. Lady concede that manufacturing now is going in the wrong direction?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Gentleman wilfully ignores what I just said. I gave one illustration of inward investment and an improvement in manufacturing in this country. That decision was taken by a thriving company because it is cheaper to produce here than in eastern Europe. He should look at the evidence instead of constantly talking the economy down.
Jobs are increasing. My father has lived all his working life in Sheffield, and many hon. Members are familiar with the economic problems in South Yorkshire. He has spent his entire working life as a builder and labourer. For much of the past decade, he struggled to find work, and has been in and out of work on short-term contracts. When he was laid off last year, he did not hold out much hope of finding more work, given the prevalence of eastern European gangs in that area of work, but last week, the day before his 63rd birthday, he re-entered the world of work, in Sheffield, so it is clear that the economy is indeed moving in the right direction.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I shall press on, if that is okay.
The Government’s measures will encourage more people to fill newly emerging jobs. I am delighted that in the last Budget, we began to move towards increasing the income level at which income tax is paid, which will make the most difference at the margin. With our welfare reforms, that will incentivise people to get back into work.
There has also been an improvement in investment. The biggest inward investment in the UK is for the London Gateway port, which is being constructed in the borough of Thurrock. That will add to the area’s existing port facilities at Tilbury, which this year celebrates its 125th anniversary—we all wish it many more years of success—and Purfleet, where the roll-on/roll-off container business is again booming. Even before DP World opens, the tonnage landed in Thurrock exceeds that of Dover and Felixstowe. That is a good sign that in my constituency at least, the economy is definitely moving in the right direction.
Having spoken of all that is going well, I would like to tell my colleagues on the Treasury Bench about matters on which the Government need to raise their game, so that we make the most of the economic opportunities that are available to us. First, we need to do more to encourage investment. We need to make investment easy and to ensure that there are no barriers in its way, particularly in the planning system. Some firms have had to pay absolute fortunes to protect species on brownfield sites, and section 106 agreements seem to be used by local authorities, and indeed on occasion by Government Departments, as cash cows to fund projects that go beyond the benefit needed. Our overall objective is to encourage economic growth and job creation, so we need to ensure that those measures do not act as barriers to investment, but encourage it.
On the banking sector, I thoroughly support the objectives behind Project Merlin and agree that there is a need to ensure that our banks lend to people who want to buy their own homes and to businesses. However, we need to bear in mind that businesses are much less risk averse, and that they are looking at other ways of financing investment where possible. We must avoid putting the taxpayer in the position of lender of last resort for projects that are riskier than projects that we should support.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way before she leaves the subject of Project Merlin. She will have seen the lending figures for the first quarter. To put it mildly, the figures for lending to small and medium-sized business are disappointing. Does she believe, as I do, that the Government need to take firmer action to ensure that the banking sector lives up to its Project Merlin commitments?
Jackie Doyle-Price
We should absolutely encourage more lending to sustainable businesses and business propositions, but we should not encourage banks to lend just to meet that target. Lending must be based on real demand, which, as I said, is falling, because firms are finding other ways to fund investment. It must also be based on an appropriate degree of risk, because it is inappropriate for the taxpayer to stand as guarantor of such loans.
In conclusion, there is more realism in the economy. We are building an economy on real wealth creation, not credit or an inflated public sector. There is much to celebrate, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk our economy down. They must consider the impact of their words. Confidence is central to economic growth—confidence is all, and every negative message undermines it. When confidence is undermined, the recovery will slow. This is not about partisan games; it is too important. We all need to recognise the real progress that we are making.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned last week’s speech by the Chancellor at the Mansion house, which came at the end of his first year at the Treasury. He concluded his speech by saying:
“I believe that sentiment of cautious optimism has been borne out by events in the twelve months…The British economy is recovering.”
If current economic performance is cause for cautious optimism, I dread to think what deteriorating performance and cause for pessimism would look like.
The fact of the matter is that the Chancellor has failed even on his narrow policy on growth and investment. In his Budget a year ago today, the Chancellor stated:
“The Government has set out a credible deficit reduction plan that should provide businesses with the confidence they need to plan and invest, supporting the necessary recovery in business investment.”
That simply has not happened. Business confidence is almost 12 percentage points lower than it was a year ago, according to the confidence monitor report by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member, and Grant Thornton. Business investment in the first quarter of this year, according to the Office for National Statistics, was 7.1% lower than the previous quarter and 3.2% lower than a year ago. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises—a necessary precondition for growth—is behind schedule, as set out in Project Merlin by the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary.
Retail sales––an important barometer of the health and confidence of the economy, because the retail sector constitutes one tenth of the economy and employs 11% of our work force—fell sharply by 1.6% last month, which was much worse than commentators’ estimates. That reflects consumers’ lack of confidence for the future.
Ministers often cite growth in manufacturing, but the purchasing managers index for manufacturing fell to a 20-month low of 52.1 last month. Since a welcome boost in January, the purchasing managers index figure has fallen every month this year, indicating a worrying and slowing pace of growth in the manufacturing sector. After a relatively robust growth spurt immediately after the recession—largely the result of the Labour Government’s actions—growth has effectively stalled and stagnated for the past six months. I am pleased that my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) is here because I have to conclude that growth predictions are being revised down faster than Middlesbrough’s chances in the championship next season.
In the Budget a year ago today, the Chancellor forecast that growth would be 2.3% this year, 2.8% in 2012 and 2.9% in 2013. No credible economic forecast predicts that, and nor does the Chancellor. In November, he predicted that growth this year would be 2.1%, and then, in his March Budget, he forecast that growth in 2011 would be 1.7%. The OECD has recently forecast that growth will be 1.4% this year, not 2.3% as forecast one year ago, and 1.8% in 2012, not 2.8%. Every time the Chancellor stands at the Dispatch Box, confidence in the economy falls. He should stay out of the House more often.
This comes at a time when public service cuts and public sector redundancies have not necessarily started to gain pace, so the problem of no growth is only likely to get worse. The economic growth forecasts are below those for France, Germany, the US and even Japan after its natural disasters and the eurozone after its economic difficulties. Why on earth is this the case? Why is the British economy not bouncing back in the way that our competitors seem to be doing? In his opening remarks in announcing last month’s inflation report, the Governor of the Bank of England stated:
“the recent pattern of revisions to the projections over the next year—downward to growth and upward to inflation—has continued”.
The Governor went on to state that risks and negative factors within our economy—high levels of inflation, squeezes on wages and household incomes, weak levels of activity in the economy and uncertainty about the speed at which net exports will pick up—are persisting.
These factors are persisting for far longer than the Treasury and the Bank of England foresaw. Inflation has been much, much higher for a longer period than was anticipated, exports are not as buoyant as they were forecast to be at this stage, especially given the weakness in sterling, and economic activity is weaker than was expected. The Governor concluded:
“the outlook for growth and inflation is likely to remain unusually uncertain. No one knows how the economy will evolve over the next few years; nor how policy will need to respond.”
Given those comments and the huge and persistent uncertainties that exist, is it not ridiculous for the Chancellor not to concede that an alternative economic approach might be necessary?
Let us contrast what is happening in the UK with what is happening elsewhere in comparable economies. In Germany, the export-led recovery is leaping ahead, despite a slow-down in global economic growth. Domestic demand and private consumption are increasing, contributing to growth, wage increases are taking place as well as rises in employment levels, and Government finances have benefited from strong economic growth, to help offset the fact that Government debt in Germany rose significantly in 2010 to stabilise the banking sector. Despite all the deep-seated problems that it is facing, even Europe is expected to grow significantly faster than us, at 2.5% this year and 2.5% again the following year.
These economies will grow faster than ours and put themselves in a better position to take advantage of a growing global economy in the years to come, because they realise that a single-minded focus on deficit reduction, to the exclusion of everything else, particularly a disregard for the long-term social and economic consequences of such a move, is detrimental to the long-term interests of their economies. In his remarks today, the Chancellor mentioned PIMCO. Only yesterday, Bill Gross, the manager of PIMCO, which is the world’s largest bond fund company, said that to remain on the road to economic recovery, the US needed to focus on job creation instead of fiscal tightening and budget reforms. The conclusion he came to is pertinent to the British experience.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I have just joined the debate—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I know that the hon. Lady is an enthusiastic Member, but she should not just walk into the Chamber, give it about five seconds and then intervene. It is not fair. It is up to the hon. Gentleman whether he gives way, but it is discourteous to everyone else who wishes to speak.
Claire Perry
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been tied up with constituency business. I just wanted to say that I welcomed the reference to Bill Gross, who, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, also described the UK’s economy as sitting on a bed of nitroglycerine ahead of the election.
Mr Wright
I hope that the hon. Lady, who has not listened to the rest of the debate, will take into account the conclusion drawn by the manager of the largest bond fund company in the world. He stated that the budget reforms
“are long-term requirements for a stable and healthy economy, but the move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.”
That seems an eminently sensible conclusion.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Why should we accept the hon. Gentleman’s version of events when the OECD, the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses are calling for fiscal tightening in order to ensure the stability in the economy necessary to provide growth, as is happening?
Mr Wright
The growth projections are falling rapidly, and have been downcast three times. When I speak to my constituents and businesses in Hartlepool, they are concerned about a lack of confidence and a lack of investment in the future of this country that will undermine our long-term ability to fight the global downturn.
Mr Anderson
Is it not the case that, like me, my hon. Friend has been here before, when the Conservative party did exactly the same thing not just in our lifetime, but our fathers’ lifetimes? We know that the actions that the Conservative party takes will result in ordinary people paying the price for its failures.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend represents a seat in the north-east, as I do, and he knows full well that our region has borne the brunt of this recession, like we bore the brunt of the 1980s recession. It does not have to be like this. We have got enormous economic potential in our region that can really contribute to wealth creation in our country, but that is simply not happening.
Mr Wright
No, I am not going to give way, because I do not have long left.
There is an acute need for a more balanced economic policy, focusing not merely on deficit reduction, but on incorporating job and wealth creation measures, on weeding out inefficiencies—that is true—on raising our productivity, on improving our infrastructure and on rewarding enterprise and ambition. In fact, a more balanced view would help to reduce the deficit faster. An emphasis on growth and jobs would increase output, raise tax receipts and reduce benefit bills, thereby helping to cut the debt. Given the lack of growth in the economy and persistent uncertainties about inflation, economic activity and net exports, for the good of our country and economy, will the Chancellor concede that he might—just might—be wrong?
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) rightly set much of his speech in the international context. I want to start by doing much the same, by comparing the UK’s record with that of our fellow EU member states, particularly the unfortunately named PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain—around the Mediterranean periphery. We have all seen or read about the extraordinary scenes in Greece in recent weeks and hours. The Greek Government debt currently has a triple C rating from Standard and Poor’s, which is as low as it can go without it effectively being a recommendation that no one should buy, whereas the UK has a triple A rating. That might surprise hon. Members given the underlying economic data on our budget deficit. Even after the difficult decisions that the coalition Government took in their first year in office, our budget deficit is currently 9% of GDP for 2011, as compared with the eurozone, where the figure is 4.3%, and Greece, whose budget deficit is lower than the United Kingdom’s, at 8.4% this year. That surprising difference in bond ratings is accounted for by the fact that people who want to lend to countries are just the same as those who want to lend to companies and individuals. They are looking for the confidence and certainty that comes when an institution that is in trouble realises that it is in trouble and takes the necessary measures to get to grips with it. That is what this coalition Government are doing.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that Ireland and Greece, the two countries with the greatest difficulties, have both gone through austerity programmes that were not enough, both had to have further bail-outs and implement more austerity programmes, and both still have difficulties? Does that not give him pause for thought about whether austerity programmes will lead to recovery?
Stephen Williams
I specifically mentioned Greece, and those who have been following events in Greece from afar will know that the reason why the international community is so concerned about Greece is that it has felt until recently that the Greek Government have simply not got to grips with the plan, or have announced a plan but not adhered to it. That is the key difference. This Government have announced plans—difficult plans—to deal with deficit reduction and we are sticking with them, no matter how painful they might be.
Margot James
My hon. Friend mentions the views of the bond market, and the previous speaker talked about what PIMCO thinks. Is he aware that PIMCO said just days ago,
“we think the U.K. is implementing what is probably the best combination of fiscal and monetary policies”?
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. coalition colleague for her intervention, which reinforces my points.
The Government response to the stark situation that we inherited in May 2010 has been to tackle the deficit—the yawning gap—in our public finances, but also to build a business climate that is conducive to growth, because as several hon. Members have said, it is through growth that the economy will provide the resources to get our finances back on track.
Stephen Williams
I have taken two interventions, so I will take no more until near the end, perhaps.
This Government do have a growth strategy: we want to rebalance growth, including rebalancing it geographically. We have just heard about the plight of the north-east. Perhaps it was a failure of the last Labour Government not to rebalance the economy sufficiently, away from the south-east of England and towards other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) ought to have a stiff word with some of his colleagues. After 13 years, the economies of some of our regions were still very fragile and unable to withstand external shocks. We also wish to rebalance the different sectors of the economy, away from over-dependence on the City of London, important as it is, and the resources that it generates towards more sustainable parts of the economy, in particular growth from digital media. The Government have announced the establishment of a network of enterprise zones around the country. My local enterprise partnership—the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership—has just announced that it will be based around Temple Meads station in my constituency, where we want to build the country’s leading media hub and business growth area, with a particular focus on digital media.
We also want future growth to be sustainable in a green way. This country has a huge economic opportunity to grow a low-carbon economy. In the Energy Bill, which is just completing its passage through the House, we have something quite revolutionary: the green deal, which gives every household in the country a fantastic opportunity to retrofit their houses to reduce energy bills and help us cope with meeting the demanding climate change targets that we have set, on which there is cross-party consensus and agreement. There is also a fantastic opportunity for British business, and for people to be trained in the skills needed to retrofit our housing stock. On a rather larger scale, the Government have also announced—the Chancellor confirmed this in the Budget—the creation of the green investment bank, in order to provide finance for schemes that might otherwise find it difficult to secure funds in the market. As the country’s green capital, the city of Bristol has a good case for being made the future home of the green investment bank.
A further way in which the coalition Government are going to make a fundamental difference in turning the economy around and reducing unemployment is by making work pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned that the coalition agreement would deliver the Liberal Democrat policy of reducing income tax and taking out of income tax completely those people who are earning up to £10,000 a year. That will be achieved before the end of this Parliament. Our programme of welfare reform and the introduction of universal credit was mentioned earlier by the Chancellor in his confrontation with the shadow Chancellor. The Opposition rather recklessly voted against the entire Welfare Reform Bill.
Reform is also needed in the banks. The Opposition motion calls for a reintroduction of the tax on bankers’ bonuses. It is worth pointing out, however, that the people receiving large bonuses will now pay 50% income tax, rather than 40%, that national insurance has doubled for those on the higher rate of tax, and that employers will pay more national insurance on those bonuses as well. The taxation on those bonuses will certainly increase.
Alec Shelbrooke
If a banker pays 50% income tax on his bonus, does not that represent a greater tax take than if the money were left in the bank, where it would be liable to only 28% corporation tax?
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend makes a good point.
What should we do with RBS and the Lloyd’s banking group, which were bailed out in 2008 adding £67 billion to our national debt? Earlier this year, I wrote a pamphlet on what the Government should do with their holdings in the banks. It was called “Getting your share of the banks: giving the banks back to the people” and it was published by the think-tank CentreForum in March. My proposal was to give those shares to every citizen in our country and, when they sold them in the future, the Government would get back the cost of their investment in 2008 while the citizens would keep the result of any growth. That would mean that we would reduce our national debt by £67 billion over time, and that every citizen in the country—each of us who has felt the pain of bailing out the banks—would see some benefit from this upside to the situation. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been endorsing that proposal today on his trade mission in Latin America.
What have we heard from the official Opposition today? What is their grand idea for turning round the country’s finances and getting our economy back on track? They have opposed all the cuts that we have debated in the Chamber. I have never heard a Labour Member of Parliament stand up and say that they are in favour of any of the measures in our Bills, whether in this Chamber or in the Bill Committees on which we serve. Today, the Opposition have come up with a completely reckless proposal for an unfunded cut in VAT. It has no economic justification and there is no evidence that it would make any difference to the economy. Let us contrast that with the record of the coalition Government. We are determined to have a fair tax burden, and we have plans for sustainable growth and deficit reduction. Both plans have international credibility. That is what this country needs right now: credibility at home and abroad, rather than the reckless opportunism that we have seen from the Opposition today.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
This is a timely economic debate, and I am pleased that the Opposition have tabled this motion for a whole-day debate at this crucial time. We are one year in, and we can now begin to form a view of whether the Government’s policies are working. It is always difficult for the Opposition, particularly on issues such as employment and the impact of economic policies on the well-being of our country and our constituents, when they have to come out and be negative about what is being achieved. Inevitably, and much to the resentment of Opposition Members, that leads to a chorus of unjustified remarks from across the Chamber that we want to talk the economy down or that we do not want good news. In the name of our constituents, we are desperate for good news. We want good news on employment, for example.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman said that his constituents were desperate for good news. May I refer him to the very useful economic indicators update provided by the Library? It shows that consumer confidence rose by 10% in May, that manufacturers’ output expectations have risen by 13%, and that the EU economic sentiment indicators for Britain are up by 2.6 points. Does he not agree that those are all positive indicators? I would welcome him sharing them with his constituents and all his colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
Mr Robinson
All we know at the moment is what has happened and many forward-looking forecasts are no better than those of the OBR, which was set up by the Government to provide a so-called independent forecast. Let us be clear that we welcomed and accepted that. All we can look at is what has been achieved; we will come on to the forecasts in a few moments. If we show a moment’s hesitation or doubt about them, I hope that Government Members will understand why. I followed the first 10 years of the Labour Government very closely, and I do not think that we ever had to revise any forecast three times in a matter of six months. If we do not listen to the forecasts and do not treat them as if they had already been achieved, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why.
There are some things we can welcome. We can welcome the good effort in job creation in the private sector. According to the Chancellor this afternoon, that means 520,000 jobs, so let us welcome that. The trouble is, however, that the OBR says—this is the bible we have to go by—that before the end of this Parliament, 200,000 more people are going to be unemployed than it originally thought. We have 520,000 on the one hand and 200,000 more on the other. There is always a negative balancing out the positive in all these areas. If we take inflation, for example, it has gone through the roof at 4.5%. Manufacturing output has been a good effort up until the last quarter, but it is now down again. It is not surprising that an intake of jobs in the private manufacturing sector has supported that output, built on the back of the previous Government’s policies. [Interruption.] No, they do not like to hear it, but it is a fact. Why did more than two thirds of the private sector increase in employment take place before the spending round announcement? It happened on the back of the reflationary policies of the previous Labour Government.
Mr Robinson
I will give way in a few moments.
Those are the facts and that is the situation. If we look at the balance sheet of the Government’s economic policy in its first year, we see that even in the two areas where the Government had until recently done relatively well, the signs are now bad, so I find it hard to believe that there are any factual or objective grounds for thinking that they have done well overall or that their policies are going to work. The Chancellor continues to say that the plan is working, but all he is really saying is that he is retaining the support of those he set out to gain support from in the first place by adopting an essentially old-fashioned, deflationary bankers’ policy of cutting demand in the economy. That is what he set out to do and that is what he is doing. The prospects of it succeeding are poor.
Mr Robinson
I will take the intervention later, if I may.
We are now at the stage where we have to make up our minds whether the Government’s economic policies are going to work or not. In a very good article published in today’s edition of The Guardian, Robert Skidelsky argues that the choice between the two economic policies has to be made by anyone wanting to make a serious stand on these issues. He says that the theories or sets of policies have been set out by all the famous, much-lauded figures in the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and all the rest of them. If we are dealing with what economists think—it is not the only thing that matters—we should also mention people like Stiglitz and Krugman who say that the policy is wrong.
If we look at the history, we find that it tends to be the people who are not part of the conventional wisdom or not part of the establishment, so to speak, who get it right and that the establishment nearly always gets it wrong. There is no attempt to get out of the box into which the Government have so constrained their policies—they like it and feel it is their comfort zone. I am talking about bankers and international organisations that are intent on deflation, which they are inflicting in the present crucifixion of the Greek economy—where they effectively continue to throw good money into failed policies.
Let me briefly read from the article:
“The Keynesians…among whom I number myself”—
and I am happy to be there, too—
“will have to eat their words if growth picks up and unemployment falls in the next 12 months”.
That is to say, if the Government’s policy comes right, the debt falls and deficit crisis is met, we could then celebrate the success of the policy. On the other hand, it might not work—and it is time for Members to decide where they stand on this. I happen to believe that there is no evidence to suppose that it will, much as I would like it to work: it will not work; it never has worked in history. It is not working in Greece or in Ireland. Greece has had two further doses of deflation and two goes at decreasing VAT, and it is still not working. It is getting worse, because they are not dealing with the root of the problem, as the shadow Chancellor made clear in his speech.
What could be done? Given that the Government will not want to change their policy, they have only one way out: another heavy incidence of quantitative easing. This time, the Government will have to stand up to the Bank of England for once in their life, and say, “We want this money to be put to productive ends.” We create the money, but nobody knows where it goes, except to make bankers’ profits in overseas investment markets. The Government should say, “We want the money to be made available through a bank”—such as the green investment bank, which could be much expanded—“to the British economy for, above all, investment in small and medium-sized enterprises.” The argument from the Governor of the Bank of England will be, “We can’t distort capital markets, you know. This is interfering in the market.” Of course it is; it is an attempt to avert the wastefulness that we have seen from so many of the policies so far.
Where should that money be channelled? In a very good contribution earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said that the housing market is dead on its feet at the moment. The new housing market is, I think, at an all-time low. The money, therefore, should go into housing, and into transport, which is desperate not for HS2 but for sensible things such as the four-tracking of the line between Coventry and Birmingham, about which I know something, and at other points such as in Wales. The other good thing would be that the railway policy could be executed much more quickly and fully.
Will the Government change course? No. Will their policy work? No. Are there alternatives? Yes. I understand why they do not want to touch VAT, but they could at least get the Governor of the Bank of England to do quantitative easing of a large scale, £200 billion, and ensure that, instead of being dissipated into overseas markets, a good part of that money is used for the productive sectors of the British economy. That would make a big difference and be a start to the change of policy that we need from the Government.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The emergency Budget will certainly be remembered for robustly tackling the record Budget deficit, but I believe that its reputation will become much bigger, because it started a shift in the debate on public finances away from spending and cuts to how real value for money must be delivered for taxpayers. That is why it will be seen as a rare game changer in how Government expenditure is measured, managed and even talked about.
We have seen other big Budgets before: Geoffrey Howe’s in 1981, which tackled the rapid inflation that was wreaking havoc in the economy at that time; Nigel Lawson’s 1988 Budget, which significantly lowered the burden of taxes on individuals and created greater incentives for businesses to invest in the UK.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
In my constituency, according to the National House Building Council, building started on just four new houses in the first quarter of this year. Is it part of the game change to destroy for ever housing construction in our nation?
David Rutley
No, it is part of the lamentable legacy of the Labour party. We are cleaning up the mess; you are just talking about it. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene again?
However, no other Chancellor of the past 50 years had to face a budget deficit of the scale that confronted the current Chancellor after the election. He was bold and did not duck the challenge. The comprehensive spending review in September last year built on the foundation, and set out the details of how the Government would bring spending under control and achieve their fiscal mandate. As we have heard in the debate, the Government’s action has won plaudits from the IMF and OECD among others. More importantly, on the doorstep during the local elections, I found a pragmatic acceptance that strong action is needed. One year on, the principles underpinning the emergency Budget continue to win the argument about how the deficit should be tackled.
Clearly, in facing the nation’s finances, the opportunity and the Chancellor’s ambitions go well beyond reducing costs. The economic imperative and the tangible change in public mood represent an important moment in time that must be seized. The Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put the spotlight on value for money and bring about a cultural change in the way in which it is delivered to taxpayers, and in confronting that task they are actively learning from positive role models in the public sector. When I worked as a senior executive at ASDA, the aim of lowering the cost of living for customers motivated colleagues throughout the company. Cost control was a vital part of the culture that was committed to delivering value for money to our shoppers. At board meetings, customer outcomes and the return on investment were what counted, not how much money should be thrown at a problem. That commitment creates value for money for hard-working families day in, day out.
Earlier Governments have found it difficult to engender a similar culture in the civil service and our public services, but the sad fact is that the last Government did not even try. Their ill-conceived experiment with “big government” backfired, and despite a period of unprecedented economic growth, the United Kingdom was left with a structural deficit—before the economic crisis—that was consistently bigger than the eurozone average for five years. Just as worrying, but not so often talked about, is the fact that public sector productivity fell by 3.4% between 1998 and 2007, at a staggering annual cost of £58 billion, which equates to 41% of last year’s deficit. That is a legacy that will continue to haunt the Labour party in its struggles to rebuild the credibility of its economic policy.
The coalition Government, however, are committed to putting value for money at the centre of fiscal policy and creating a new yardstick by which future Governments will be judged. They are driving major changes in three main areas: institutions, management tools and, most important, the hearts and minds of both the public and our public servants. They are making strong progress in each of those areas.
The creation of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility is one institutional change that will constitute a lasting legacy from the present Chancellor. The creation of an independent body to forecast and analyse public finances means that Government will no longer be able to cook the books or indulge in what Lord Turnbull, giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, described as “wishful thinking”. The OBR will give both Parliament and the public greater confidence in Government spending plans, and a greater ability to hold the Government to account.
Beyond institutions, change is needed in the way in which public finances are managed. That requires new objectives for civil servants, in which value for money is a critical factor in the judging of their performance and their ability to achieve their promotion objectives. I am pleased to note that the Government are raising the bar in terms of the minimum standard of financial understanding that is required for civil servants. In the past, senior civil servants have been more concerned about avoiding bad headlines or the size of their budgets than about finding more effective ways in which to deliver public services. Those days are now long gone.
Sir Philip Green’s review of expenditure showed that Government need to improve dramatically the way in which they gather information on spending across Departments, and the new efficiency and reform group in the Cabinet Office is identifying ways of tackling that task. It plans to improve the co-ordination of procurement across Government, which will lead to savings of about £3 billion a year. Initiatives like those will help to reverse the downward trend in public sector productivity that we saw under the last Government.
However, the focus on value for money must not be only about the things that Government buy. Public sector pay and benefits represent the largest cost for any Government, and the present Government have had little choice other than to focus seriously on public sector pay and push ahead with much-needed pension reforms. That must happen if a more level playing field is to be created between the public and private sectors which will encourage business-led job creation while also making the taxpayer’s bill more affordable.
The ultimate test of whether value for money has become a real focus of attention lies not in institutions or management tools but in whether there has been a fundamental change in the way that people talk about public funds. I am pleased that the debate is now turning to results and outcomes and not just to the price that is paid for them. Government Members want to move away from and beyond the tired debate about cuts and spending to focusing on value for money for taxpayers.
In the motion, the Labour party looks forward to what it calls “strong” economic growth. Personally, I prefer to think about sustainable economic growth as a far better objective. We saw what happened under the Labour Government when they pressed for strong economic growth fuelled by uncontrollable spending. Labour seems to believe that return to growth is an automatic certainty or a God-given right. One year on, it has completely failed to articulate a credible alternative to explain how it would address the economic crisis. It is as though it has taken a leaf out of the Tommy Cooper school of economics and believes that growth will return magically, “Just like that.” [Interruption.] I will work on it. We on the Government side know that growth will be earned through the hard work and dedication of thousands of businesses across the country. The Government’s deficit reduction plans are creating a platform for the sustainable, private sector-led growth that the country so urgently needs.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
One year on, it is now abundantly clear that last year’s emergency Budget hit women much harder than men. Some 72% of the cuts are being borne by women, whether they are cuts in the health in pregnancy grant, in tax credits, in Sure Start maternity grants or in child benefit. What is more shocking is that it did not even occur to the Chancellor at the time to consider the impact that his savage cuts would have on women and that he failed to carry out his legal duty of undertaking an equality impact assessment before his policy decisions were taken. Indeed, such was the blatant unfairness and scale of the impact on women of the Chancellor’s first Budget that the Fawcett society stated that it showed
“a whole new level of disregard for the importance of equality law and everyday women’s lives.”
The Chancellor’s first Budget also showed a whole new level of disregard for children and families, flying in the face of the Prime Minister's promise to be the “most family-friendly Government”. One year on, I am particularly concerned about the impact on child poverty—an issue that directly links to the impact of the cuts on women. Although good progress was made by the previous Government, the number of children living in poverty remains unacceptably high. Figures recently published by the End Child Poverty campaign suggest that almost one third of all children in Newcastle are living in poverty. The coalition’s policies of cutting funding to Sure Start centres, removing the health in pregnancy grant, cutting tax credits, increasing VAT, cutting housing benefit and dramatically reducing local government funding will have a serious impact on household incomes, which I fear will lead to more children growing up in poverty. My fears are backed up by the OECD, which recently reported:
“Progress in child poverty reduction in the UK has stalled, and is now predicted to increase, and so social protection spending on families...needs to be protected.”
Of course, the cuts imposed by the Chancellor’s first Budget are also hitting home at a time that is already particularly difficult for women.
Catherine McKinnell
I will give way just this once, as I know that many of my colleagues want to speak.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Can the hon. Lady tell the House what kind of savings the Labour party would have made in public spending?
Catherine McKinnell
This is not the opportunity for me to set out what the shadow Chancellor has already set out—the way in which we would tackle the deficit. I do not want to take up precious time that my colleagues want to spend giving speeches in this very important debate.
Women are particularly affected in the north-east, where about 46% of all working women are employed in the public sector. Those women face being one of the 30,000 public sector workers anticipated to lose their jobs in the region; most of those job losses will affect low-paid female workers. They also face pay freezes and the ever-increasing costs of balancing work with family life.
Catherine McKinnell
No, I will not, because I want to leave time for other Members.
It is not just women who are bearing the brunt of the cuts and stalled economic growth. One year on, after the Chancellor’s first Budget, a key concern in the north-east remains youth unemployment, with about 19% of 16 to 24-year-olds in the region not in education, employment or training, compared with 15% nationally. Of particular concern is the fact that, over the past 12 months, the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance has increased by 10% in the north-east.
Since being elected to the House, I have been a passionate advocate of the important role that apprenticeships can play in supporting young people into the workplace, thereby helping to prevent a lost generation of young people as a result of the Government’s policies. However, Ministers need to recognise that there is a real difference between making limited funding available for apprenticeships—I welcome that and it has been promised—and ensuring that good-quality apprenticeships are offered by businesses in the areas of our economy where we require those skills.
I implore the Government to consider some serious and genuine risks today. We should not allow the number of apprenticeships offered to override the importance of their quality, thus ticking the box but failing to provide young people with a decent start to their working lives. To reach such targets, we risk simply converting existing jobs into apprenticeships, when in reality no genuine new employment opportunities are created.
Following the abolition of the regional development agencies—today, we mark the anniversary of that dreadful decision—we have lost the joined-up thinking of bringing the business community, educational providers and RDAs together in a working partnership to ensure that we prevent the over-supply of certain skills and the under-supply of the skills that we need in the areas that we rely on for future growth. The result will be a failure to stimulate growth to ensure that we have the skilled work force of the future and to reach out to those young people who are most in need of the best start to their working lives.
While we are focusing on the impact of the Chancellor’s first Budget in June last year, I should like to turn briefly to two policies that he announced that are particularly relevant to Newcastle. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced the creation of 21 new urban enterprise zones, one of which will be located on Tyneside. I should like him to clarify today what progress has been made on this issue. Will he explain, as I did not receive an answer to the question that I asked during the Budget debate, what steps he is taking to ensure that the zone does not simply lead to jobs being transferred from one part of Tyneside to another?
A further issue is that of tax incremental financing, which the Chancellor promised to rollout in his Budget this year, to give cities such as Newcastle borrowing powers to finance much needed job-creation schemes and regeneration projects. In Newcastle alone, it is thought that about 5,000 jobs could be created over the next two decades if the council—now safely back in Labour hands—could borrow about £13 million for important projects such as Science Central and the redevelopment of the East Pilgrim street area. That is particularly important at time when we have lost the investment of our RDA, One North East, and when private sector investment for many major projects has dried up. Yet it appears that cities will not be given those powers until 2014, thus risking three years of wasted growth opportunities and lost jobs. Why are the Government dragging their feet on this important issue, when we need such support more than ever?
As we are marking one-year anniversaries, I point out that the Prime Minister promised last May to create Ministers for big cities such as Newcastle to breathe economic life into the towns and cities outside the M25, by ensuring that Whitehall blockages to economic development were dealt with. Thirteen months on, we are still waiting for further details or confirmation of that announcement. Unlike the previous Administration, no one in the Government is championing the needs of Newcastle and the north-east—a task that was so ably undertaken by my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), during his time as the Regional Minister. Indeed, the vacuum has recently been criticised by the North East chamber of commerce, which said:
“We’d be really keen to see the Coalition appoint City Ministers. We don’t have any Cabinet or Ministerial-level representation from the North East. And having senior Government Ministers not only aware of the issues, but actively resolving them is absolutely the right thing to do.”
I realise that the Conservatives are fairly limited in their knowledge and experience of the north-east and might find it difficult to find a candidate for my city and region, but will the Minister say when that policy will materialise, or will it be another example of a broken promise?
One year on, this Government’s policies are hitting women, children and families, as well as young people, in places such as Newcastle that can least withstand it. I hope the Chancellor will listen to the concerns expressed today, stem the damage and help to return our north-east economy to its trajectory of growth.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I shall focus my remarks on the challenges faced by the black country economy and the west midlands to illustrate some of the challenges that the Government face over the next period.
As the Chancellor pointed out, one of the most extraordinary statistics in the west midlands economy is that even in the boom years we saw a 6% decline in private sector jobs in the west midlands, compared with 3.4% growth in private sector jobs nationally. Worse still, after 13 years of Labour, not only was unemployment higher in the west midlands, but productivity was down, the skills gap was widening, the rate of innovation in the west midlands was poor compared with other regions, the rate of new business formation was weak, and the imbalance between the west midlands region and the rest of the country was growing. There was a lack of support for manufacturing businesses and a considerable decline in private sector jobs.
When the coalition Government took over one year ago, that was the picture that we faced in relation to the dynamics of the west midlands economy. It would have been madness to continue to pursue the policies that had comprehensively failed the west midlands region. Recently, I held a manufacturing summit in Cradley Heath with the Sandwell chamber of commerce. Companies such as Westley Plastics reported that they were enjoying strong growth in their order book and seeing considerable growth in export opportunities. Whatever the Opposition say, it is manufacturing that is leading the recovery in the west midlands and in the entire country.
In the west midlands and the black country we still have a vibrant manufacturing and industrial base. Companies in my constituency such as Somers Forge and Thompson Friction Welding are innovative, dynamic and capable of creating the high-quality jobs that we desperately need in the west midlands, but we must do more.
Owen Smith
May I point the hon. Gentleman to unemployment figures for the west midlands? We have heard a lot about those 520,000 net private sector jobs. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the west midlands has not seen any of those jobs. In fact, the last figures showed that minus 6,000 jobs, public and private, had been created in the west midlands.
James Morris
As I said, one year in, following the policies being implemented by the coalition Government, we are beginning to see clear signs that private sector jobs are coming back into the west midlands after 13 years in which, despite quarter after quarter of economic growth, we saw substantial declines in private—
James Morris
I will not give way. I will make progress.
The Government faced a considerable challenge when they came to power. With the growth plan that they have begun to implement, in addition to the important steps that they are taking on deficit reduction, we are moving in the right direction. In the west midlands and the broader black country economy, skills is the No. 1 issue that we need to tackle. It is holding business back. We are investing considerably more in high-quality apprenticeships, involving the voluntary sector and other parts of the economy in making sure that we build a proper skill base in the black country and the wider west midlands economy. We are beginning to build better relationships between small and medium-sized enterprises and institutions of further education, such as Halesowen college and Sandwell college. We are beginning the job that the previous Government did not address, and making sure that we match appropriate supply of skills with demand in the local economy.
As “The Plan for Growth” recognises, we also need a more local approach to stimulating economic development. That is why I have been a strong advocate for the black country local enterprise zone. I have been working with its representatives to define the best way to drive economic growth in the black country, and on how to maximise the potential of the Chancellor’s Budget announcement on enterprise zones to stimulate new investment and new jobs and ensure that the local enterprise partnership is able to drive economic development.
Mr Love
There is a lot of evidence from the 1980s about employment zones, and it shows that the cost of the jobs created was very high compared with alternative models, and that all that employment zones did was shift employment around the borders of the LEP. What leads the hon. Gentleman to believe we will be more successful this time?
James Morris
There is huge potential to stimulate growth in the black country. Especially now when public spending is limited, we need to find creative ways to stimulate economic growth in the various areas of the black country, and we might do so by starting with one enterprise zone, which then develops into more of them so that we seed the black country economy and drive real economic growth. That is what we need to achieve, and I believe that the LEPs have a better chance than many other possible methods of tackling some of the deep-seated economic problems we face in the west midlands.
As many Members have pointed out, bank lending is still an issue; getting credit to the right places in order to stimulate the economy is still a problem, and it may hold back the recovery. There are organisations in the broader black country, such as the Black Country Reinvestment Society, that are developing innovative models to get microfinance to small and medium-sized enterprises, but we need to do more to fill the credit gap. I welcome the Chancellor’s Project Merlin announcement, particularly its emphasis on encouraging the banks to invest in the regional economy, because they have a moral obligation to do so. As the Chancellor recognises, the banks have a critical role to play in developing the regional economy, but if there continue to be problems with the availability of credit we might need to consider measures such as counter-cyclical regulation, encouraging the banks not to hoard capital but to get it to the small and medium-sized enterprises in areas such as the black country.
The key decisions that the Government have taken over the past year to tackle the deficit, to restore confidence in Britain’s financial institutions and to build a platform for growth have been crucial in getting the country back on an even keel, but we need to build on what the Government have achieved so far. We must continue to drive innovation. That is particularly important in areas such as the black country. We must address how we can sustain innovation and build on the capabilities that are in place in advanced manufacturing. We also need to continue to support and develop our manufacturing base in the west midlands, so that technologies and vital jobs do not get shipped abroad. Labour market productivity in the black country is increasingly globally competitive, and we need to ensure that businesses continue to invest in domestic manufacturing. The Government must also identify emerging technologies that we can capitalise on and where we have the skills to exploit and commercialise them.
However, the most important signal this Government have sent to the world is that the country is open for business, and in particular that the black country is open for business.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is encouraging to see so many Members wearing “Yes to High-Speed Rail” badges. That is a much-needed programme to encourage growth, but it absolutely flies in the face of the argument that the Chancellor has made today. The campaign is contrary to his supposed economic growth strategy because it supports a public finance-led project that aims to encourage follow-up investment by private sector capital. There are very few examples of that now, unlike under the previous Administration, when public sector capital was used to encourage and attract private sector investment.
We have heard today that, 12 months after the decision to cut further and faster than any other major economy, the recovery has been choked off, with zero growth over the past six months. The VAT rise has helped push inflation up to more than double the target rate, consumer confidence has fallen and both manufacturing output and retail sales fell last month. There was a welcome fall in unemployment in the last two months, mainly in part-time working, which the Government have started to refer to as “mini-jobs”. Vacancies are down, job creation has slowed in the six months since the spending review and unemployment is set to increase over the coming years to 200,000 higher than was expected in the past few months.
Ben Gummer
Will the hon. Gentleman state the precise source of the 200,000 figure that he has given for the increase in unemployment?
Tom Blenkinsop
The estimate will be from the OBR, so it is from a Government-sponsored body that assesses the Government’s own figures.
Tom Blenkinsop
I am sorry, but I want to continue. I will give way to someone else later.
The Tories are creating a vicious circle in our economy by cutting too far and too fast, hitting families and costing jobs. In fact, they are set to borrow £46 billion more than they had planned last autumn because of slower growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment, which are the consequences of the decision, announced in the Chancellor’s first Budget, to cut too far and too fast.
In the 12 months since the emergency Budget, all the key economic forecasts have worsened. On borrowing, for example, the OBR has steadily increased its forecasts for Government borrowing over the next five years, which means that the Chancellor is now forecast to borrow £46 billion more than he expected to last November.
Tom Blenkinsop
Sorry, no.
That is because slower growth and higher unemployment, which means more people claiming benefits, makes paying down the deficit harder.
Tom Blenkinsop
No.
The best way to reduce the deficit in the long term is by focusing on growth and jobs in order to get people into work and off benefits. Since the emergency Budget, the UK’s GDP for this year has been downgraded twice by the OBR, and three times since it analysed Labour’s plans. It is not only the OBR that has downgraded its growth forecasts; other respected organisations have done the same. The OECD, in its most recent forecast, downgraded the UK’s growth in 2011 to 1.4%, and to 1.8% for 2012. The British Chambers of Commerce, in its recent quarterly forecast, downgraded growth in 2011 to 1.3%, and to 1.2% for 2012. The International Monetary Fund, in its latest report on the state of the UK economy, downgraded its growth forecast to 1.5% in 2010, down from 2% last autumn. The OBR is now forecasting higher unemployment and a larger number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in every year of this Parliament. Its latest forecast now expects inflation to peak at 4.2% this year, up from 1.6% last June when it evaluated Labour’s plans.
The international comparisons are stark. Recent figures show that in the first quarter of 2011 the French and German economies grew by 1% and 1.5% respectively, compared with the 0.5% growth in the UK, which merely cancelled out the 0.5% contraction of the previous quarter. Over the past six months, the UK’s growth has been flat. The Business Secretary has admitted that it is “worrying” that we are lagging behind France and Germany. The OECD’s deputy secretary-general and chief economist told The Times that he sees merit in slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation if growth continues to be slow.
Tom Blenkinsop
No.
This pattern is borne out in my constituency and the local area. Recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the volume of new construction orders in the first quarter of 2011 fell by 23%, compared with the fourth quarter of 2010. Orders are also down 18% from that time last year. That coincided with 1,500 job losses in the steel industry at the Skinningrove steel works in my area, in Hartlepool, at the Teesside beam mill, and also down the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). This Government have taken away public sector orders in steel that provided 46% of the Teesside beam mill’s orders, which have just vanished. Figures published on 10 June show that the seasonally adjusted index of production in April 2011—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Birtwistle, just to save your legs, I do not think that Mr Blenkinsop is keen on allowing you an intervention.
Tom Blenkinsop
Figures published on 10 June show that the seasonally adjusted index of production in April 2011 fell by 1.2% when compared with April 2010. In addition, the seasonally adjusted manufacturing figures saw output fall by 1.5%, and in my area, again, Teesside beam mill has shut down, the Ensus biofuels plant is on a four-month shutdown and the former Enron-run Teesside power station has been half mothballed. That has all happened during the tenure of this Government. We heard from the Chancellor how he believes that the economic ramifications of his policies occur within weeks, so it would be quite refreshing to hear Ministers take responsibility for the manufacturing downturn in my area.
Prospective packages from INEOS have been blocked, because it is looking for certainty, and a Government who rely on a weak pound for exports to lead their economic recovery are living in a fantasy land, given the constant credit squeeze from the Asian growth markets. The governing parties are quite willing to take the credit for manufacturing output increases, but they are still below 2008 levels and also match other manufacturing increases across the globe. They have nothing to do with the Government’s policies; they are about manufacturing at this moment in time across the globe.
The British Chambers of Commerce described the latest trade figures as “mediocre”, adding that
“the monthly underlying fall in the volume of exports is a matter for concern.”
What concerns me is that a Government who laud the benefits of manufacturing are also imposing ahead of their EU competitors a carbon floor-pricing policy that will stifle the very industries on which they rely for their growth. How are the Government going to get tax revenues from those industries when they no longer exist or move abroad? That is the stark reality, and we have to wake up to the fact that the biggest sectoral exporter in the country is the chemical industry, which will also be the most affected industry as a result of that policy.
In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor chose to increase VAT to 20%, despite the Tories repeatedly denying in their election that they had any plans to do so. The Treasury’s own figures show the estimated impact of the rise in VAT. The 2.5 percentage point rise will cost an average couple with children £450 a year and a pensioner couple £275 a year.
The rise will also have an impact on growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the increase in VAT to 20% will have the effect of reducing GDP during this financial year by about 0.3%. If we had a temporary reduction in VAT across the board, we would provide a boost for consumers by putting more money directly into people’s pockets, and we would be able to maintain it until there were certain figures, proved empirically, to show that an economy recovery was beginning.
The fact that this Government are not prepared to give former regional development agency assets to local enterprise partnerships, which are supposed to be this country’s local economic drivers, is an absolute demonstration that the Chancellor has no confidence in his own economic plan. The LEPs will have no rights to those assets, and that means that the Chancellor has no confidence in those local businesses that are engaged with them.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
“The economy one year on”: I admire the Opposition’s gall in inviting us to recollect the state of the economy just one year ago. Let me remind hon. Members, if I may, of a few facts. This country this time last year had the worst budget deficit in the G20. We were paying interest of £120 million a day on our borrowings, and there was rising unemployment. There was also massive household debt, which at the end of 2009 was 171% of disposable income, yet Opposition Members are surprised that consumers show a little reticence about spending their depleted moneys.
There was also a massively unbalanced economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), in an excellent speech, reminded us of the situation in the west midlands and, in particular, our black country under the previous Government. Over the five years to 2008, private sector employment grew by 5.3% across the nation generally, but in the black country it grew by a measly 1.1%. Of course, that is due largely to the decline in manufacturing. That began several decades ago, tragically, and accelerated under the last Labour Government, when, in just over a decade, manufacturing declined from 21% of our economy to 12%.
The legacy was not just one of irresponsible borrowing and irresponsible public spending in every year since 2001; in addition, so much of the money was spent so unwisely. Let me remind my hon. Friends of the unsustainable property boom, almost as bad as Ireland’s, with PFI-built hospitals and schools that have loaded impossible burdens of debt on to those institutions for the next two decades. Our own local hospital in Dudley, Russells Hall, has to pay out 16% of its revenues to service the PFI debt with which it is saddled. I suggest that Labour Members try to attend tomorrow’s Westminster Hall debate on PFI called by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). They will find it very uncomfortable listening.
Alec Shelbrooke
To expand my hon. Friend’s point about wasted money, does she agree that it was an absolute disgrace to spend £5 million a year of taxpayers’ money on sponsoring British superbikes for 10 years?
Margot James
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and I thank him for his intervention.
Margot James
I will certainly give way to the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, of which I am a member.
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady, as a fellow black country Member of Parliament, for giving way, particularly as the other black country Member on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), refused to take an intervention from me.
We can talk for a long time about the unemployment statistics in the black country over the past decades. I recognise that the hon. Lady is prepared to acknowledge that this problem started long before the previous Labour Government. She is correct that the local hospital was financed by PFI. Would she prefer not to have had that hospital built or to have had it built out of public expenditure, thereby increasing the national debt?
Margot James
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, I would not have wanted the hospital not to be built. However, I think that Labour took a good idea, PFI, which was started by a previous Conservative Government, and ran amok with it, accepting deals on far too generous terms so that our hospitals are stuck with being forced to pay absurd, non-competitive rates for all sorts of services from their PFI partners.
Margot James
I would like to make progress and bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Throughout the boom years, nearly 2 million people were living off benefits, at huge expense to the economy, while three quarters of the new jobs went to people from abroad. That was a scandal. It is ironic that the Opposition motion calls for the Government to spend all sorts of money that we do not have on 100,000 jobs for young people. I remind Labour Members that the unemployment figures for people between 16 and 24 started out at 650,000 in 1997 and ended up at 930,000 in 2010, at the end of their Government’s tenure. That is an unacceptable increase.
Margot James
I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee.
Owen Smith
The hon. Lady cites a number that we have heard many times from Conservative Members. If she cares to look at what the number was at the end of 2008, just before Lehman Brothers collapsed and the financial crisis ensued, she will find that it was significantly lower than it was in 1997—and we all know it.
Margot James
If the hon. Gentleman has those statistics at his disposal, I am sure that he will enlighten the House later. I cannot precisely recall that figure from 2008. Suffice it to say that youth unemployment went up by more than 250,000 during Labour’s period in office.
We now see signs of recovery, thanks to this Government’s grasp on the deficit, which is the root of the problem that we have to confront. I commend the Government and the Chancellor for at last getting a grip. There are people in my constituency who voted for the previous Government three times in a row and turned on them because they knew that this country was living way beyond its means, which the previous Government just could not accept. One year on, those people are saying to me on the doorstep, “We elected you to sort out the public finances. You are doing what needs to be done. Get on with it.” They are right. We now have a credible plan that has the backing of the OECD, the IMF, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and PIMCO, which is probably the most crucial of all. It would be utterly absurd and extremely dangerous to abandon that plan just because for one quarter manufacturing did not do quite as well as it was doing a few months before. We have plans to stimulate growth and get that back on track.
Opposition Members were clinging to the fact that the US was continuing with its highly risky spending policies. However, as the consequences of those policies have come home to roost, with unemployment in the US now standing at more than 9%, they have accepted that even the mighty USA is not exempt from the basic rules of economics. In the end, one has to live within one’s means. As the great lady once said, “You can’t buck the market.”
This was the first recession in my lifetime when low interest rates prevailed. That is crucial to the recovery of exports and manufacturing, and to the stability that the economy needs to lean on. Unemployment went down by 80,000 last month and the predictions that it would reach 3 million have not come to pass. Although I sympathise greatly with public sector workers in my constituency who have lost their jobs, we can celebrate the fact that private sector jobs have increased by 520,000 over the last 12 months. That is a record of which we can be proud. The Government have a growth agenda, to which I am wholeheartedly committed, including the lowering of corporation tax, research and development tax credits, a record number of apprenticeships, entrepreneurs’ capital gains tax relief, the protection of the science budget, the exemption of micro-businesses from onerous employment regulations, of which I hope to hear more, the regional growth fund, and enterprise zones, of which there will be one in my area of the black country.
The main challenge for the Government is now deregulation. It is a big problem that we are not getting on top of quickly enough, although I understand the difficulties. I echo the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who challenged the Government on European regulation. We need to have a strategy to fight back on that, because it will be the death knell if we do not. I will not give an example, because time is running out.
In conclusion, it would be irresponsible to start proposing spending increases and tax cuts, as the Labour party is doing. That is the way back to instability, the loss of confidence and escalating interest rates, which would do for my constituents who face mortgages and other difficulties. An escalation in interest rates would be catastrophic at this time, and that is where Labour’s policies would inexorably lead.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
We have heard a lot today about learning the lessons of history, but what we heard from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) shows that the Government clearly have not learned the lessons of their own history. In the last years of the Labour Government, we listened to the Conservative party talk about wanting more deregulation and complain that we were over-regulating. We concede now that we were not regulating the banking sector as vigorously as we should have done, yet still we hear calls for further deregulation. That is a lesson that Conservative Members really ought to learn.
Equally, Conservative Members ought to look much closer, and with a far less jaundiced and more objective eye, at the Government’s past year of performance. Any objective reading, any audit of how they have performed economically, must tell them, as it tells us, that it has been a disastrous year. Unemployment is higher by 1.5%, inflation is higher by 1.6%, output is down by 0.7% and manufacturing, which went up for a period as there was restocking and which boomed partly because of big deflation in the value of the pound, has now ground to a halt. We are not seeing a manufacturing-led recovery. Critically, growth, the key driver of our economy, is flat, non-existent, zero.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman focuses on manufacturing, but how does he contrast performance over the past 12 months with that over the previous 12 years, when manufacturing in Wales in particular, and in the west midlands, fell dramatically from representing close to a third of the economy to nearer 20%?
Owen Smith
I answer candidly that we have already said that we need a rebalancing of our economy. On both sides of the House, there was far too great an emphasis on the belief that we were in a post-industrial society and manufacturing was not an important part of the mix. We have learned the lessons, as I hope Government Members have. I hope that there will therefore be an active industrial policy from the Government, like the one that the Opposition are talking about. That is the only way in which we will improve manufacturing.
Gordon Birtwistle
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the country takes on the debts that the Opposition suggest by cutting VAT and spending vast sums, interest rates will rise? That alone will stifle any economic growth.
Owen Smith
No, I do not agree with that for a moment. A VAT holiday right now would stimulate the economy. We saw it work previously and it would work today, and that is why we advocate it. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.
It is clear that the past year has been disastrous, so let us look ahead. Let us not rely on the Opposition or the Government, but instead examine the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections. It projects lower growth than it did last time, lower in fact than in its last three projections. It projects increased unemployment, with 200,000 more people unemployed by the end of this Parliament. Most critically and damningly of all, it projects ballooning borrowing, with £50 billion extra in borrowing in this Parliament as a result of the dreadful mistakes that the Government are making. [Interruption.] That is the reality—borrowing went down by £20 billion last year as a result of the stimulus, and it is now going up. No amount of shouting can get Members away from that fact.
What do those desiccated numbers mean for ordinary working people in this country? They mean heartache and misery. As one leading economist said last week when reflecting on a market survey that showed household income going down and household debt rising at the fastest rates since the depths of the crisis,
“The grim figures show household finances deteriorating at the fastest pace since”
2008-09, with people
“eroding their savings and taking on more debt to finance strong rises in living costs”
and reductions in their wages. That is the reality, as the Governor of the Bank of England recognised when he said that we were facing the biggest squeeze on living standards and wages since the 1920s. We can lay the blame for that directly at the door of the Conservative party.
In Wales, my part of the country, we are feeling the pinch harder than most. We have already heard the number of people unemployed in the midlands, the area that we hear the Chancellor have the temerity to talk about from the Dispatch Box. Employment there was down by 6,000 in the last period. In Wales it is barely creeping above the positive line, and in the north-east it is down by 14,000. The notion that there is a private sector-led jobs recovery spreading equitably across the country is absolute fantasy, and we must expose it.
Consumer Focus Wales, the body that looks after ordinary working people’s rights, says that some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including older people, those on low incomes and those with long-term conditions, are right now cutting back on essentials such as groceries and energy usage. That is a disgrace in this day and age, and the Conservative party must face up to it.
In my constituency of Pontypridd, three times the number of people are looking for every job this year than last year. That is the reality of employment in my constituency. Three people on jobseeker’s allowance looked for every job in the jobcentre last year, but now nine are looking for it. The citizens advice bureau is in jeopardy as a result of another of the Government’s cuts—the cut to legal aid—but in one single year, there has been a 20% increase in the number of people going to the CAB for advice about debt, family breakdown and job insecurity. That is the largest increase in the history of that CAB. Those are all clear indicators that it is not working but it is hurting. More austerity and pouring misery on misery will not help my constituents, just as it is not helping Greece.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman talks about the number of people looking for jobs in his constituency this year compared with last. What would he say to the Welsh Government about that, and what is their responsibility for it? They have contributed to the greatest decline in Welsh gross domestic product over the past 12 years, making Wales the poorest part of the UK, which it was not previously.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) answers that intervention, I ask hon. Members please to keep interventions very short, because a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.
Owen Smith
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I completely reject that entirely false characterisation of the Welsh economy. Most importantly, the Labour Government in Wales understand that growth will deliver improvements to our economy, not austerity, cutting or increasing the viciousness of the circle. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) ought to read The Times from this morning, because it is not only Labour Members who are worried that they have got no economic plan for growth from the Chancellor, but the chief executive officers of this country. On page 2, a reflection on the CEO summit states:
“There is...a real fear that a long, slow, feel-bad recovery will leave Britain a helpless bystander as the new economies of Asia, Africa and Latin America storm ahead.”
What does the article go on to say? It says that we need a plan for growth, that plan A is not working, and that we need an industrial strategy that highlights growth sectors, just as the Labour Government in Wales have highlighted life sciences, digital economy and advanced manufacturing.
We need to target and invest in such sectors in a serious, intelligent and structured way, but we are not doing so. As the CEO of Vodafone, which is not exactly a Marxist-led workers’ co-operative, says in The Times today, we in Britain have a “faith” that
“the market will sort it out”—
a misplaced faith that the market is always the answer. That is another lesson that Conservative Members have not learned. The market alone cannot deliver growth in this country. The Government need to intervene and direct intelligently. That is what history teaches us.
Finally, I was not going to talk about banking reform, but the Chancellor ended his speech by saying that Opposition Front Benchers did not talk about it, which admittedly they did not. We will wait and judge Government Members and the Chancellor by what they do on banking reform, but we do not know exactly what will happen on that yet, do we?
We know that the Chancellor has cancelled the bonus tax, and we know that he is talking about looking at banks’ capital-to-asset ratios and trying to ensure that the leveraging they have on their debts is brought into line, but we will see whether the Government make good on those promises, whether they go beyond Basel III and whether they do what the OECD, which has been prayed in aid several times today, is telling them to do and split off high-risk investment banking from commercial banking. These are the tough decisions that have to be taken by a party that likes to listen to its erstwhile colleagues in the banking sector—there are probably a few Conservative Members who used to work there. These are the people who speak and whisper in the Chancellor’s ear. He is not listening to ordinary working people in this country. He needs to start doing that, understand the pain he is causing and move to plan B.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I was not expecting to be called so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am very grateful.
It is easy in this environment and this highly partisan—[Interruption.] I know exactly what I am going to say, so please hear me out. It is easy to lose sight of the big picture in terms of where we were when we came into government in 2010, and it is easy for Labour Members to forget the huge deficit and the terrible mess they made of the country’s finances.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will acknowledge that the budget in 1997 was balanced, in that we took in £315 billion of revenue and spent £315 billion. I also have to acknowledge—I have to be candid—that under the first Labour Administration, between 1997 and 2001, the budget remained in balance. That was the prudent Chancellor whom many in the House will remember. We did not get into fiscal trouble with an increasing deficit until the 2001 to 2005 Parliament, in which, as people will remember, we had sustained growth. However, just at the moment when we were growing sustainably, the naughty, imprudent Chancellor took over. Having been prudent in the first four years of the Labour Government, between 2001 and 2005 he turned on the taps, to speak metaphorically.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The principal point—if the hon. Gentleman will listen—is that Labour gambled with the country’s economy. It sincerely believed that it had abolished boom and bust, so it made spending commitments on the basis that the economy would grow indefinitely year after year. Unfortunately those spending commitments could not be rescinded when reality dawned—when the economy faltered and the revenues collapsed, leaving us with huge spending commitments and creating this unprecedented peacetime deficit.
It is unfair and wrong for Labour Members to say that it was a global phenomenon. Our deficit was not comparable to Germany’s. As far as I know, Germany operates in the same global space and is a competitor in many of the same markets as us, yet its deficit-to-GDP ratio was 3%. Ours, I believe, was 12.8%—the highest in the OECD and the G20. These facts are known to everybody, including all economists and many journalists—everyone knows them—yet consistently, ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, Labour Members have completely denied any responsibility and have given every reason under the sun for the appalling fiscal position we were left in. It is vital that every single Member bears in mind those big facts. Labour’s stewardship of the public finances was catastrophically negligent.
Kwasi Kwarteng
This is the third time that the hon. Gentleman has tried to intervene, and I am afraid that I must press on. I am willing to take interventions from other colleagues, but he has had his say and I would like to have mine.
We have had a difficult time over the last year, during which time my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one will dispute that: the situation has been tough. However, it would have been far worse if we had followed the policies of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and not tackled the deficit in the rather aggressive but timely way in which we decided to. Hon. Members referred earlier to Greece, which has indeed been a Greek tragedy. People are on the streets, the Government are practically insolvent and there is a real risk of some kind of political revolution—I am choosing my words carefully, but the situation is very unstable. The situation facing this country was, I confess, not as bad. However, if we had not been serious about tackling the deficit, there was every likelihood that the international markets would have forced our interest rates up, that our cost of borrowing would have increased and that markets would not have bought gilts in the way that, over the past year, they have. The consequent rise in interest rates would have affected every family in this country, who would have had to pay high interest rates simply because the Government did not have the courage or the conviction to deal with the deficit.
Toby Perkins
As for the comparison with Greece, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if we had followed the advice of the Chancellor when the recession struck back in 2008, although events here might not have followed what happened in Greece, they would quite probably have followed what happened in Ireland, which saw huge public spending cuts? Ireland went into a cycle of more and more cuts, and more and more people being put out of work. The result of those cuts was not that Ireland’s deficit shrank, but that public services and poverty got worse.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about Ireland, but let us look at what happened last year and the situation that we faced going into the general election in May. The shadow Chancellor quite rightly observed that the market price of gilts was rising and that interest rates on them were coming down in the period before the election. It is true that in the six weeks before the election, interest rates on gilts came down, but that was only because the market realised that there would be an end to the Labour Government. The market anticipated the result of the general election, after it became clear that, as a consequence of Labour’s total irresponsibility, the end of a Labour Government would mean a new Government who were serious about dealing with our financial position. It is true—I remember this—that the rates came down from mid-March, but that was only as a consequence of people in the markets literally rejoicing because Labour was going to leave. The shadow Chancellor was quite right to make that point; I just felt that we needed a bit more context.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman has had his say, but I will give way to him.
Owen Smith
I cannot help but point out that if the markets had been so omniscient and all-seeing, surely they would have spotted that the Tory party was not going to win the election.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The only question that the markets were interested in at that point was whether Labour would be re-elected. When it became obvious that Labour would not secure a majority in the House, they started buying lots of British Government debt, and the interest rates in the six weeks before the general election came down quite rapidly. Those are the facts, and one could find them out from the Financial Times, Bloomberg or any other information provider in financial services.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Since the last election, when we got a Conservative-led coalition, unemployment has fallen in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Spelthorne by almost 5%. Does he think that we would have achieved such a fall if we had followed the Opposition’s policies?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I can give my hon. Friend a very short answer: there is no way that any businessman in Spelthorne—[Interruption.] Well, the short answer is no, but the longer, slightly more involved answer is that there are lots of small businesses in my constituency, and a lot of them are related to Heathrow, and the international market and trade. As a consequence of Labour’s complete failure over the previous 13 years, no Labour councillors were returned to our borough council. In fact, Labour contested only one of the 13 wards in the borough, which is only 35 minutes on the train from Waterloo. That is indicative of Labour’s utter failure to make any headway.
Let me tell the House why Labour was completely wiped out. The people in Spelthorne realise that Labour does not understand anything about the economy. Time and again when I have knocked on doors in Ashford, Sunbury and Shepperton—and even in Stanwell, which was traditionally a Labour area—I have met people who realise what this Government have to do. They say to me, “You’ve been put into power to clear up the mess that the other lot created.” I shall not repeat the unparliamentary language, but they tell me to “something well get on with it.”
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). Reflecting on the lack of Labour representation in Spelthorne, I am reminded of the similar lack of Conservative representation in Liverpool. I am prepared to bet the hon. Gentleman that Spelthorne will get a Labour councillor before Liverpool gets a Conservative one.
We have seen some extraordinary complacency on the other side of the House today, given the economic circumstances that people are facing in communities up and down the country. Sometimes we forget the human cost of the decisions that are made in this House.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman talks about the human cost of economic mismanagement. Could he tell us more about the human cost of Labour mismanagement over the past 10 years?
Stephen Twigg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it is the only one that I will take. I want to give other colleagues on both sides a chance to speak. We have heard a lot about Labour’s legacy, and about where Labour stands, and we get severely misrepresented by the Government parties opposite. We are not denying the deficit. We adopted a plan to halve it over the four years of a Parliament. We have been very clear that we would have made cuts in public spending, that we support some of the cuts that are now being made, and that certain tax increases would have happened under a Labour Government.
The real challenge in this debate is to address the questions of growth and employment. There is no value in cutting public spending as the Government are doing if it damages the prospects for growth. The impact on the economy is that tax revenues go down, unemployment goes up, benefit costs therefore rise and the deficit position gets even worse. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor reminded the House earlier about what both the parties that are now in government said when they were in opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) has pointed out that the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said in July 2008 that
“we are sticking to Labour’s spending totals.”
That was the view on the Conservative Front Bench in July 2008. In fact, my hon. Friend did not quote him in full; the right hon. Gentleman went on to describe those Labour spending totals as “tight”. The views that the current Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer are now expressing are not the ones that they held at that time.
A year ago, in the emergency Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“In this Budget, everyone will be asked to contribute…everyone will share in the rewards when we succeed. When we say that we are all in this together, we mean it.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
Our motion today welcomes the recent fall in unemployment, and I have heard hon. Members on the Government Benches talk about falls in unemployment in their constituencies, but are we really all in it together? Let us look at the figures.
Stephen Twigg
I will not take any more interventions, for reasons of time.
We have seen a small increase over the past year in the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants. I want to compare two different constituencies in the north-west: my own, and another one just down the road, called Tatton. In Liverpool, West Derby, we have seen the number of JSA claimants rise over the past year by almost 5%. In Tatton, the number has fallen by 4%. [Interruption.] Well, I would love to know who the MP is who can make that much difference in a year. Somehow I doubt that that is possible. There are 4,000 JSA claimants in my constituency, and 1,000 in that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sometimes think that Government Members underestimate the scale of anger in constituencies such as mine, which went through the experience of living through a Tory Government in the 1980s and have a sense that they are going through exactly the same experience again now.
Stephen Twigg
I am not taking any more interventions.
As I say, there are 33 JSA claimants chasing each vacancy in my constituency, but only two and a half in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s constituency not that far away.
If we are going to recover and see jobs and growth, we need capital investment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke about the importance of housing investment and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke about high-speed rail, so let me say something about schools.
The decision to cancel the Building Schools for the Future programme has not only had an impact on educational opportunities for children and young people in constituencies like mine, as it has had a devastating effect on the construction industry. I urge the Government to look again—not at recreating the Building Schools for the Future programme, as we have moved on from that, but at the critical importance of investment in schools in our communities.
My hon. Friends have already mentioned the future jobs fund, from which more than 90,000 young people directly benefited—6,500 in the city of Liverpool alone. The Government’s own study from the Department for Work and Pensions this January described the fund as
“successful in preparing customers for work…The improvements to customer skills sets are likely to remain for the long term.”
I want to address a specific question to the Economic Secretary, who is responding to the debate. Last night, I tabled early-day motion 1960 on the issue of asset sales by regional development agencies. Nationally, these assets are valued at about £500 million, and the Treasury plans to have a fire sale of these assets throughout the country—except in Greater London, where the assets of the London Development Agency have been gifted to the Mayor. I have no quarrel with that decision. It is a good decision, and I do not disagree with what is being done in London, but I do not see why we cannot have the same decision for local authorities and local economic partnerships outside London. I asked that very question at Business, Innovation and Skills questions recently and I was told that the reason was that the London Development Agency had been merged with the Greater London Authority. Actually, that has not happened, as the legislation is still going through Parliament. I urge the Treasury to think again, because if assets can be gifted to Boris Johnson, why on earth cannot they be gifted to local authorities and local economic partnerships outside London?
Let me deal now with the issue of fairness. I have already drawn one contrast between my constituency and the Chancellor’s. Another contrast is on the scale of the cuts. Of course there have to be cuts to local government funding—we accept that—but Liverpool city council has seen its spending power cut by 8.8%, resulting in cuts of £91 million this year. Cheshire East, which is where the Chancellor’s constituency is based, has had a cut of 1.7%. That is why people are angry—not because they deny the deficit, but because they see the burden of deficit reduction falling far more on some of the most deprived communities in the country. The Government need to think again.
Even in these tough times, Labour’s Liverpool city council is working to improve things. It is working on a plan B for Building Schools for the Future. I urge the Government to engage with it. The council is working with the Government on the enterprise zone and it is creating 133 new apprenticeships to give opportunities to Liverpool’s young people.
Finally, on the cost of living, in the year to April, we saw average weekly earnings rising by 1.8% while inflation was at 4.5%. For a family on average earnings with both adults working, that is loss of £1,000 to the household income each year. The pain is not being shared. When the Government abolish the bankers’ bonus tax, yet go ahead with that cut in real earnings for average families, it is not about protecting low and middle-income Britain.
An economic gamble is being played by the two parties in the coalition. The speed and scale of deficit reduction could itself damage our ability to reduce the deficit, by damaging growth and increasing unemployment. Yes, we need cuts; yes, we need to reduce waste: but we need to protect the front line as far as we possibly can. If the Government continue down this path, there is a serious danger that they will both weaken the prospects for economic recovery and create an even more divided society in our country. I urge them to think again.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Opposition for this debate, which provides Government Members with the opportunity to remind the country of the economic disaster that the Labour party presided over, and the appalling legacy that they left for this Government to deal with. I find it pitiful but ironic that Labour Members have the audacity today to make sweeping claims and generalisations about the economy, when it was their former Chief Secretary to the Treasury who left that dreadful note to his successor that said, “There is no money.”
Rather than being advocates for job creation, enterprise growth and the private sector in their constituencies up and down the country, Labour Members have consistently talked down the economy in this debate. They complain that the Government are not spending enough hard-pressed taxpayers’ money, but that would lead to further deficit. As everyone knows, the Labour party left the economy on the verge of bankruptcy.
This time last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stood in the Chamber and set out a robust plan to rid the UK of its worst ever peacetime budget deficit. As we all know, deficit denial syndrome is rife on the Labour Benches, so let me repeat: the aim of the emergency Budget was to rid the country of its worst ever peacetime budget deficit. There is a strong message to the country: Labour should never again be allowed to run our economy into the ground.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Labour Members like to harp on about the ’80s, but if we are going to go that far back in history, let us go back to the ’70s, when again a Labour Government completely bankrupted the country. They have learned nothing.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. The 1970s was also the era of strikes, and as we all know, strikes cost jobs, they do not create them. Before last year’s Budget, we had the deepest recession, record rates of job losses, and national debt increasing to a peacetime record—
Priti Patel
I have said that I will take only one intervention, because of pressure of time; other Members want to speak.
Families and businesses across the country, and across my constituency, have faced genuine hardship, and I speak as someone from a small family business background. Let us not forget that 12 months ago the country faced a severe sovereign debt crisis. The prospect of Ministers having to go with a begging bowl to the IMF, as Labour did in 1976, was daunting. The Government should be congratulated on bringing Britain back from the brink.
Last year’s emergency Budget was about rescuing the nation’s finances and paying for Labour’s mistakes and its scorched earth policy. The Government have absolutely the right focus: reforming the economy, ensuring jobs and growth for the future, and doing what we can to help families with the cost of living. Last year’s Budget marked the first step towards rebalancing the British economy on to the path of long-term sustainable growth.
I want to highlight three areas in which the Government have laid the foundations for future growth: first, the promotion of business and job creation in the private sector; secondly, focusing on getting people into work, with the creation of half a million private sector jobs, which Labour Members seem to be mocking, which is completely insulting to the people in those jobs; and thirdly, restoring confidence in the British economy. The Government are doing the right thing: sticking to the plan, backed by the IMF, OECD, PIMCO and every major business body in the country, the key objective of which is to put the public finances back on track, after the Labour party maxed out the nation’s credit card.
Instead of being positive and optimistic, Labour Members have the audacity to talk our economy down. They sneer at this, but when they do so they talk down to the enterprising individuals who run independent shops and small businesses, who create jobs and have the initiative to invest, start new businesses and generate welcome prosperity for our country. That should not be overlooked. The Opposition’s dogmatic attitude to those who work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to our economy is starkly obvious, and I believe that they should never again be trusted with the nation’s economic finances.
The Government are boosting manufacturing, jobs and growth by cutting key taxes for business and entrepreneurs and scrapping much regulation, although I think that we could scrap even more, particularly the gold-plated stuff that comes out of Europe. They are also giving more support to young people by providing 50,000 more apprenticeships, as well as work experience schemes. At long last we can start making things in this country again.
Let me end by making a salutary point. There is no doubt that it will take time for the economy to recover fully given the extent of our dreadful legacy, but throughout the business world, from investors in the City to small shopkeepers and small businessmen, it is recognised that we have a business-friendly Government who are committed to cutting the deficit and promoting job creation and investment.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
We were treated to a typically Panglossian picture by the Chancellor, as though there were nothing currently wrong with the economy. The Chancellor is not a man who does humility. When challenged, he could cite only three developments that he regarded as successes. The first was the rise in exports, but he failed to mention that imports are rising faster. The second was the increase in jobs, which, although certainly welcome, will be soon swamped by the increase of 1 million in unemployment in the public and private sectors that has been forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The third was the improvements in the manufacturing sector, which, as has been said many times, have now sadly embarked on a downturn.
Mr Meacher
I will give way only once. As the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) has had plenty of opportunities to intervene, I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs Mensch
Is the right hon. Gentleman not a little put out by the fact that the IMF, the OECD and every major economic organisation backs my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and that his party is entirely on its own in its view of the situation?
Mr Meacher
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is behind the curve. The fact is that there has been a major change in the IMF’s view of the balance between cuts and the promotion of growth. I shall say more about that later.
The negatives that the Chancellor ignored are far more numerous than the positives. Let me begin with an important one. The latest figures for public sector net borrowing—which show levels 50% higher than last year, just before the election—are the first clear sign that the Chancellor’s massive cuts strategy is not just in serious trouble, but going backwards. That comes as no great surprise to people like us who have constantly argued that lower growth—and growth has been nil over the last six months—and the prospect of a prolonged period of stagnation will lead to a fall in tax receipts that will swamp the effects of expenditure cuts. That is central to this whole debate, but the Chancellor did not mention it.
Real incomes fell last year for the first time since 1981, and are on course to fall again this year. Inflation is higher, and consumer confidence has slumped to levels that we saw during the depths of the recession. High street retailers are sending out profit warnings and, to cap it all, the Government have been forced to revise upwards the forecasts for the budget deficit. We should not forget that driving down the deficit is the Holy Grail of Government policy, but it is going in the wrong direction.
Where is the evidence that Britain is enjoying what the Chancellor ironically calls expansionary austerity, on the spurious ground that the knowledge that the Government are getting a grip on the public finances will produce confidence and will encourage spending by the public to replace the cuts in public spending? That policy relies on a tighter fiscal policy while allowing a looser monetary policy to remain loose, but if the monetary policy was already ultra-loose—as it was when the Government came to power—there is certainly no scope for it to be made any looser. Any tightening of fiscal policy, let alone the massive tightening that we have seen in the Budget and the comprehensive spending review, is bound to lead to a lower level of aggregate demand in the economy. That is exactly what we are now seeing. Despite two years in which the bank rate has been almost on the floor at 0.5%, there is a marked reluctance to borrow. Mortgage demand is running at half the levels it was in the 10 years up to the financial crash and lending to business is not picking up.
The key question for this debate is: where is the growth to come from? Even Martin Wolf, the distinguished right-wing commentator for the Financial Times has acknowledged that the only plausible source of increased final demand is export growth, but export growth is in effect blocked off, because almost all EU markets are depressed as they all try to export their way out of crisis at the same time. To cap it all, the likely eventual Greek default could severely depress further any prospect of early EU recovery and therefore of UK export markets in the EU.
I repeat the question: where is the growth to come from?
Mr Meacher
I have not got time, I am afraid.
Incredible as it might seem, the last straw that the Chancellor is clutching at is a huge increase in personal and household borrowing, which is already at more than £1.5 trillion—well above the level of Britain’s entire gross domestic product. Although it was falling at the last election, the OBR is now forecasting that it will reach £2.13 trillion by 2015—half as large again as Britain’s entire GDP. That is an extraordinary admission. The Government’s only way of imposing massive public expenditure cuts is by pumping up a gigantic financial bubble in the private sector, which can only end in another colossal financial crash. I would be the first to admit that that depends on the private sector’s being willing to load up on hugely more debt, but the other side of that coin is that if households save more, as they are very likely to do because they are extremely worried about their prospects, demand is going to plummet and the economy is likely to hit the wall with an almighty crash. I ask again: where is the evidence for this expansionary austerity that we are being told about? It is not in the balance of payments figures, which are getting worse, not better; it is not in the high street, because consumers would need an increase of about 6% in their incomes to compensate for the price rises and tax increases of the past year; and it is not in the business community, where investment has fallen.
The latter point has an important story behind it. In the commercial private sector there is currently a huge net corporate financial surplus that is almost without precedent. Among the banks and the rest of the financial sector, that now amounts to £44 billion, while for the big corporations in the non-finance sector, it is larger still at £67 billion. Together, the corporates are running an unprecedented surplus that is nearly equal to 8% of Britain’s GDP. Still, however, the banks are not lending—they are already well short of their Merlin targets after only a couple of months—and the big companies are not borrowing. Why? It is because they see little prospect of demand for their products and services to justify their investment. That is the problem and it is not resolved by the current strategy. That is exactly the opposite of what they were expected to do by the Chancellor, who predicted that as the public sector was cut back, the private sector would surge forward to fill the gaps.
It is tragic that the historical evidence that expansionary fiscal contraction has never worked has not been learned. It has been tried three times in the past century. It did not work in the huge public expenditure cutbacks of 1921 to 1923—the so-called Geddes axe, which was very similar in size to the current Osborne axe; it did not work in 1931 to 1935 in the great depression; and it appeared to work in the Howe Budget of 1981 only because it was accompanied by a sharp reduction in interest rates and the major US-driven international recovery of the early 1980s, neither of which applies today. What is not just tragic but deeply culpable is that the same approach is being imposed today, not because there is any evidence that it makes economic sense, but because it is really driven by an underlying ideological motive to shrink the state and to maximise the privatisation of the economy. And it is not working and will not work.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). He spoke after my maiden speech, and he is a man whom I respect greatly for his integrity, honesty and the consistency with which he has held his views over the years. However, he has also been consistent in his economic views, and over 30 years he has been consistently wrong—in his judgment of Mrs Thatcher’s economy, John Major’s economy and Tony Blair’s economy. The fact that his views now come into the same alliance as that of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us all that we need to know about where the Opposition’s economic policy has gone.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Will my hon. Friend remind the House about the consequences of the 1981 Budget and what happened at the subsequent general election?
Ben Gummer
I do not know what position my hon. Friend took against the 1981 Budget, but all that I can say is that that Budget, which was opposed by Labour Members, started the rebuilding of the British economy, much as we are doing now.
I was not planning to speak today, but I entered the Members’ Lobby and looked at the Opposition’s motion on the Order Paper, which is entitled, “The economy one year since the Government’s first Budget”. I thought, “That’s brave of them, to pick a fight on this, but I’ll give them a chance.” I read on and thought, “This will be amusing.” The motions says:
“That this House notes that on 22 June 2010”—
there is a preamble, and we agree with that bit, because there was an excellent Budget this time last year—and it continues:
“further notes that over the last six months”.
I thought, “Hang on a minute. I thought we were talking about after a year,” but they have chosen six months for the economic growth figures. Why six months? It is because over a year the economy has grown, has it not? Already, in the terms of their own motion, the Opposition are failing, because they have to pick a six-month figure. Do hon. Members know why they pick that period?
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked earlier about businesses. Her parents run a business in my constituency. She understands businesses. She understands that, with a difficult start-up, some weeks are not as good as others and that things are rocky and choppy. Not many Opposition Members have ever seen a balance sheet or a profit-and-loss account in their lives, and that is why they might not understand what she explained earlier. That is why, after a year, the economy is growing—but after six months, it was flat, because we are having a choppy recovery, as the Chancellor said.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ben Gummer
I have taken one intervention; I will not take any more.
I am afraid that the Opposition are falling down already with their motion, but let us go on to the next phrase:
“in the last month retail sales fell by 1.4 per cent.”
[Interruption.] If hon. Members listen carefully, they might find that their interventions are prefigured. Not content with six months’ worth, the Opposition have to go to the last month, but let us go back to the motion and what has happened over the past year. In the past year, retail sales have grown by 4.5%. I congratulate the Opposition on their motion, as we are seeing growth in the two key figures—GDP and retail sales—that we have considered so far.
The next thing in the Opposition’s motion is manufacturing output, which, it says, “fell by 1.5%” over the last month; but actually, over the year, it has risen by 1.3%.
Alison McGovern
I am going to skate briefly over the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Labour Members never having seen a balance sheet. I hope that he will discuss economic variables and lag times and say whether, in fact, what happened in the previous six months might have been attributable to the last Government and that we need to allow time to feel the impact of this Government’s policies. Will he cover that?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point, but it is not one that she has conveyed to Opposition Front Benchers, because they chose as the subject of the motion, “The economy one year since the Government’s first Budget”. I am merely commenting on that, not on the rather crass detail in the motion. So far, we have growth in manufacturing, growth in retail sales and growth in the economy. Let us go on to the next thing that they are talking about.
The motion refers to
“a welcome recent fall in unemployment”.
The Opposition concede that. It was not just welcome; it was the largest fall in unemployment for 10 years—88,000—and larger than that achieved at any point when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary questioned me a moment ago, was Prime Minister.
Andrew Griffiths
Returning to the point about manufacturing, is my hon. Friend aware that under the premiership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, we saw a sharp—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to another hon. Member by his constituency.
Andrew Griffiths
Does my hon. Friend agree that manufacturing declined more sharply under the previous Government than it did under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher? Under the Labour Government, we saw an unprecedented decline in manufacturing.
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is entirely right. In my constituency manufacturing fell more quickly in the 1970s than it did in the 1980s. The last bit that was left in the 1980s was stolen by Robert Maxwell, a previous Member of Parliament for the Labour party, though happily not in my constituency.
Let us move on and go through the motion, which says that
“the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that future unemployment will be up”
by 200,000. The Opposition Front-Bench team fail to be able to read a fan chart. That is the upper part of the forecast, but there is also a 200,000 dip at the bottom end of the fan chart. The OBR has said that unemployment is performing much as it had predicted. The forecasts are not changing and unemployment is going down more quickly than the OBR estimated in March.
A series of suggestions from the Opposition Front-Bench team follows. I wonder if I can prompt an intervention from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). The announcement on VAT mentioned in the motion was mentioned to her before it was mentioned to the shadow Cabinet or to the London School of Economics. She tuts me away. It is, according to the Financial Times, the biggest change in Opposition economic policy since the general election. I wondered whether the hon. Lady could comment on when it was announced to her colleagues, so we must take it that it was not.
We then come to the gravamen of the motion. It refers to the
“long-term damage to the economy”
caused by the Government’s policies. Let us look at underlying trends, which are probably the best indication of how the economy is performing. The savings ratio is higher now than it was at any point, apart from one quarter, in the whole of the previous Government’s time in office. The investment intention of the private sector from the CBI industrial trend survey is also higher than at any point in the 13 years of the previous Government. It reached that level previously only in the first quarter of 1997. Export orders are at a 15-year high, and CPIY—underlying inflation, excluding tax rises—is within the Bank of England remit.
We know that tax increases are coming through into inflation, and that there was a massive injection of cash into the economy through quantitative easing by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the combination of those and the necessary tax increases to deal with the appalling deficit which is causing the unfortunate inflation figures now, but the underlying figure is at about 2.4% or 2.5%, and I hope that in time it will return to that, as the OBR predicts.
The last part of the increasingly risible motion refers to
“temporarily cutting VAT to 17.5 per cent.”
When VAT was put up in the emergency Budget, I remember hearing from those on the Opposition Front Bench that that was an iniquitous rise that should never happen, but now it is to be temporary. Can the shadow Minister tell us why she is proposing a temporary cut rather than a permanent one, as she was proposing this time last year?
The motion mentions the bank bonus tax, a canard put out constantly by the Opposition. The bank bonus tax raised £2.4 billion on the best estimate, but £2.6 billion has been raised by our bank levy, which will be set every year in this Parliament, unlike the bonus tax which, by the previous Chancellor’s own admission, was a one-off event.
Finally, we come to the two most egregious statements in the entire motion. First, there is the reference to the need for “25,000 affordable homes” from the party that built fewer affordable homes in every single one of its years in office than were built in every single year of the Major and Thatcher Governments—but Labour does not admit to that shocking record in its motion. Secondly, we return to the issue of jobs. The motion calls for the creation of
“100,000 jobs for young people”
just days after we have heard of the greatest fall in youth unemployment in 10 years.
So the Opposition have come to this House with a motion judging the Government on the economy one year after our first Budget, yet they cannot choose one single figure by which to judge the Government’s record, and in the end they put forward a series of disingenuous statements by which their own record would look very poor.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To enable more Members to contribute to the debate, the time limit for speeches is now being reduced to six minutes.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who enriched us by deploying such a rich lexicon in dissecting the motion. Indeed, this debate is, in part, about language. I began my working life as a teacher of English, and although I have moved on from that, I can still identify a good yarn when I read or hear one, and that is what the Conservatives have been spinning since the general election. They have been spinning a good yarn—a seductive fable—but in truth it is a Tory tale of woe, with brief Lib Dem notes in the appendices. Regardless of how seductive and engaging people have at times found this yarn, it is not an accurate account, because the reality is very different.
The truth is that the country is facing difficult times because there has been a global banking crisis that required strong and decisive action to avoid a global catastrophe. That action was partly led by the then Prime Minister of this country. The situation is still challenging for our economy and others across the western world, as we have heard in the debate, but we must tackle the challenge in a sensible way.
In the general election campaign, the people of this country had every opportunity to hear the different arguments about how best to tackle that challenge, and they mostly supported candidates who proposed addressing the deficit in a serious and sensible way by halving it over the lifetime of a Parliament. The electorate voted for more candidates who supported that than Conservative candidates who, quite fairly, proposed a different approach. This is in part a sorry tale, therefore, because there is no mandate for the Government position.
When Labour left office a year or so ago, the economy was starting to grow strongly: inflation had fallen, and unemployment was falling month by month. As a result, in 2009-10 the Government borrowed more than £21 billion less than had been expected. Yet a year ago today, the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech that instead of following Labour’s plan to halve the deficit over four years—the plan that had been backed by the British people through votes cast in ballot boxes only a month earlier—he would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of this Parliament. That was a reckless decision; it was a choice to go too far, too fast, and the country is now facing great difficulties as a result.
In our debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) has highlighted that figures for construction and retail sales have been falling, that the consumer prices index target rate is higher than hoped, and that VAT has stimulated inflationary pressures. We have also heard that we have flat growth and that seasonally adjusted trade figures also remain flat.
The European Commission has just published the full results of a survey that shows a high level of dissatisfaction with the Government’s laissez-faire approach to tackling unemployment. The survey’s 22,560 respondents were asked whether they agreed that the economic crisis means that we should increase public deficits to create jobs. Two third’s of the UK respondents agreed with the statement, which is a much higher proportion than in any other major western country. They agreed that there should be investment in infrastructure. The Government have pulled Building Schools for the Future and various other infrastructure programmes, which has had a devastating impact on the construction industry.
In the community I represent, which is still quite dependent on steel jobs, the collapse in demand for construction has led to Tata Steel’s announcement of 1,500 job losses in its long products business. It is not surprising that Karl-Ulrich Köhler, when he came to Scunthorpe to make that announcement, gave two reasons for the decision: the fall in demand for section steel, both globally and domestically; and the threat of carbon taxes rising in 2013.
The Government’s decisions are having an impact today and for tomorrow on British manufacturing. We need to get behind projects such as the high-speed rail endeavour, which we hope, if it goes ahead, will be built with British steel. The Government have failed to deliver on their promises to invest in the British people. They have brought severe medicine to the country, much severer than was needed. There is real danger that the country will be left in a very difficult situation, after the legacy of an improving economic situation that they were left, which should have been—
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I always enjoy these occasions and think that it was a very good birthday present from the Opposition to allow the Government to defend their record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said, the debate gives us an opportunity to remind the British public not only of the legacy we inherited, but of the positive action we have taken.
I always enjoy the contributions of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), which I find quite jovial occasions, although I was disappointed that he would not allow me to intervene. The only slight challenge about listening to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to live on planet Balls or in la-la land, is that I wake up and realise that I have participated in a horror show. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) seems to be adding to Aesop’s fables with his portrayal of a golden legacy that we apparently inherited. So what do we end up with? A second-choice shadow Chancellor asking for a second chance. Hopefully, the British public will realise that his plan B just means more boom and bust, more borrowing and potential bankruptcy. Frankly, I do not see the British public voting for that again in the near future.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) referred to a plan B and quoted the CEO of Vodafone. Normally Labour Members are not the biggest fans of Vodafone when it comes to aspects of its contribution to the economy. He will probably not be impressed by the conversation I had with the CEO, who criticised the Government for not cutting fast enough or deep enough and said that, by not making quicker progress on that, we would make a rocky road for ourselves.
The right hon. Gentleman used to cite the USA in support of his plan, but we now see the Obama Administration stepping up the pace of deficit reduction, which they need to do.
Thomas Docherty
I suspect that the hon. Lady was not here in May, but I certainly recall President Obama making it absolutely clear that he did not agree with the current Government’s policies on the deficit.
Dr Coffey
Well, perhaps he did not, but he seems to have changed his mind and is stepping up the pace of deficit reduction.
Plan C is the VAT cut that the shadow Chancellor announced, unknown to some of his shadow Cabinet colleagues, it seems. Yet again, it is another unfunded tax cut. I was not a Member the last time that happened, in 2008, but many people will remember that earlier that year the 10p tax rate was abolished, and what was the impact of that? The economy continued to contract, leading CEOs said that £12.5 billion had been wasted on that tax cut, and hon. Members may recall the Federation of Small Businesses survey, in which 97% of its members said that their earnings had not increased.
In spite of all that, the right hon. Gentleman has wheeled out the plan again, and eight times today the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) refused to endorse it. We have been told that we need a credible plan with public and political support, but perhaps the shadow Chancellor needs to start with his Back Benchers, rather than by trying to persuade the British public.
I know brotherly love is a big feature of the Labour party, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will start with his brother, who I understand works for PIMCO, the world’s biggest bond fund, which has publicly stated that the UK has the best combination of fiscal and monetary policies in the G20—and so say all of us. No wonder in a Populus poll last week, only 23% of the population supported the Labour leadership in its desire to control the economy, a reduction of 10% in the past three months.
Instead, the British public have responded to the two parties on the Government side of the House, which just over a year ago came together in the national interest to form a coalition, and which with wide political support have put together a credible plan to restore fiscal sanity. Government Members have demonstrated a proactive attitude in starting to untangle red tape; in incentivising the creation of small businesses and entrepreneurs; in the significant policy of welfare reform, whereby we have been very clear that people will be better off if they work, unless they cannot; in the extra money going into apprenticeships, building on the good work—I recognise—of the former Government; and in funding infrastructure.
I was a little surprised at the contribution of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who seemed to have forgotten the amount of money that the Government are spending on infrastructure. Indeed, we recognise that we need to do so.
Reference has been made to RDAs, but a PricewaterhouseCoopers report last year suggested that generally they have been poor value for money, and despite spending those billions, the prosperity gap has widened.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) referred to life in the ’80s in Liverpool, but I grew up in Liverpool and was there in the ’80s. I am going to do a lame Welsh accent, because it was a Labour council—a Labour council—that fired 30,000 employees to stave off bankruptcy—[Hon. Members: “By taxi”]—by taxi. Those people were understandably fed up with the Labour council leader, and they did not just take the ferry across the Mersey to Birkenhead; they left Liverpool. We have seen that with the reduction in the number of people living there, and in the money that is left, too. Ironically, the port of Felixstowe in my constituency benefited from the situation, but it has been a great shame, because I am very proud of where I grew up.
The Conservatives went in and put in investment.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady cannot mention our home city of Liverpool without acknowledging the previous Government’s role in rebuilding it and in restoring the pride that we take in it. Will she acknowledge their role, because her comments do not paint a true picture?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am very proud of my home city, but I hope that she will also credit Lord Heseltine. We started back in the ’80s, we saw the Albert dock and other aspects of the city transformed, and some of that continued under the previous Government, but investor confidence in the city was knocked by that legacy of the ’80s which was referred to earlier.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood also seemed to use marine terms, trying to suggest something about fancy yachts and the similar. The previous Government, in marine terms, were possibly the equivalent of the Titanic. People took their eye off the ball—holed by an unseen disaster, perhaps—with unintended, tragic consequences. That is the state of the economy which has been left behind, however, with tens of thousands of pounds of debt being loaded on to every child born and on to children not yet born.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) referred to the impact of the Budget last year on mothers and families, but every mother and family I know has to cope with a household budget which means that they have to try to balance the books every month. That is absolutely key.
Dr Coffey
No, I have already given way a couple of times to Opposition Members.
It is absolutely key to ensure that when one has already maxed out the credit card, one cannot not keep spending but has to stop and start paying it back.
Staying with the nautical terms, I recognise that it is not going to be plain sailing ahead, but I can assure members of the British public that Conservative Members will be firmly on watch. We may need to tack and jibe to reach our final destination, but that destination is fiscal sanity, a growing economy, and a prosperous working Britain. That is why I will support the amendment to the motion.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The past 13 months have been framed by Conservative Members talking about deficit denial, but the truth is that what we have gone through is deficit deceit. They have spun a tale that ignores the fact that what we went through when we saw the failure of the big banks was a failure of capitalism in this country. They never mentioned the fact that Lehman Brothers, HSBC, Lloyds and Northern Rock had collapsed. They ignored the fact that we had light-touch regulation, which they had criticised for not being light enough. The situation that we got into was not just about what our party had done—it was supported by the Tories and by the capitalist system.
When the collapse happened, we took tough decisions not to repeat Tory mistakes—not only those of the ’80s and ’90s, but of the 1930s. We refused to accept, and we still do, that unemployment was a price worth paying. The reality is that the Conservatives still believe that and always have believed it. They ignored the fact that the Labour Government were praised at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh and by the OECD for the work that we did. In fact, the OECD said that the Labour Government had led the world and prevented a recession from becoming a depression.
The Tories must have been happy, because all they wanted to do was stand back and let the market take the course. We have seen them do that in the past. They did it in the 1930s when my father was 14 years old and was sent to work in the coal mines—one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. One thousand men a year were being killed in British coal mines—one every six hours—and someone was injured every two minutes. They went home to houses that were not fit to live in. They had poverty wages, desperate living conditions at home and at work, and no respite. It took a world war and a Labour Government to address those appalling conditions.
The Tories have a long memory, and when they got back into power in the 1980s they went back to the same programme that they had in the 1930s. Under the banner they are flying today—“There is no alternative”—they attacked working people and closed mines, steelworks and shipyards. They used the same language when they outsourced hundreds of thousands of workers from councils, hospitals and universities. They cut their terms and conditions, undermined their security and decimated the services they delivered. Does that sound familiar? Yes, because they are doing it again today, and the Liberal Democrats—those who are here—are backing them up.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman’s party’s solution is to borrow more money. From whom is it going to borrow it and how much interest is it going to pay?
Mr Anderson
My party’s policy is not to borrow more money—it is to increase taxes on bankers and make those people pay.
Mr Anderson
Sit down and shut up.
The Tories have made deliberate decisions and claimed that there are no alternatives. When my party came back into government in 1997, the people from where I came from said they wanted us to put right the attacks that had happened in the 1980s. They said, “We’re sick of living in second-class conditions.” That is why I am proud, and my party is proud, of what we did.
Mr Anderson
I was not going to discuss the Liberal Democrats because they are obviously not relevant to this country any more. I thought that perhaps they were outside unveiling a new placard about the bombshell or signing a few pledges; obviously, they are too busy to come in here.
Mr Anderson
I am not going any further.
I am proud of what we did. We put record investment into the national health service. We had the Decent Homes programme, which, in my local council area, provided £360 million to put right homes that were desperately in need of it. There was a huge improvement in school results. We had more doctors, nurses and police on the beat. We had the national minimum wage, peace in Northern Ireland, new schools and hospitals, better health outcomes, and record numbers at university and in work. We also had—Conservative Members have not mentioned this while attacking the economic progress of our Government—a record period of growth over more than 11 years before we were hit by the global crisis.
What is certain is that the Conservatives and their yellow human shields, the Liberal Democrats, will never learn from history. They want to ignore the history of ordinary men and women. Indeed, when the Chancellor was asked in 2007 about his memories of the miners’ strike, he said:
“I’m trying to see if I can honestly remember.”
What we have is a party that selectively forgets the past, including the suffering and misery of a generation of people whose only crime was to want to live in security, bring their kids up well, have a good life and go to work. The Conservatives refuse to remember those things. They are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, and ordinary people will pay for those mistakes.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I want to start by putting an end to the myth that the Government have no mandate for the action they have taken. [Interruption.] Already I can hear somebody saying from a sedentary position that there is no mandate. Let us look at the figures. I do not think anybody in the House would deny how unpopular the Conservative Government of 1997 were. That led to the Labour landslide. I therefore wonder how the Labour party managed to take an even lower share of the vote in 2010 than the Conservative party took in 1997.
We went into the last general election saying that we would get the budget and the deficit under control, and that we would introduce welfare reform. Everybody heard that message, not least because the Labour party kept delivering leaflets to everybody’s houses saying that we were going to do those things.
Sheila Gilmore
I do not dispute that the Conservative party went into the election with those things in its manifesto. The point is that the Conservative party did not secure a majority and its coalition partner went to the electorate with a completely different prospectus.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am not sure that I quite understand the hon. Lady’s point.
John Hemming
The hon. Lady claims that the Liberal Democrats fought the election on the basis of not dealing with the deficit. We fought it on dealing with the deficit and that is what we are doing.
Alec Shelbrooke
Absolutely. It is a salutary lesson in the history of British politics that it has taken two parties to come together to deal with the mess that that lot left behind.
Labour Members say that there is no mandate, but nobody in this country was in any doubt about what the Conservative party would do in government, and they voted for us. [Interruption.] I have already given way twice and I will not give way again because I have only six minutes. The public voted for the Conservative party in big numbers. The only reason that it did not end up with a majority was the in-built advantage to the Labour party. Even with that, Labour could not win the election.
Labour Members have learned nothing from their election defeat a year ago. As far as they are concerned, there was nothing wrong with the economy and they knew how to sort things out. They think that the only reason they are in opposition is because people accidentally voted Conservative, and that we are in government only because of the Liberal Democrats. Well, I point out that we have a majority of 83 in this House. As I said, two of the main parties have come together to deal with the mess left by the Labour party. When I was campaigning up and down the country, that is what the British public wanted. They wanted a coalition Government and they got a coalition Government because this mess needed to be sorted out. I think that we should be proud of our record over the past year: job creation in the private sector—up; export growth—up; manufacturing growth—up; the largest fall in unemployment for more than 10 years; 50,000 apprenticeships; 100,000 work experience places; and millions invested.
What is Labour’s plan? From what we can work out, it is to cut taxes and carry on borrowing. What would be the consequences of that? If we had carried on borrowing money at the rate at which it was being borrowed, the people lending us the money would have thought, “Will they be able to pay it back?” They would have said, “Here, have some money, but I’m charging a higher interest rate.” This country faced the danger of unfettered borrowing, which would have meant higher interest rates in the gilt markets and everywhere else. That would have worked through to people’s mortgages. We have spent the last 12 years on interest rates of about 3% to 4%, which were seen as historically low. If the interest rate went back to 3% or 4% tomorrow, it would cause real damage to the people of this country, who for almost 18 months have been on an interest rate of 0.5%. A responsible Government must ensure that frivolous spending and unfettered borrowing do not end up with the people about whom the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) just spoke suffering the consequences of not being able to borrow, not being able to afford their mortgages and not being able to live within their means.
It was interesting that the shadow Chancellor had clearly spent a long time looking into details about Government Back Benchers whom he though might intervene on him, instead of looking into a credible policy. He picked out statements from Government Members to paint the picture that we were all demanding higher spending. Of course, the reason why he thinks that is that the Opposition have no concept of governing for the long term. They do not understand that when my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) talks about the policies that he wants to have in his constituency, he is talking about the long term. I am sure my hon. Friend will expand on that when he speaks.
I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, having a neighbouring constituency to mine, had a few choice phrases ready for me. I have made no secret of the fact that I would like a better rail infrastructure in my city. However, I have always made it quite clear that my aspirations are for the long term and do not have to be achieved tomorrow. We do not have to borrow trillions of pounds to put them in place now, but such infrastructure could be built up in the next decade or even two.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by reducing the rate of interest and the amount of interest paid, in the long term we will be able to spend more on infrastructure than the Opposition would?
Alec Shelbrooke
Absolutely, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I have said in the House before that when we tell people that we have a deficit of £1 trillion that will go up to £1.4 trillion, they look at us blankly and think, “What’s a trillion?” It is such a huge number. However, when we tell them that every day of every year we are giving £120 million to foreign countries—that is the money that we borrow—they recognise the mess we are in. They recognise that we cannot give schools the improvement that they need, because of the absolute shambles of the private finance initiative projects in Building Schools for the Future. Money was wasted once again on bureaucracy.
Labour Members have banged on about regional development agencies all afternoon, but they were a great way to spend bureaucratic money. The RDAs very proudly said that they had created x number of jobs, but they did not create those jobs, the private sector did. The jobs that they created were paid for out of the public purse. Where did that money come from? From the wealth creators in this country. Everybody understands that if I want to spend £1.25 and I have only £1 in my pocket, I cannot afford to do so. We understood that idea, and the country understood it, which is why Labour Members sit on the Opposition Benches and we sit on the Government Benches.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I think the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) forgets that the reason he sits on the Government Benches is that the Liberal Democrats changed their policies and decided to let him sit over there.
Toby Perkins
It is so good to see a Liberal Democrat turn up that I have to let him in. It will encourage him to come again.
John Hemming
I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have not changed our policies. He is asking for more money to be borrowed. Where would it be borrowed from, and what would the interest rate be?
Toby Perkins
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman assumes what I am going to say already. I am only three seconds into my speech. I will come to that point.
The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said that he was proud of the Government’s record so far. I would not like to be here when he is ashamed. Government Members would like this debate to be about whether we need to reduce the deficit, but that is not what it is about at all. Everyone recognises that we need to do that, and that in 2008, prior to the onset of the biggest global economic crisis in history, we had a lower deficit as a ratio of GDP than in 1997 when we came into power. It was only the scale of the economic crisis that forced the Labour Government to spend money to stop the awful situation that ordinary people were finding themselves in, with jobs being lost and the danger of houses being repossessed. We are proud of the decisions that we made at the time, which were supported by the IMF. It said strongly that this country, under the Labour Government, showed leadership when the rest of the world did not know what to do in the face of a terrible global economic crisis.
Toby Perkins
Because the hon. Gentleman was so generous to me, I will allow him to intervene.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I believe in debate—it is good that interventions are taken. If the problem was global, why was our deficit to GDP ratio four times higher than that of the Federal Republic of Germany?
Toby Perkins
Each country was in a different situation. Our ratio was much lower than Japan’s. There are a number of reasons why the German economy was different from ours. We over-relied on financial services and our manufacturing sector was reduced. We had high increases in housing prices. I do not remember any point in the past 13 years when Conservatives jumped up and down saying that they wanted the Government to engineer a house price crash.
Toby Perkins
I think I have given way enough. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Lady has turned up for the debate, but I shall carry on.
As someone who for the five years prior to coming to this place ran a business that relied on people having money in their pockets to buy non-essential items, I know very well how important it is that decisions on our economy are balanced between the need to support growth and the need to reduce the nation’s borrowing. However, we are debating the economy today because since the Chancellor’s Budget a year ago, the OBR’s initial predictions get worse at every stage. The OBR now predicts £46 billion more borrowing than it predicted a year ago. The Government have discovered that the policies that they are pursuing are not working, so why do they not listen to the advice, change course and ensure that we protect not only the growth that we need in our economy to reduce the budget deficit, but the people on the ground in our constituencies—that includes the constituencies of Conservative Members—who are struggling to get by, whose houses are being repossessed? Repossessions are increasing.
Toby Perkins
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I am grateful for the fact that he has turned up, but I do not want to give him any further encouragement.
The scale of the deterioration in the OBR’s forecasts is stark. The OBR, which was set up to provide an independent view of the state of Government finances, has downgraded its forecasts three times. The Chancellor told us of all the steps he is taking to stimulate growth, but even taking those into account, the forecast is that public sector net borrowing will increase by £46 billion over the next five years, which demonstrates the failure of those policies.
The Chancellor might be failing to get our economy growing, but the same cannot be said of unemployment. Government Members are celebrating, as we all do, the fact that unemployment is down in the last month, but unemployment over the course of the Conservative-Lib Dem Government will go up. Youth unemployment is up. The OBR forecast is that unemployment will rise––[Interruption.] Going forward, the OBR is now predicting that in every year over the next five years unemployment will be higher than in its prediction of a year ago.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The OBR says that unemployment will peak at the end of this year and the beginning of next year, and that it will fall in every successive year.
Toby Perkins
The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. The OBR suggests that unemployment will be higher in every one of the next five years than it suggested in its predictions a year ago. That is what I said.
Alongside the increase in unemployment, we are seeing increases in inflation and interest rates. We have been here before: growth stagnating; unemployment rising; businesses failing; and inflation, interest rates and house repossessions increasing. Who was the economic genius who advised the Chancellor the last time a Tory Government led Britain down that road? The current Prime Minister. Should we be surprised?
The Prime Minister has a pedigree as an economic failure, but what about the Chancellor? The Chancellor is the master of hindsight. This was the man who told us that bank regulations were too stringent when Labour was in power. This was the man who, up until 2008, told us that the Conservative party supported Labour’s spending plans, but who now claims that Labour overspent for 10 years. We told him that he was cutting too far and too fast, but he then delivered a damp-squib Budget for growth because we had been right in the first place. He is the man who will soon gain huge dividends because of Labour’s sensible decision to nationalise Northern Rock at a time when he was still a rabbit staring into the headlights of an economic crisis that shook all his assumptions about the sanctity of the markets.
When the IMF was still praising Britain following Labour’s response to the international crisis, the now Chancellor was encouraging us to follow Ireland’s example of massive cuts at the heart of a recession. He is fond of his international comparators, so let me give him some. When he was supporting our economic plans, Britain’s net public spending as a proportion of GDP was 6% lower than when Labour came to power. We have seen an unprecedented clean-up of the disgraceful state in which the previous Conservative Government left our public services. At that time, our debt, as a proportion of GDP, was the second lowest in the G7. Now the growth that he promised to return Britain to lags behind every single country in Europe except for the absolute backmarkers.
People in business, whether in plumbing or double-glazing or the sports goods industry, as I was, need their customers to have money and confidence, but under this Government the amount of money in people’s pockets has shrunk, the cost of goods has risen because of the VAT increase, and people have no confidence that the economy is going to grow and so are not spending money. That is why we are not seeing growth in our economy. We all want the deficit shrunk, but that will happen only if we get growth back into the economy now.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). He, I and all of us in the House agree that the goal now is to increase growth in the country. The challenges are, first, the revisionist history we have heard today, and secondly the road through which we achieve that growth.
Today’s debate started with the shadow Chancellor talking about the lessons of history and highlighting the need for an economic plan that works. Let me begin with a quick analysis of recent history, because we know that those who do not learn from their errors and from history are destined only to repeat them. The shadow Chancellor was the man who, with his then boss, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had the clear economic goal of abolishing boom and bust. Thirteen years later and after the worst bust of all time, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), as the Chancellor mentioned today, rightly came to the conclusion that it was wrong ever to pretend in a capitalist country that anyone could abolish the economic cycle.
It was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not arrive at that conclusion many years earlier, but he has learned an important lesson from recent history. Have the shadow Chancellor and other Labour Members done the same? Have they accepted that the heart of the shadow Chancellor’s last great plan was rotten to the core, was mission impossible, and so ended inevitably in tears? I do not think that Labour Members understand that they and their economic spokesmen will simply not be credible until they accept that key fact.
Alison McGovern
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the previous Government’s economic policy over a decade lacked credibility, why have the current Government accepted, though amended, the golden rule on investment over the economic cycle?
Richard Graham
First, the hon. Lady is inaccurate, and secondly no Government Member believes that we can abolish boom and bust.
The details of the shadow Chancellor’s plan were no more successful than his goal. The golden rule on Government spending to which the hon. Lady referred was continually fudged under the previous Government, most spectacularly through the £300 billion of off-balance sheet financing—private finance initiatives—which was almost as bad as anything done by the investment banks. Does the shadow Chancellor accept the accusation by the right hon. Member for South Shields that this was a fundamentally dishonest way of measuring the golden rule? Even the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has recognised that the tripartite system of regulating finance did not work. Does the shadow Chancellor accept that too?
These dry details, on things such as PFI and the tripartite system of regulation, do not resonate with our constituents, but their consequences will—the hospitals that have to cut services to patients because of the interest being paid on their PFI financing, and banks not lending enough to individuals and businesses in our constituencies because of bad decision making by themselves, inept regulation and inadequate Government oversight. The consequences of living beyond our means are the essential link between the shadow Chancellor’s policies, and our inheritance and this Government’s efforts to forge a better economic future.
We come to the crucial part of today’s motion: how are we doing, one year on? Opposition Members have piled in like a choir singing the hymn “Abide With Me”—“Gloom and despair in all around I see”. They all seem to have enormous confidence that the economy is failing, that the coalition will not plan, and that the coalition plan would not and could not work anyway, leaving them to talk down our country and their own constituencies. I wonder whether any of them are doing anything to help. Where were they, for example, when I led a debate on apprenticeships and small businesses two weeks ago? Not a single Opposition Member was there. We all need to do our bit to support business growth in our constituencies. We know today that not everything is perfect, but the evidence suggests the following facts. Unemployment is down slightly on a year ago. The savings ratio has improved and business growth—
Thomas Docherty
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify whether I could find out from Hansard whether a Member had actually turned up for their own debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is certainly something that you could find out from Hansard, but it is not something that you can find out from me.
Richard Graham
I am glad to see that Opposition Members are focused on the topic of today’s debate.
As I was saying, the manufacturing recovery has softened slightly over the last month or two, but it is still strongly up on where it was a year ago. There is a lot to be done, but I would like now to highlight a few things that this Government have done in my constituency, and on which I am working with my constituents.
Richard Graham
No, we have had enough of the hon. Lady’s discussion of the past.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to redouble the Swindon-to-Kemble line, which will be an important infrastructure improvement for our railways. I welcome the transfer of assets from the former regional development agency to our city, which will make a difference to our regeneration. I also welcome the funding that the Secretary of State for Education has given for a new-build Gloucester academy, which will help some of our young in their education. I am proud to have worked with my constituents to organise the Gloucestershire apprenticeship fair, the women for engineering seminar and, last week, the Barton jobs fair, alongside Linking Communities and Black South West Network, from which some of our young unemployed black and minority ethnic constituents have found new jobs. There are jobs available if only we can help our constituents to find them. All of us in this fragile situation have options.
Richard Graham
All of us including the hon. Lady. We can do nothing, we can say, “It won’t work,” and we can let our constituents down; or, we can get stuck in and work with our businesses to help our constituents back into work. These things have other fruits as well, such as the prizes that I gave at the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust half an hour ago to those companies that are supporting environmental good causes.
I agree that we need to do more to boost growth. I have been asking the Government to do more to help small businesses take up apprenticeships. I believe that the return of business rates to councils will incentivise them to drive up support for our businesses. I believe strongly in enterprise zones, and I hope that the Government will look carefully at the enterprise zone for my constituency.
I also believe that the Treasury is correct to sort out the banks and manage the risks to the taxpayer. However, today’s Opposition plan is not a plan at all; it is simply an unfunded, undiscussed and unsupported VAT cut. It would simply increase spending, push up debt and lead to higher interest rates, with more to be paid every month on mortgages by our constituents. It is not so much jam tomorrow as enormous pain tomorrow and for many years, which is why I will have no hesitation in rejecting the motion.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), whose constituency always brings back happy memories for me—we like to visit friends there.
One thing that I have noticed in this debate is that there has been a lot of rewriting of history on the Government Benches. Straight away, all we have heard is, “Labour got it wrong in 13 years of government.” Well, if Labour got it wrong, why were those who are now on the Government Benches so quiet? We did not hear a word. We did not hear them say anything. In fact, in September 2007, a month before Northern Rock went down the plughole, the then shadow Chancellor said, “We’re going to follow Labour’s spending commitments for the next few years.”
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but the conclusion that Labour got it wrong was demonstrated 12 months ago in the last general election.
Chris Evans
Why did I bother giving way? That is another complacent attitude.
When the Government talk about deficit denial, they miss the point completely. There seem to be two theories. If we follow the Chancellor’s logic, cutting the deficit by £112 billion will encourage the private sector to create jobs. The private sector is going to come to the rescue and all those people who worked in the public sector will get jobs in the private sector. Wonderful—if it works. The other theory is that the Chancellor’s taking £112 billion out of the economy is doing nothing for consumer confidence. When I talk to the shopkeepers on the high street in Blackwood, they say, “The cuts haven’t even bitten yet, Mr Evans, but we are already feeling the pinch.” I am worried about that.
We talk about short-termism, and there seems to be no realisation that the policies to cut the deficit that we put in place today will have ramifications down the generations. There has been a lot of talk about the ’80s. I know that Conservative Members like to worship at the altar of Baroness Thatcher, but when I say that name to anyone in the valleys, they think of two things: fear and hurt. We have had problems with Scottish Power putting its prices up, affecting the most vulnerable in society, but we could do absolutely nothing about it because everything was sold for short-term gain. In 1992, I remember talking to a friend down the pub, and he was in tears. He had gone for a job as a grass cutter and when I asked him what was wrong, he told me that he had not got the job because there had been 60 applicants. “I’m not good enough to cut grass”, he said.
Now, those people have children of their own, and they are worried, too. Figures released in June show that one third of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency are young people under the age of 24, and I am seriously worried that we are going to have another lost generation. People talk about all this anger against the Labour party, but the only anger I have heard is against the banks. Privately, those on the Government Benches will admit that it was the bankers who did it, but for reasons of political point scoring and advantage, they would rather say that it was the Labour Government who did it—[Interruption.] That is the truth.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Tony Blair said in his memoirs that it was the Labour Government who did it?
Chris Evans
No, he did not. This debate would be far more honest if we said that it was the banks. This is like the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. The banking sector is too large. We have too many large banks. I welcome some of what the Chancellor has said about this—he said that there needs to be ring-fencing between the banks’ retail and investment operations—but if we do not break those banks up and just one of the big six goes under, the economy will be back in trouble. However, we have sent the banks a message that we would send to no other business. We have said to them, “What you’re doing is okay. However you run your businesses, we will bail you out.”
Matthew Hancock
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman trying to blame everything on the banks. The question is, who designed the regulation of the banks?
Chris Evans
We have heard about the FSA, and we have admitted that that did not work, but before that, there was self-regulation. There was no attempt to tie them down, and there is still no such attempt. When the Minister responds to the debate, we need to hear from her what the future of the banks will be. We need to know that.
This is the problem that I have with the entire debate. People say, “It was the Labour Government overspending”, but faced with the same problem of the banks going under, what would the present Chancellor have done? He would have done one of two things. Since his road to Damascus experience, he wants to cut everything, and following that logic, he would have done nothing. The economy would have gone under, and everyone with a mortgage would have been written off. Alternatively, bearing in mind his mates in the City, I suspect that he would have bailed the banks out just like we did. He would have been faced with a deficit, just like we were. We never hear anything about the future of those banks from Members on the Government Benches.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Conservative Members seem to forget what the Prime Minister said. In speech to the CBI, he said that the Government were sticking to Labour’s spending totals. Just weeks before the collapse of Northern Rock and for several months after it, he said to the Institute of Directors that if it wanted lower taxation and less regulation, he would—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has got the point.
Chris Evans
I thank my hon. Friend. After the debacle of the intervention by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), she proves that we have some sensible voices in Wales.
Let me comment on the blasé attitude that these policies are going to work. That is what Government Members say, but what if they do not? I suspect the Chancellor would say, “Not my fault, guv. It was the snow.” It could be hailstones next time or perhaps it will even be too sunny. I imagine that his plan B is quantitative easing. It is all very well printing money, but the key to it is spending. We have to prove to people—[Interruption.] I mean consumer spending—we will speak about the other issue tomorrow. We need to give people the confidence to spend in our shops and ensure that people are in jobs.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
This is not particularly my field, but when the hon. Gentleman says that the key to it is spending, I have to ask “With what?”, as there is nothing left.
Chris Evans
That is just a PR question. As I say, consumer spending is about giving people the confidence to spend their wages in the high streets so that shops can thrive. That is what it is about: consumer confidence is down. I support the motion. Let us cut VAT and bring a bit of confidence to the high street. Let us get Britain back on track.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a real privilege and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who has spoken quite brilliantly. I cannot understand why he has not caught the eye of the Leader of the Opposition before now. He richly deserves to do so, particularly after delivering such a fine speech as we have heard a few moments ago.
I shall now deal with the motion. This is a case of fantasy economics. It advocates the idea of building 25,000 affordable houses and creating 100,000 jobs for young people from a bank bonus tax, which raises less money than the Government’s own banking levy. There is a double-counting issue there, which causes me substantial concern, added to which the Opposition voted against £800 million being raised from tax avoiders. Yet again, Labour Members talk about all these wonderful things that people want, because they want to seem populist, while in reality supporting the very rich. The people on whose side we need to be are the grafters and hard-working people; we should ensure that they get better jobs.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. To clarify the issue, the vote on the Finance Bill happened as a result of hundreds of amendments being tabled with almost no notice. The shadow Minister responsible said that we supported the intent behind the measure, but we wanted the Government to bring it back and review it. That is all on the record. The hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House in that manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. An hon. Member has been accused of misleading the House. I assume that the hon. Lady meant unintentionally misleading it. She should withdraw that comment.
Charlie Elphicke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the U-turn she has announced.
When I intervened on the shadow Chancellor, he attacked me for opposing the weakening of our border controls. The previous Government were not well known for being strong on border security or on immigration controls, yet he criticised me for standing up and defending my constituency. Just as the motion before the House is fantasy economics, it was the shadow Chancellor’s fantasy that this Government cut our border controls. It was the previous Government who cut our border controls, such was the commitment of the previous Prime Minister to keeping our borders safe. He had the grand plan of selling off our English borders at Dover in a privatisation, so much did he care about England. In many ways, I wish that he were in the Chamber more often, rather than hidden away in Portcullis House, so that we could set forth to him our concerns about the policies he pursued. The recession and misery that have been brought upon people up and down the land by his serial mismanagement of the nation’s finances are nothing short of a disgrace.
The Labour party has gone from government to opposition, but has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. It has proposed a £13 billion unfunded VAT cut—populist but unrealistic. It has made £10 billion of welfare reform spending commitments—nice for the base of people in dependency culture, but unrealistic and unaffordable. We need to ensure that work pays.
Charlie Elphicke
No.
We already have a situation in which our debt interest costs us £49 billion a year. We cannot afford to carry on like this. We need to get the nation’s books back into balance, and the country back under control. The Government are doing exactly that.
Let us look at the detail of the Opposition’s motion. It refers to 25,000 new affordable homes, but the reality is that in the five years of the previous Conservative Government, 34,786 affordable housing units were built on average each year, compared with 24,560 under the last Labour Government. That is a 30% fall in the amount of affordable housing built. The Labour party should not be proud of such a record, and no one reading the motion before the House can have any trust in the Labour party on the issue. The motion refers to jobs, which Labour destroyed during the latter part of their period in office.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is fond of statistics, so is he not concerned that while in 2010 there were 3.9 jobseekers for every vacancy in his constituency, that has risen to 8.1? What does he have to say to that?
Charlie Elphicke
Employment has gone up in my constituency, and unemployment has been falling, which is welcome. We are going in the right direction: across the nation, there are 520,000 new private sector jobs, while public sector employment has fallen by 143,000, so we see a net rise. The most recently announced figures show unemployment falling sharply by 88,000.
Charlie Elphicke
No. Time is pressing, and I need to allow time for the wind-ups.
Youth unemployment has also started to move strongly— although perhaps not as strongly as wider unemployment —in the right direction. Surely the House must welcome that. Manufacturing output is also moving more in the right direction, after being halved in the Labour years, and now being about 11% of our economy. I hope that the economy will rebalance under this Government so that we are less dependent on banks and fat cats—for party donations, frankly—on handing out knighthoods and on bonuses, and more dependent on much more productive service and manufacturing industries. We need less of financial services and housing, and more of making things, producing things, servicing things, and—yes—education.
The narrative of what this Government are doing is to ensure that our economy is stronger, that our work force are more incentivised to work by making work pay through universal credit, and that they are not only incentivised to work but given the skills to work under the Government’s skills and education agenda. We can have a country that is more productive, where more people want to be in employment, where we do not suck in people from overseas to do the jobs, and where we ensure that our countrymen are encouraged to get into work, do their part, fulfil their potential and have more of a sense of dignity, happiness and well-being. That will allow us to build a Britain that is fit for this decade, and it will ensure that we steam ahead, further ahead, of our European colleagues, and do well. The Government are working on that, and deficit reduction is part of it, but the growth, rebalancing, welfare reform and skills and education agendas are parts of the narrative that add up to a much stronger, much more vibrant economy—a much more exciting Britain-to-be where people will be able to benefit from much more success, much more money and much more good fortune, built on a solid foundation for the long term.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the parliamentary soul from Dover hoped that the Back-Bench speeches would end at half past six, and I am sorry to disappoint him. It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in such an important debate, which draws a line under the time when the Conservatives were playing their cracked record which consisted of two false messages: that the deficit had been caused by Labour, and that the only way to sort it out was to clear it all in four years and in one way, by destroying jobs and services and punishing the benefits that go to the weakest in society.
Both those messages are false. The reality is that the last Labour Government were very successful economically. We created 2 million more jobs, and the tax from those jobs has funded much bigger health and education services and more opportunity throughout Britain. The deficit was the price paid to avoid a depression sparked by the bankers. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly show that two thirds of the deficit was the banking crisis, while the remaining third, yes, was excess investment over income, which was investment in the future. A fiscal stimulus, generated by the previous Prime Minister and supported by Obama and the world community, was required to keep the banks going and to keep growth moving. In the latter months of the previous Administration we saw growth rising, but now we have seen it stagnating.
The choice now is whether to halve the deficit in four years, as Labour intended—the European Community agreed with that, and, as we heard, the Chancellor signed up to it, although he was embarrassed when that was pointed out earlier in the debate—or whether to go at it and get rid of it all in just four years, even though it is three times the level it was planned to be. Is that sensible for growth? No. The second choice is how we do it. Should we focus solely on cuts in benefits, jobs and services, or should we adopt a balanced approach that focuses primarily on economic growth but also ensures that the bankers pay their fair share and involves savings, yes, but shallower savings over time. For example, the 8% difference between 20% and 12% represents the difference between getting rid of front-line police and not getting rid of them.
Those are the choices that face us. What does the evidence show? It shows that a year ago the deficit was £21 billion less than had been forecast in the pre-Budget report. Why? Because economic growth was faster. Now it is £6 billion higher than forecast. Why? Because the growth is lower than forecast.
Claire Perry
The facts also show that interest rates, and particularly the spread over German interest rates—the risk in the British economy—has dropped by 80% since the election, and that the pound has risen by 9%. There is lots of confidence in the British economy that the hon. Gentleman is not referencing.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Lady will know that long-term interest rates hit an all-time low shortly after we made the Bank of England independent. We experienced the biggest period of ongoing growth ever seen under the Labour Government, despite a number of crises in the world economy. Now the world economy is growing healthily, but in Britain we are stagnating. We have seen no net growth for the last six months. The evidence shows that there was growth and deficit reduction under Labour, and that we are now at a standstill.
Geraint Davies
No, I will not.
In March, the forecasts for growth over the next five years were increased by £46 billion, nearly £1,000 per person, which is a complete disaster. Obviously Government Members have commented on the IMF, saying “The IMF really loves us,” but they should put themselves in the position of the IMF. While it is concerned about a prolonged period of growth stagnation and is suggesting that there may be a case for temporary tax cuts such as in VAT, its focus is naturally on ensuring that Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain implement structural changes to keep them on track. They are in danger of kicking the euro out of bed, so the last thing the IMF is going to do is get involved in a debate about the rate of change, in terms of deficit reduction, and the balance between cuts and growth, which we are here to determine. That is the debate we are having today.
Finally, let me say one thing about the future economic strategy being considered by the Tories—whether to allow private sector entrepreneurs into public sector service delivery. On that, I would say that the reason why the Germans are so successful is that the focus of their entrepreneurial activity is on export-driven growth. If we suck all our small business capability into delivering cheaper and worse public services, we will be poorer for it.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about Germany and the involvement of the private sector. How can he reconcile that with the fact that the private sector plays a larger part in the German health system than does the public sector?
Geraint Davies
The situation there is that the Germans are very focused on ensuring that their economy is focused on the growth of the developing economies of China and India. Obviously, there is a difference in the complexion of the German health service. The real focus is on generating export-driven growth, and that is what has happened.
Geraint Davies
No, I will not.
Let me give an example. Every business in Germany is tied into a chamber of commerce, and every chamber of commerce is required to provide tailor-made apprenticeships and training to focus on industrial growth. We do not have that. There is a lot to learn, and we should go out and learn it. We should focus on growth and stop making these ridiculous cuts.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
In the very short time available, I want to focus on three brief points. First, we have a lot of discussion about who is rewriting what history, and we can all accuse each other, but what we need are the facts about what happened in the crash that caused the deficit. We also need the Government to answer some questions about what comes next. The liquidity crisis of 2008-09 was built on a sub-prime bubble in America and Europe and we must never allow that situation to happen again. That is why I asked the Chancellor earlier to explain a bit more about his banking reforms. He declined to do so, but I am sure that he will in due course. It is highly important that we get financial regulation correct; that is why we built the tripartite system, with an independent Bank of England and an independent regulator separate from Government.
The question is: how do we make sure that we have the right powers of oversight? How do we ensure that we have Government regulators who understand as much and more about the very complicated financial services sector that we have in a modern economy and who are able to have proper oversight? The responsibility for developing that system now rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team, and I trust that he will say some more about how we are going to do that, so that we can offer proper scrutiny. The Government have a political agenda in blaming the deficit on overspending, but the Chancellor has again failed to answer why he supported that spending in 2007. However, we must not let that political agenda cloud the important decisions that we now have to make about financial regulation.
Secondly, on growth, let me say briefly that although we can ask questions about whether the current growth, stumbling and choppy though it is, is good enough, and whether there is a decent enough comparison with the post-1992 growth, I am also interested in inclusive growth. That is why I have asked Ministers to focus on the UK Trade & Investment strategy and whether there is really enough emphasis on regional balances, manufacturing and other sectors rather than just on getting UKTI to stand up for exports in existing successful sectors. It has to focus on the sectors that will help us to rebalance the economy and on making sure that jobs are brought to places where there are not enough. We need true, inclusive growth in this country.
Finally, on employment, in 2010 in my constituency there was a ratio of five people seeking a job to every vacancy at the jobcentre, but now there are eight jobseekers for every vacancy. That is a very worrying statistic that we must watch. There simply are not enough job vacancies to enable the Work programme to do its job in getting people back to work, and we have really to focus on that. I am incredibly worried about youth unemployment, especially as the Government have already told me that they expect young people’s unemployment to fall by less than one percentage point by 2015. I say to them that surely to goodness we can do better than that.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We have had an interesting debate. On this very day a year ago, the Chancellor came to the House to announce what he and his spin doctors from Tory central office characterised for reasons of base propaganda as his unavoidable Budget. In reality, they and he knew that it was nothing of the kind. He used such misleading language because he wanted to disguise the central feature of his purpose that day. His aim was to create the image of a Chancellor with little option, as he fought to defend the country from the attentions of the bond vigilantes, stalking the world’s treasuries, looking for countries to kill.
In fact, the reality was very different. The Chancellor deliberately talked up the dangers in the bond markets by irresponsibly claiming that Britain had been on the brink of bankruptcy. He knew then, and he knows now, that it was all overblown rhetoric designed to disguise the fact that his Budget was actually a political choice made by the Conservative-led Government and their Liberal Democrat human shield, and it was an extreme choice. At a time when the economic recovery had not been locked in, he made a political choice to embark on a programme of tax increases and spending cuts greater than any which had ever been tried in Britain’s peacetime history.
Ms Eagle
No, I will not give way.
The Chancellor’s choice to cut further and faster than was economically necessary ensured that the UK plan to deal with the deficit went from one that was in line with the plans of other G20 countries to one that was far more extreme than anything undertaken in any other advanced economy. In other words, it was a reckless and risky experiment with our economic future.
Ms Eagle
No.
The Chancellor’s choice meant breaking promises that he made before the general election by scrapping the future jobs fund, cutting tax credits for people on incomes under £50,000 and increasing VAT to 20%. For the hapless Liberal Democrats, his choice meant that they had to do the exact opposite of what they had promised in their election manifesto. Before the election, they promised a £3.1 billion stimulus package; just after it, they went along with a £6.2 billion cut. They campaigned for an end to tuition fees and then trebled them. They warned about a VAT bombshell and then voted for it.
Mr Speaker
Order. Government Back Benchers must not engage in rhetorical stalking. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way, so the position is clear.
Ms Eagle
The Chancellor’s choice meant that only Ireland and Iceland have been expected to deliver more austerity measures. The result has been that only Greece, Ireland and Denmark have grown less fast than the UK has managed in the past year. Back then, in what he so theatrically described as his emergency Budget, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that
“we are all in this together”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
Well, we do not hear that phrase cross his lips quite so often these days. True, that ludicrous claim was blown apart the day after the Budget by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but a year on, even the Chancellor seems to have given up on it. Perhaps it has been consigned to the dustbin of history, along with his pre-election pledge to ensure that no one working for a nationalised bank would take home a bonus of more than £2,000. Perhaps it has joined the Government’s promise that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS.
The Chancellor also promised fairness, but a year ago today, he delivered a budget that hits women and children first and hardest, and he was cheered to the rafters by both Government parties in scenes of sadistic jubilation at the cuts that I, for one, and many of our constituents will remember for many years to come.
One year on, the Chancellor’s Budget of extreme austerity is inflicting nothing but pain and hardship on the British people. One year on, people are suffering the biggest squeeze in their living standards for more than 80 years. Food prices are up, petrol prices are up, energy prices are up, transport prices are up—
Ms Eagle
VAT is up, wages are frozen, hours are falling and real standards of living are sinking fast. It is certainly hurting, but it does not seem to be working.
The Government’s choice to put deficit reduction above every other consideration means that, one year on, they have developed no credible strategy for growth and jobs. All the important economic indicators are warning that the British economy is moving in the wrong direction. The Chancellor’s irresponsible scaremongering about bankruptcy and his reckless decision to compare us to Greece talked consumer confidence down to a 20-year low in January. Inflation, which was falling last year, is now more than twice the Bank of England target and the third highest in the OECD. Unemployment is set to be 200,000 higher than predicted in every year of this Parliament, with youth unemployment blighting one in five of all our young people. Despite all of the talk of being a pro-growth Government, the truth is that growth forecasts have been downgraded, thanks to his choices, again and again and again.
Things were getting better when we left office, but after a year of the present Chancellor and his political choices, they are getting worse. He has created a vicious circle in the British economy. He has put this country into the economic slow lane. By choosing to cut too far, too fast many more people are out of work, claiming benefits and not paying taxes. As a result, the Government have to borrow £46 billion more in the coming years than they expected only last autumn.
We on the Opposition Benches warned the Chancellor last year that huge and rapid cuts in public expenditure risked stifling the economic recovery. We said that his plan to cut billions from public spending last June, when the economy was still fragile, was reckless and irresponsible. Now more people are expressing their doubts about his plan. We have consistently called for a steadier and more balanced approach to reducing the deficit, but instead this ideologically blinkered and arrogant Government continue to claim that there is no alternative. This is irresponsible, it is complacent and it risks putting a permanent dent in our future prosperity.
Ms Eagle
A temporary VAT cut could help kick-start our stalling economy and the Government should certainly consider it until growth returns. Instead of giving the banks a tax cut this year, the Government should repeat the bank bonus tax and use the revenue to create 90,000 youth jobs, build 25,000 much-needed houses and support more regional growth. The Chancellor badly needs to change course.
It is not as though the Government are not used to retreating, backsliding, U-turning and executing 180° handbrake turns. They have had enough practice recently. The list is long and growing: decimating school sport in the run-up to the Olympics—abandoned; flogging off our forests—abandoned; ensuring anonymity for rape victims—[Hon. Members: “Abandoned.”]; reinstating weekly bin collections—[Hon. Members: “Abandoned.”]
Only yesterday in the House after Treasury questions the Government executed two huge policy retreats on their proposals to offer 50% discounts on prison sentences and the massive car crash that is their wasteful top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Their Back Benchers might not like it, but they have learned to live with it. They are even learning to adapt their behaviour to accommodate it. Just look at what some of them are saying on the ConservativeHome website. One said:
“When I get a torrent of emails about a controversial issue now, I leave them for seven days before replying, because there is an increasing chance that the line is going to change.”
Another is being even more sensible. He wrote:
“I let the letters and emails on anything where there is a hint of a U-turn pile up for thirty days. Frankly I don’t want to make myself look stupid by defending a policy only for it to change a few days later.”
Another complained that the Whips asked them to write letters defending the Government’s reform plans then the next day abandoned them, stating:
“Ten times bitten, eleventh time shy.”
The reason for all these U-turns and policy retreats is that this is a reckless Government who act first and think later. This is a Government who rush to ideological judgments, act recklessly, and cause chaos and then have to retreat, causing uncertainty and waste. That pattern perfectly describes the Chancellor’s irresponsible first Budget. His decision to cut too far and too fast set the context of rapid cuts against which so many of the recent U-turns have had to be performed.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday:
“Being strong is about being prepared to admit you didn’t get everything right the first time”.
I could not agree more. It is time for this Chancellor to follow his Prime Minister’s example and be strong on the economy. It is time for a plan B.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
This has been an important and excellent debate, with good contributions from both sides of the House. The best Opposition contributions were made by newly elected Labour Members, and I have no doubt that they will look back on this period as the dark days of deficit denial by the Labour party. [Interruption.]
Throughout this important debate, the Opposition failed to mention, let alone welcome, that in the last year exports are up, industrial production is up, manufacturing is up, investment is up, employment is up, unemployment is down and, most importantly—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister must be heard by the Opposition, and also, one would hope, with some respect by her own side.
Justine Greening
Most importantly of all, the private sector has created half a million jobs, and I would have hoped that the whole House could have agreed that that is good news for the country, as my hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said. We must not talk down the economy, but the Opposition have persistently done so.
As the International Monetary Fund has said,
“repair of the UK economy is underway.”
Of course that is a difficult task, and of course recovery will be choppy, but that is because our predecessors left us with an unprecedented and unenviable challenge, as was eloquently pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). They understand the problem the country faces, and their constituents knew that, which is why they chose a different and a better Government.
Many people in our country will be incredulous that the Opposition have had the gall to come here today and lecture MPs about economic credibility, because the shadow Chancellor and the Labour party have absolutely none. Their legacy to the British people was higher unemployment, a broken economy and enormous debt. The shadow Chancellor said a lot, but there was one word missing from his speech that people would have liked to have heard: sorry. There was no apology for the disastrous mess his party left on leaving office, and no acceptance of responsibility for its actions. The shadow Chancellor is still in denial about there even being a structural deficit—if he wants to confirm that he does think there is a structural deficit, he can intervene on me now.
If the shadow Chancellor had spent less time when he was a Minister plotting with his political master, he might have done a more effective job. He was the architect of the tripartite banking regulatory scheme that failed so badly. He was the City Minister when the City went off the rails. He was the economic adviser to the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when he ran up a structural deficit that the OECD described as a snowballing of debt.
Many people in our country would not put the shadow Chancellor in charge of their household finances, let alone the nation’s finances, yet he called for a debate on the economy today. We might have expected him to have something meaningful to say, therefore, but he did not. There were no plans to tackle the deficit at all; not a word on how to rebalance the economy and replace some of the 1 million manufacturing jobs that were lost between 1997 and 2007; nothing on financial services reform; and hardly any mention of his party’s VAT proposal. That seems to have fallen apart within days. Members on the Government Benches talked more about that than Labour Back Benchers. When the VAT rise went through last year, what did the Opposition do? They abstained. They did not stand up and say that it was wrong. A few months later, however, they decided that there should be a VAT reduction on fuel, and now, even before the Finance Bill has completed its passage, they want a VAT reduction on everything. This is policy made on the hoof.
Today’s motion refers to halving the deficit, but we have heard not a word from the shadow Chancellor on how he would do that or on their spending plans. The bottom line is that those plans do not exist. He is trapped by misguided, discredited and irrelevant policy, and yet he still runs with it. He used to be a bruiser, but now he is a kitten. He is Macavity’s kitten trapped in his own ball of policy wool which he has woven around himself, churning out the same old lines that will take neither his party nor the country forward.
We heard many contributions from Labour Members, but I must say that they were let down by their Front Benchers, who clearly have no economic alternative. All they have is pointless opposition. We heard a lot of amnesia from them on employment. Let us remember that they left unemployment higher, just as every Labour Government before them did. Presumably they will say that that was the result of the recession. Presumably they think it is a coincidence that every Labour Government leave Britain’s economy in crisis. The amnesia goes deeper. We heard amnesia on social housing. Somehow they think that they created lots of social housing.
Ed Balls
Will the hon. Lady clarify something for the House? During Prime Minister’s questions today the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) said that the hon. Lady had signed a memo on the European financial stabilisation mechanism after the election stating that cross-party consensus had been agreed on the matter. Will she clarify whether she signed the letter and whether such a consensus had been reached? If so, was the Prime Minister wrong when he said today that there was no consensus?
Justine Greening
Well, there is a cross-party consensus, because his party agrees with it. We are now in government, so I do not think that that is particularly complicated. He is trying to waste my time, so I will make a little more progress.
The bottom line is that the Labour party has only one economic policy: spend, spend, spend. When times are good, their policy is to spend, spend, spend, because they can afford to. When times are bad, their policy is to spend, spend, spend, because they cannot afford not to. It is no wonder that this Government ended up mired in debt when Labour left office. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) talked about the previous Government’s record but was unaware that she had abstained on the VAT rise. As we have seen with the overall VAT policy, there is clearly a huge disconnect between their Front and Back Benches. After all that spending and the creation of the structural deficit, even Labour Members asked themselves, “We’ve spent all this money, but what have we got for it?” The answer is, “Not enough”.
When the Opposition called this debate, people might have been entitled to think that they had something relevant to say on the economy, but they do not, and we have seen that demonstrated again. We do have a plan. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) all pointed out, it is a plan backed by the IMF, which described it as essential. It is a plan backed by the OECD, which described it as vital. It is a plan backed by the CBI, the rating agencies and pretty much everyone who understands why it is important that we get our economy back on track and our public finances back in order.
We have a plan to rebalance the economy, generate growth and ensure that those communities that can most benefit from the new jobs do. We have a plan to create the most competitive business tax regime in the G20. We have plans for more apprenticeships and work placements—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Response to DEFRA Consultation on Water Charges in the South West Water Area
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I rise to present a petition from the residents of Torbay on the recommendations in the Walker review and the Government’s response to that review, which my petitioners are asking to be implemented. I am talking about the additional support for people on low incomes, the extension of the Water Sure scheme and an annual payment to South West Water in order to bring water and sewerage charges closer to the national average, rather than 40% higher.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Torbay,
Declares that the Petitioners welcome the Government's commitment to fair and affordable water and sewerage services; and further notes the recommendations contained in paragraph 4.18 of the consultation document “Affordable water: a consultation on the Government's proposals following the Walker Review on Charging”.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enhance the Water Sure scheme, to introduce a social tariff to benefit water consumers on low incomes and to introduce an annual payment of £40 million to South West Water from public funds to reduce water bills so that they are close to the national average for identical services.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000931]
Maternity Services
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for enabling us to debate the maternity services on which people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies depend. On behalf of those people, I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively to the proposals that I wish to make, which I know are supported by neighbouring MPs.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I know there are many dedicated and committed individuals working in the NHS in Barking, Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge who give their all to the maternity services in the borough. I fully acknowledge and warmly thank them for what they do. However, my overriding responsibility and duty is to all the women in the area who want to be certain that when they have their babies, there will be a bed for them, and enough experienced and appropriately qualified midwives looking after them, and that the care they receive during their pregnancy and birth will be of a consistently high quality, giving mothers the support they need and ensuring that we can all be confident that the pregnancy and birth will be safe for both mother and baby.
That is not a lot to ask and expect, but shockingly, it is not delivered and guaranteed at present to all mothers dependent on our hospital trust. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust has one of the highest birth rates in the country, with just under 10,000 babies born in trust facilities last year. In my constituency, the birth rate went up by more than a third between 2002 and 2010. Across all the communities served by the trust, the number of births has been growing year on year by 500 additional births, and everybody believes that this trend will persist for the foreseeable future. However, a report from the Care Quality Commission this March expressed major concerns about the quality of care at one of the trust hospitals—Queen’s hospital in Romford—which is a huge indictment of the service and a dreadful worry for families who are having their babies.
The CQC found that maternity services at Queen’s were failing to meet essential standards of care, and that the trust was not taking all proper steps to ensure the safety of women in the maternity unit. Inspectors stated that services were so understaffed that mothers and babies were at risk. They found that too many staff did not have the right skills and that the appropriate equipment was sometimes missing. Inspectors reported mothers in labour being left alone for long periods without the pain relief that they needed. They also found significant delays in patients going to theatre and said that babies were being born in what they termed “inappropriate locations”. Inspectors expressed concerns about respecting and involving mothers in their own care, and found that the trust did not give bereaved mothers proper facilities in a separate room, away from other new mothers who had had their babies safely.
Sadly, the CQC confirmed what all of us already knew—we knew it from the fact that more women die while under the care of the trust than elsewhere. Four women have died in BHRT maternity units in the past 12 months, with five dying in the past 18 months. Maternal deaths there are five times greater than the national average. The trust has paid out £15 million in compensation in the past five years on claims against the obstetric services. That is one of the biggest compensation bills across the whole of the NHS. Those statistics are heart-rending. What should be moments of joy for mothers and their families become experiences filled with fear and pain—and, at their worst, loss and grief. As local MPs, we are told of far too many cases of people having to put up with terrible care, particularly at Queen’s hospital.
One of my constituents gave birth at Queen’s in July last year. She was kept waiting for hours in reception when she was already in labour, with other patients waiting in the same area. She was told that staff were too busy to give her an epidural. The same staff then failed to give her an episiotomy, and she suffered second degree tears and had to have 20 stitches in her vagina. Yet she had to wait for three hours to be stitched because, the hospital told us,
“not all midwives have had the required training to perform this procedure.”
Another constituent went to Queen’s when she was two weeks overdue. She had been having contractions for over a week and was losing weight. But, instead of inducing her there and then, the hospital sent her away. Shortly afterwards, she gave birth to a stillborn baby. A third constituent was supposed to have a home birth. The midwives arrived late, and without enough pain relief or oxygen. After an hour, she was in such agony that she had to go to Queen’s where she had to have an emergency caesarean. The trust later accepted that she had not been properly examined while she was in labour at home.
There have also been some high-profile cases recently of women who have tragically lost their lives at Queen’s because the care that they received was so lacking. Sareena Ali and her unborn baby died after staff failed to identify that she had a ruptured womb which triggered a heart attack and a major organ failure. She had not been checked for two hours, despite her husband begging staff to check whether anything was wrong because she was in consistent agony. She had an emergency caesarean —on the antenatal ward in front of other women in labour—but the baby was stillborn. Staff tried to resuscitate Sareena with a disconnected mask; it was her sister-in-law who spotted this. Sareena died five days later—a death that could have been avoided.
Earlier this month, Violet Stephens went to Queen’s at 31 weeks pregnant with dreadful gastric pain and high blood pressure. After four days in hospital, she was eventually diagnosed with a life-threatening complication called HELLP syndrome. She had an emergency caesarean and, although the baby was delivered healthily, she died. Violet had had similar symptoms during her previous pregnancies, but the system failed her and her case is currently under investigation. In August last year, Saira Choudhri was sent home from Queen’s even though she was having contractions every two minutes. She was found blood-soaked and in agony by two nurses in the car park. Thankfully, her baby survived.
This litany of tragic instances of unacceptably poor care has to stop, and the Minister and her Secretary of State must take responsibility for improving our maternity services. In part, the problem lies with shortages of staff, and shortages of properly qualified and experienced staff. The new chief executive is recruiting midwives from abroad and I welcome that, but we have been here before, and the trust has to find ways of retaining as well as recruiting good midwives over the longer term.
Mothers talk about the lack of respect for them as patients and the failure to involve them in decisions about their care. Most women see a different community midwife at every appointment. All of that suggests a deeply worrying cultural problem among the midwifery staff who work for the trust. When Sareena Ali died, there was a full complement of staff on duty and there was no unexpected pressure on them. They blatantly failed to do their job and to take proper care of her. There appears to be a poor working culture, with midwives not co-operating effectively together as a team and with individuals not accepting their proper personal responsibility. All too often, they seem literally not to care.
Furthermore, the trust’s complaints procedure is not working. Individuals complain, but the trust’s response is all too often incomprehensible and it seems never to learn the lessons from past mistakes. Saira Choudhri, the woman who was almost forced to give birth in a car park, complained to the trust about the attitude of staff and the care that she received. Her complaint was brushed off with a technical response that completely failed to address the real issue, and nothing seems to have changed. If the trust had an open, rigorous and patient-focused complaints protocol and acted on those complaints in order to improve care, some of those tragedies might have been avoided. If it had listened and learned from what patients were telling it, other women might not have had to go through similar ordeals and Sareena Ali might now be at home with her husband and baby. There is going to be a full inquest into the death of Sareena Ali, which I trust will help to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
All the local MPs believe that the health authority’s determination to close the maternity service at King George hospital is complete madness. Birth rates in the area are rising and the quality of care at Queen’s is simply unacceptable. What on earth do the bureaucrats think they are up to? The Government’s health reforms are supposed to put the patients’ interests at the heart of what is done, but that is not the case in Barking and Dagenham. Decisions appear to be driven by money, not patients, and by consultants’ convenience, not women’s interests. Queen’s hospital simply cannot cope and things will only get worse if the King George goes.
Local GPs in my area are also strongly opposed to the proposal, and across north-east London, tens of thousands of my and my colleagues’ constituents have signed a petition against it. This is not a bit of MP nimbyism. It is a common-sense conclusion, with the support of a cross-party group of MPs, based on a proper understanding of what local people should be entitled to from our national health service.
I know the decision on the King George hospital has been referred to the independent review panel, but I would urge the Minister to ask the Secretary of State to exercise his power to halt the proposed closure. The Department, NHS London and the trust need to sort out the quality and the finances, not shut the door for patients by killing off the hospital.
Worse still, we campaigned for years—ever since I became the MP more than 16 years ago—to get new health services, including maternity services, built on the old Barking hospital site, which was closed in the 1980s. My constituents want high-quality maternity services close to home, with babies born in Barking again.
We finally won that battle and now we have a brand-new, state-of-the-art maternity unit on the site literally standing empty while Queen’s hospital continues to fail. I have been told today that no babies will be born in Barking hospital until March 2012. That is an outrageous scandal. It was supposed to open last year and the building has been ready for months. I ask the Minister to confirm in her reply that she will investigate the reasons why this unit has not opened and instruct her officials to get it open and working as soon as possible.
Lastly, but most crucially, I ask the Minister to establish a full, independent and impartial inquiry into maternity services at Queen’s. We have had enough, and we want somebody with extensive experience in their profession to be appointed by the Secretary of State to establish what is wrong and to prescribe action to put it right. I sincerely say to the Minister that I have now concluded that nothing less will do.
Perhaps the Minister will listen to the words of some women who have been through the experience of having a baby at Queen’s. One woman said:
“All of my friends that have had their babies at Queen’s have all received such poor treatment that it’s really made them think twice whether to have any more children.”
Another said:
“I struggle to see how closing a maternity unit that is better performing in favour of one that is in effect under notice to improve can be the right decision for local people.”
A third woman said:
“If I have another baby I flat refuse to go to Queens.”
I ask the Minister to listen to those women, to act to support their best interests and to protect mothers and babies in our corner of north-east London by delivering a safe, patient-focused service in which we can all have confidence.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing this debate. I would like to follow what she said by outlining the position of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who, as a Government Whip, cannot speak in this debate. She has met the new chief executive and has been given assurances about the changes happening to improve the dreadful situation we have just heard about.
I would like to speak briefly about the King George hospital. As the right hon. Member for Barking said, it cannot make sense for maternity services at King George hospital to cease, not only because Queen’s hospital is not giving as good a service as King George at the present time, but because, with the birth rate rising, it simply will not be able to cope.
We have heard of the tragic, unnecessary loss of life over the past 18 months, and of the high level of medical negligence payments that have had to be made and that are a drain on already strained NHS resources, as the trust has one of the highest deficits in our country. The situation will only get worse if King George hospital ceases to operate maternity and A and E services, and that would be unacceptable. Were that to happen, I fear that there will be further tragic loss of life. Whichever side of the Chamber one sits on, and whatever one’s political views, we are elected to stop that occurring. That is why hon. Members from both sides of the House have united to try to save the services. I hope that the review panel and Ministers are listening, and I am pleased that the matter was sent to a review panel, with a view to overturning this ridiculous recommendation by the NHS. As Members, we will unite to save the services for our constituents. If we do not do so, it will be a regrettable event.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow my friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott); we have campaigned together for five years to keep the services at King George hospital in my constituency.
Let me quote an e-mail that I received today:
“My wife had a baby in King George hospital and had a wonderful experience. My brother’s wife had a baby at Queens Hospital and found it traumatic and suffered complications up to 6 weeks after the birth.”
That is one of a series of e-mails and phone calls that I have been receiving for the past two years. Although some improvements have been seen at Queen’s, in the reception area and other aspects, the fundamental problems remains. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred to a culture, and I believe that the issue is one of culture and of management, as well as of quality of care. It is an absolute disaster to contemplate closing the maternity unit at King George hospital, taking 2,000-plus births out of the equation each year, and as a result adding to the existing unbearable pressures on Queen’s hospital. It does not make sense. We have had a maternity hospital in Ilford since 1926, when the population was 85,000. The London borough of Redbridge now has a population of 280,000. We need to keep the maternity service—people have a right to be born in Ilford. I am pleased that we have such a united campaign, and I hope that the independent reconfiguration panel, the Secretary of State and the Minister are listening to the loud and clear message that we must keep the maternity service in Ilford.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing the debate, and thank her for bringing this important issue to wider attention. Her message came across loud and clear. She has campaigned vigorously in support of her local health services for many years, both on the Government and Opposition Benches, and Members are to be congratulated on their vigilance in doing exactly what they were elected to do.
It is never good enough for patients anywhere to experience poor-quality health care, and it is clear that the problems at Queen’s maternity unit must be fixed now, so that the people of north-east London can regain trust in their maternity units. Regaining such trust is never an easy business. When mothers go to a maternity unit to give birth, they implicitly trust that they will receive the best-quality care. That is a vital part of maternity services, and it means that mothers can feel comfortable and safe with midwives, wards and hospitals. The shocking deaths at Queen’s maternity unit have put that relationship and that trust at risk, and I know that local concern is running extremely high. I offer my heartfelt sympathy to the families involved. To lose someone at what was expected to be a time of celebration is especially traumatic, and no words that I can say today will console those families. However, I believe that the message has been conveyed by the right hon. Member for Barking, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott).
I understand that two investigations of maternal deaths are taking place at the unit; I hope Members will understand that I cannot comment on them at this stage. I know that the Care Quality Commission found that maternity services at the trust were failing to meet essential standards of quality and safety, but, although that was partly due to unsuitable staffing levels, they are not the only issue.
Unfortunately we cannot turn the clock back, but what we can do is ensure that decisive action is taken immediately to improve the position and ensure that the Queen’s maternity unit performs as it should have all along. In response to the CQC’s report, the trust has drawn up an urgent action plan and is taking steps to improve its maternity services. I understand that it has recruited an extra 60 midwives, and that a further 60 are shortlisted for interview. I also understand that it has revised the training programme for all midwives, created a new triage system enabling all women in labour to be seen by an experienced midwife within 15 minutes of arriving at the unit—the right hon. Lady particularly mentioned waiting times—and introduced a telephone triage system so that women can get advice even before they leave home. That is a start, although it is a start from a very low base. Although all those facilities should have been in place already, it is good that they are there now.
I have met Averil Dongworth, the new chief executive of the trust. She has assured me that everyone at the hospital—particularly the midwives and the support staff in the unit—is determined to improve standards and rebuild confidence. That may sound hollow to the Members who are present, who have probably heard it before, but Averil Dongworth struck me as an impressive woman with a steely determination to turn things around. She has also promised to keep in touch with and meet the local Members of Parliament regularly. I think it important for them to feel that, on behalf of their constituents, they are monitoring the position regularly and frequently. I have asked Averil Dongworth to keep me up to date. The position is very simple: nothing but the best will do for anyone who is seen in the NHS.
I also understand that NHS London, the local strategic health authority, is taking action to improve clinical leadership. It is important for that leadership to be in place, because its absence is often the reason why things go wrong, particularly midwifery in this instance. I understand that the authority has asked a senior obstetrician and an experienced midwife to spend time working in the team.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the health for north-east London review, which includes proposals to change the way in which Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust delivers maternity care. As Members have mentioned, under those proposals King George hospital would continue to provide antenatal and postnatal care, but would no longer provide maternity services during delivery. Maternity services would be consolidated at Queen’s with a new midwife-led unit that could deliver more than 2,500 babies a year. I understand that the unit is empty. The situation is extremely disappointing, but the proposals have been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and the independent reconfiguration panel will advise him within the month, no later than 22 July. I know that Members look forward to hearing the decision, but obviously I cannot prejudge it.
The financial payouts in litigation that the right hon. Lady mentioned really pale into insignificance when compared with the human cost. There is not just the human cost when things go tragically and irreversibly wrong, but the poor experience that women have had, which is a very bad start to their new family life. Nothing can compensate for any of those things. She mentioned Sareena Ali and the unresponsive nature of the trust in relation to complaints. That has to change and I sincerely hope that Averil Dongworth will turn that around so that local people can start what will be a very long and slow journey to building that trust.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned that the problem is not just about recruiting staff but keeping them. That is the real challenge. When local people have lost faith in a local NHS organisation, the recruitment of staff becomes increasingly difficult. Keeping up morale is very important, which is why I think it is an important step in that journey for the chief executive to keep in touch with local MPs.
The right hon. Lady rightly said that this should be about the care of women and their babies and families, and not about other people’s convenience. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North reiterated many of the same points and I am always impressed when there is cross-party support on issues such as this. This place does not always have a good reputation but at times like this our reputation should soar because that cross-party working is extremely important to get things done. The hon. Member for Ilford South also spoke about the cross-party support and referred to the culture and institutional problems, the issues that are so very difficult to dig into and turn around. I sincerely hope that we can start to do that.
The Government are doing all we can to stamp out instances of sub-standard care. As I have said, nothing but the best will do for anyone. New standards of care are being developed for antenatal services and the management and care of women in labour, as well as for delivery and post-natal care. We are also keeping up the record number of midwives entering training—nearly 2,500 this year and 2,500 next year. I want to see the potential of the whole maternity team being realised. There are new technologies out there and new techniques improve care and deliver value for money while improving the experiences of women, their babies and the wider family. We will continue to work with the Royal College of Midwives to make sure that we have an appropriately resourced but also skilled maternity work force with the leadership they need. Of course, that will be of scant consolation to many of the families involved, but sadly I cannot turn the clock back.
Margaret Hodge
I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks, but in the last couple of minutes available, may I ask her to comment on two other specific issues? First, I think that we need an independent inquiry. I recognise all that has been done, but will she respond to that point? Secondly, will she respond to my point about the Barking hospital site where we have a brand-new, state-of-the-art maternity unit that is being kept closed?
Anne Milton
I thank the right hon. Lady for making those points, but I honestly do not know that an inquiry is the right way forward. The tragedy of this is that we know what some of the problems are and there has been a failure to turn them around. Certainly, an empty building and a midwife-led unit that could deal with 2,500 deliveries a year for women of low risk would be an important development, but I do not want to prejudge the Secretary of State’s decision on that. I hope that the right hon. Lady, her constituents and the families involved will at least take some heart from the fact that steps are going to be taken to prevent any of this from ever happening again. I will make sure that those efforts remain at the top of the trust’s agenda. I can assure her, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North and the hon. Member for Ilford South that I will take a personal interest in this and make sure that we monitor progress towards giving local people what they deserve—the very best from their local NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 6 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
Youth Unemployment
(13 years, 6 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
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Caton, for calling me to speak.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to make the case for more to be done to help young unemployed people in this country. I begin by welcoming the drop in the unemployment figure for the 16 to 24 age group in the past three months, although I think that the Office for National Statistics attributes most of that drop to student behaviour, and it is fair to say that the overall claimant count for May for that particular age group is the worst for two years.
The purpose of this debate is to try to raise awareness of the scale of the problem of youth unemployment and to warn against complacency. In the early ’80s, I worked with unemployed young people in Wolverhampton. They were the usual assortment of youngsters: some high on ambition but unsure where or how to get started; some low in confidence but with obvious talents that needed encouragement and a chance to be developed; and some already despairing for their future.
During the long ’80s recession, it became clear to me that a generation of young people were being denied the chances and opportunities that they deserved. There were some success stories, because we should never underestimate the resilience and drive of youngsters and their capacity to cope with the things that life throws at them. However, some turned to crime and ended up in prison; some ended up on anti-depressants; and many ended up on long-term benefits. In some cases, those youngsters are now the people the Government say should be reorientated to the world of work, because of the difficulties that they experienced in the ’80s—in particular, the fact that they never got into the pattern of work.
During the ’80s, youth unemployment continued to rise for four years after the end of the recession, and I am very anxious that we guard against a repeat of that situation now. A recent poll for The Independent on Sunday revealed that eight out of 10 people believe that it is harder for a youngster to get a job now than it was 20 years ago. Three quarters of the people who were surveyed called for a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fight youth unemployment, and two thirds of them said that they thought that the Government’s economic policies threatened to leave a generation of young people jobless and that not enough was being done to help young people into work. If we want to avoid a repeat of the tragedy of the ’80s and of the lives that were wasted then, we need to act now. Otherwise we risk having another lost generation of young people. I do not think that any of us who remember what happened in the ’80s are willing to stand by and see that happen again.
I know that there will be endless arguments between the Labour Opposition and the Government about the origins of the recession. The politician in me is not really surprised that the coalition wants to pin the blame on Labour and trot out the familiar and ready-made excuses, especially when it is confronted with doubts and allegations of unfairness about some of its policies. But however the blame is apportioned, there is one thing that we can be certain of—the group that is not responsible for the difficulties we now face is the next generation of people seeking work. Their only crime is to come of age at a time of austerity and limited opportunity, and for so many of them the mantra sounds less like, “We’re all in this together,” and rather more like, “It’s everyone for themselves.”
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a great deal will depend on the quality of schools and education for those young people coming into work?
Steve McCabe
The education and skills base of young people is very important. Increasingly, however, employers talk about work experience and preparedness for work, which are slightly different from academic achievement or results at school. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On work experience, does he agree that we need more work experience for young people? Education is good—there is no doubt about that—but it is no guarantee that young people will get a job. If we can get more work experience for young people, it will help them to make up their minds about what they want to do. Does he also agree that the further education colleges and universities need to supply courses that are relevant to the needs of industry today?
Steve McCabe
Yes. I welcome any initiative that is designed to help people to be better prepared for work and to help young people to get that first foot on the work ladder. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is very important. His experience in Wolverhampton in the 1980s is very similar to my experience in Hartlepool in the 1980s. Following the two previous interventions, does he agree that the cancellation of the education maintenance allowance is a detrimental step in helping people to stay on in education? In addition, the abolition of the future jobs fund, which helped scores of people in my constituency and elsewhere, will also stop interventions that help young people gain work experience, which is so vital for their future careers.
Steve McCabe
I feel quite strongly that, so far, what we have seen from the Government is the cancellation of initiatives. I hope that during this debate we might hear something about a fresh initiative. However, I personally think that the wrong time to withdraw support is when we are in the depths of a recession and youth unemployment is rising. That is patently wrong.
I am not alone in expressing my concern about youth unemployment. The CBI has recently voiced its concerns about the rising trend of youth unemployment, a trend that it fears. There are about 31,000 more young people chasing work now than there were last summer. Youth unemployment is hovering around the 1 million mark. That means that one in five of our young people are without work, which is an awful lot of talent and potential for any country to write off.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will forgive me for intervening so early in the debate, but I want to ask him to place on the record something that I think is material to the overall headlines, if not to the issue of youth unemployment itself, which we all agree is very serious. Will he accept that of the number of young people who are unemployed—a number that went close to 1 million and then came back down again—277,000 are full-time students who are looking for a part-time job alongside their studies? Those students are not “unemployed” as we would understand that word in its conventional sense.
Steve McCabe
I have acknowledged that students are part of the figures that we are discussing, and I am happy to accept that point. I will say a little more about both students and those who are not in education, employment or training later. However, I am happy to accept the Minister’s point that there are some students in the youth unemployment figures. Of course that is true.
In Birmingham, the youth unemployment figure is now about 13,000, which is quite a high figure for that city. OECD data show that Britain compares poorly with its competitors in terms of youth unemployment initiatives. NEETs are also part of that problem. That predicament not only has an effect on young people themselves, but is bad for the country, adding to the Government’s borrowing at the very time when they are concerned to reduce it. Over time, we will pay the price of this lack of activity. It has been estimated that the young people themselves suffer a long-term wage scar, earning between 8% and 15% less during their working lives than they might have done. The CBI tells us that youth unemployment costs the country about £3.6 billion per year, which is not a sum of money to be trifled with. A failure to provide initiatives or opportunities can lead to some young people disengaging completely, which clearly has a long-term impact on their employability. Persistently high unemployment, especially among younger and less skilled workers, leads to the problem that the Minister is now trying to grapple with. That problem involves people who are out of the labour market for so long that their potential to rejoin it reduces with each passing month, which explains, at least in part, some of the long-term benefit problems that he is attempting to deal with.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is a clear need for better co-operation and co-ordination between further education colleges, businesses and the Government to explore jobs, options and opportunities. Not everyone can be a hairdresser or a beauty consultant, but there are opportunities for engineers and in food processing. This week, Bombardier Aerospace announced a substantial investment on the home front, so the opportunities are there. Perhaps there is now a need for the Government, the further education sector and businesses to work together more closely to identify the opportunities, so that young people can gain skills and do training to get those jobs.
Steve McCabe
I entirely share that view. Part of my purpose here today is to argue that a greater effort is needed to respond to this problem rather than to collapse under its weight.
I was suggesting that the danger of persistent unemployment is that it makes people less employable. I was a struck by a young woman called Laura McCallum who came to see me at my advice centre the other week. She is 22 and has an excellent degree from Sheffield university, but she has been unemployed for two years, despite hundreds of applications and a number of interviews. I am told that she has an interview in three weeks’ time, so I hope that we will all keep our fingers crossed for her. Strangely enough, she wants to join the civil service—there are obviously lots of optimists around. Laura is a classic example of someone who has done everything right so far, but as the months go by her CV looks worse, because of this gap that she cannot plug.
If we look at people at the other end of the scale—not graduates but NEETs—we see a much bigger employability problem. We know that NEETs are three times more likely to end up in prison, that 50% of them are likely to suffer poorer health, that 60% are more likely to develop a drugs problem and that female NEETs are 20 times more likely to become teenage mums. Those figures were produced by the Prince’s Trust, on whose authority in this matter I am happy to rely. These young people lose out, but the country loses out, too. The most recent OECD figures suggest that joblessness in this country is more than double that in apprenticeship nations such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
The Minister mentioned earlier that if we look at figures we have to take account of the fact that students make up a proportion of them. I accept that, and it is also fair to say that if we look at NEETs, there are indications that some of the youngsters have additional hurdles, problems or difficulties that make it harder for them to access jobs, and I have no doubt that that is a factor. None the less, the numbers are worrying. The figure for NEETs in the west midlands is about 20%, and it is going up steadily—it currently stands at some 4% above the UK average. NEETs are a particular problem in our region.
I recognise that there are some special problems that require attention. About 10% of NEETs probably find it difficult to join the job market because they are either pregnant or parents with very young children. About 6% of them might be students on gap years, and it would therefore be reasonable to argue that we would not want to include them in an unemployment breakdown, and at any one time about 4% could be in custody. We should not, however, be complacent and say that we can discount those figures; we should instead say that we need not only measures on which everyone works together but, for particular youngsters, even more intensive measures to ensure that their potential for the job market improves.
Labour’s proposals for tackling youth unemployment merit serious consideration. It has never been entirely clear to me, as it has not been to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), why, even allowing for the scale of the cuts, the incoming Government were so keen to scrap the future jobs fund and the guarantee of work or training. When there is so much public support for it, I do not know why Ministers do not look again at the idea of a tax on bankers’ bonuses, especially as the bankers continue to take money they have not earned and show, in my view, little by way of contrition for the problems that they created for all of us, which have caused the suffering of the young people that I have discussed. If we chose to tax bonuses in addition to having the bank levy, we would have the money for the kind of employment programmes that some hon. Members have already mentioned. We estimate that £600 million would fund opportunities for at least 100,000 young people—perhaps more—which might mean that as many as 10,000 youngsters in the west midlands would benefit. That is not enough, but it is a start, and it is a lot better than the present situation.
These folk are our next generation; they are the people we hope will pay taxes, produce growth and finance pensions and health care. They are the people to whom the Minister for Universities and Science claimed we have a contractual obligation in his excellent book, “The Pinch”. We are not fulfilling that obligation at the present time, but instead we are denying those people jobs, pricing them out of higher education and threatening their ambitions by preventing them from getting a foot on the ladder.
I am sure that when the Minister replies he will itemise some of the things that his Government are doing to tackle the problem, and I hope that he will also tell us what will happen to the young people’s careers advice and support agencies now that the Government have decided to abolish Connexions. I want to make it clear that I welcome some of the Government’s initiatives. The national citizen service, which launches this summer, is to be commended. It will offer about 10,000 places for 16-year-olds, although it lasts for only six weeks. It is a step in the right direction, but it is too little.
The Government say that they want to create 100,000 more apprentices, but I am not clear how they expect to do that with so few incentives for businesses to take on more apprentices. I appreciate that this is not strictly the Minister’s responsibility—the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning made it clear to me last night that everything to do with apprentices is in his domain. If there are criticisms, perhaps I should direct them at him. I am sure, however, that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has some views on the matter, as he thinks about the more general issue of youth unemployment.
I think that we could do more to make apprentices attractive, especially for smaller companies. The Federation of Small Businesses has argued for two specific measures. It thinks that some kind of national insurance holiday and some measure of wage support would be helpful. Its members have also made it clear that one of the biggest problems that they face is managing the administration and bureaucracy of apprenticeships. Interestingly, they are keen on apprentice training agencies, so will the Minister say something about that? Those agencies were initially a Labour initiative, but he does not have to set his face against every such thing. If it makes is easier for him, I think they originated in Australia, so he should not worry about the affiliations. They are something that the FSB wants.
It is important to recognise that only 8% of small businesses have taken on an apprentice in the past year. The figures for 2008 show that half of all apprenticeships were in companies with fewer than 50 employees, and it is vital that we make inroads in that regard.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is making a very important point about youth unemployment. In many parts of the United Kingdom, it is the small business sector, whether it involves the FSB or other groups, that will deliver for young people, rather than large, inward investment projects—we all love to see such projects, but their days are probably over. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the small business sector needs promotion and assistance, and that it can offer some prospect of employment to young people?
Steve McCabe
I totally agree. As I have said, the figures for 2008 show that about 50% of all apprentices were in small companies. Moreover, if we look at micro-companies, we see that they are the businesses that need things such as an ATA or some sort of support or incentive. I think that that is where we will find the extra apprenticeships.
I did not call this debate to totally damn the Government, but I want the Minister to recognise that I am not alone in thinking that not enough is being done. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research argues that the current funding for apprenticeships is simply not sufficient to tackle the scale of youth unemployment. Its director told the Treasury Committee in March that neither apprenticeships nor work experience were sufficient to tackle the scale of the problem.
Of course, there are some good news stories, as is the case in all such situations. I received a letter in advance of this debate from Emma Reynolds, the government affairs director at Tesco. I know that Tesco does not always get a wonderful press, but it is the largest private sector employer in this country. It is worth noting that 25% of its almost 300,000-strong work force are under the age of 25. This year alone, it hopes to create 10,000 new jobs. It has provided 3,000 work experience placements, and last year, despite all the difficulties, it was able to take on 335 graduates. It also has a regeneration partnership, which means that it works with Jobcentre Plus in areas in which it is developing new stores or centres. I hope that I can work with it on that, because it has submitted a planning application in my constituency.
Not to be outdone, the Co-op has also announced that it plans to create 2,000 more apprenticeships over the next three years. It is worth noting that its chief executive, Peter Marks, joined the company at 17 and knows exactly what it is like for someone to get their first foot on the ladder and work their way through the company.
I urge the Government to think again about an immediate jobs and training programme. Like many other people, I believe that it could be funded, or part-funded, by a tax on bankers’ bonuses. I also think that the Government need to establish proper arrangements for careers advice and guidance for young people. Although it is welcome to see examples like the big retail chains— we should encourage more of that and I am all for it—we need to listen to what the FSB is saying and to recognise its problems, particularly in relation to ATAs. If the Minister can indicate that the Government are willing to take some of these things on board, we might be in a situation whereby the accusations that we do not care would not be so loud, and the likelihood that we repeat the things that happened in the 1980s would diminish significantly.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on his thoughtful speech, even if I did not agree with all of it, and on securing the debate.
This is an important debate, because today is vocational qualifications day and apprentices throughout the country are being congratulated on their achievements. In my maiden speech, I said:
“In Essex, nearly 4,000 young people are not in employment, education or training, and Harlow is one of the worst-affected towns…If we give young people the necessary skills and training, we give them opportunities and jobs for the future.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2011; Vol. 510, c. 488.]
The argument is about not just economic efficiency, but social justice. I want to talk about where youth unemployment is coming from, what the Government are doing and what more can be done.
In 2000, there were 600,000 16 to 24-year-olds who were not in employment, education or training. By 2010, there were well over 1 million and the figure remains at that level. This massive surge was not the by-product of the credit crunch—youth unemployment rose steadily throughout the past decade and the direct causes are well documented. We asked teachers to spread themselves too thinly, with too many competing priorities. Maths and English suffered, and half a million children left primary school unable to read or write. The Education Secretary has recently argued that too many soft qualifications crept in at GCSE and A-level, undermining academic rigour. The recent review led by Sir Richard Sykes, the former rector of Imperial college, concluded that many students were forced to take easier courses, to raise schools’ positions in league tables. One member of the review panel said that our current system is a “national disgrace”, because it encourages pupils to drop tough subjects such as science. The result is a skills deficit.
In Austria and Germany, one in four businesses offer apprenticeships to young people, but in England the figure is just one in 10. Why do only 28% of British workers qualify to become apprentices or gain technical skills, compared with 51% in France and 65% in Germany? What has gone so badly wrong in the UK that our skills level is so low? Our population is less skilled than that of France, Germany and the United States. As a result, we are 15% less productive than those countries. For example, construction has long represented about 10% of gross domestic product, but we have consistently imported much of that labour from Europe. The consequence has been a rootless, under-educated, jobless generation of graduates who do not have the right skills for our growth industries.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Is it not true that, throughout the United Kingdom, we have given the impression that if a young person has not got a degree, they are not really a young person with great achievement? We have sent a lot of our young people to university to obtain a degree that has little relevance to working life. Therefore, do we not need to change that approach and say, “Listen, we need young people without a degree, but who are at least skilled and ready for the workplace”?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I always find it astonishing that, when someone goes to university, it is regarded as something of great prestige—and, of course, it should be—but when someone does work experience or an apprenticeship, hardly anyone bats an eyelid. We must change the culture of skills and apprenticeships in our country.
Mr Iain Wright
The hon. Gentleman is making his argument in his usual thoughtful and considered manner, and I agree with virtually everything he is saying: for far too long in this country, we have had a culture of academic success but vocational failure. However, will not the changes to the English baccalaureate and the curriculum be a backward step? Is not the Secretary of State for Education embedding that negative culture, whereby academic equals success but vocational equals failure?
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I do not agree with them. As I will show later, we are gearing everything towards vocational training and apprenticeships.
I accept that the previous Government and many Opposition Members were concerned about and did their best to tackle youth unemployment. However, sometimes their policies were expensive and inefficient. The future jobs fund, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak, cost up to £6,500 per placement. Most placements were temporary six-month internships in the public sector. In comparison, the normal cost of finding work for a young person on the new deal was just £3,500 per job, which is better value for money.
Despite that, tens of thousands of young people who finished school were still on the dole a decade later. Although billions were spent on the new deal, around 100,000 of those who left school in the first term of the previous Government have never held a job. They are now in their 30s and have never worked in their lives. The future jobs fund and the new deal too often operated like a revolving hamster’s wheel back to benefits. People were shifted around and around but did not get anywhere. The future jobs fund was announced in 2009 and aimed to create 150,000 jobs in two years. By the end of the first year, fewer than 5,000 jobs had been created, which is 3% of the target. It just did not work. There were also problems with Train to Gain. Much of the training on Train to Gain was not actually training; it was bureaucratic assessments dressed up as training.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The figure that the hon. Gentleman gave is a little bit misleading. Between October 2009 and January 2011, there were more than 90,000 starts thanks to the future jobs fund. Of course, the scheme did not run for the full two years, for reasons that we know about, but over the full period that it was in operation, a large number of young people got into work.
Robert Halfon
Yes, but the crucial thing is not just for someone to get initial work, but for them to stay in work. I hope that the Minister will announce later that our policies relate to giving people long-term jobs. The point is this: job creation schemes, however noble, will not break the poverty trap unless they give people new skills in real private sector jobs.
The Government’s skills strategy published last year sets out plans to refocus spending on apprenticeships and to make all vocational training free at the point of access, with costs repayable only once someone earns a decent salary. That will help many young people into training, especially single parents, people who have been made homeless, and ex-offenders. I strongly support the announcement that 250,000 new apprenticeships will be created over the next few years. I particularly support the establishment of 24 new university technical colleges, which are essentially pre-apprenticeship schools led by local employers.
In Harlow, we have applied for a UTC led by Harlow college. If we get it, that UTC will be a centre of excellence for engineering and journalism backed by local firms and Anglia Ruskin university. On top of that, I support the funding for 100,000 sponsored work experience placements for jobless 18 to 21-year olds. I hope that such policies will significantly reduce youth unemployment in the years ahead.
However, it is not just about national Government. In Parliament, I have often championed the pioneering wage-subsidy scheme run by Essex council and Harlow college. As I mention in early-day motion 1258, that scheme has boosted young apprentices in key growth industries, especially high-tech manufacturing. Essex council and Mr Dean Barclay have even helped to sponsor the apprentice in my Westminster office, Andy Huckle, who is combining a year in the House of Commons with a level 3 course in business administration. A few other MPs have taken on apprentices and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.
In Essex, that scheme is being taken to the next level by the Federation of Small Businesses, which has applied to the regional growth fund to sponsor 2,000 new apprentices, especially in the energy sector. That scheme will be similar to the targeted £2,500 wage subsidy proposed by the central business institute a few years ago. So despite the historic problem, a lot is being done to address the social injustice of young people who want to get on in life but cannot find a job.
Work experience and apprenticeships give young people a chance to see a busy workplace, and to make things happen in the real world. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned the Prince’s Trust. As we speak, a young girl from the Prince’s Trust is doing some work experience with me. The Government must start to use their planning powers and their contracts to insist that there is a better uptake of apprenticeships in Britain. Harlow council is currently looking at ways of using planning law to require developers to employ young apprentices. In the same way, Essex council is exploring ways of putting clauses into contracts to boost apprenticeships for young people. The total value of public sector contracts is £175 billion a year. If even a fraction of those built in apprenticeships, it would make a huge dent in youth unemployment across the country.
The issue is not just about how to create job opportunities. Let us be honest: for too long apprenticeships have been seen as plan B if someone does not want to do A-levels, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) mentioned. That was the problem with the old technical schools of the past: attending them was seen as a lesser thing to do. That must be confronted, rather than swept under the carpet. The plans to enhance a level 3 apprenticeship to technician level will make a difference, but as I mentioned, we must give apprenticeships parity of esteem to make them more attractive to young people who are looking for work.
That is why at 3.30 pm today, in the Jubilee Room next door, I will launch a new apprentice card with the National Union of Students and businesses, who together have tens of thousands of apprentices on their books. The card has one simple aim: to give apprentices the same benefits as A-level and university students. I have worked for many months with the NUS and other organisations to establish a national society of apprentices. The card is the very first step towards such a scheme and it will give young apprentices discounts at restaurants, travel agents and high street stores, as well as access to free support services and legal advice. There will also be social events, mentoring, careers guidance and other planned benefits, including financial products such as interest-free overdrafts.
Robert Halfon
At the moment, it is an English apprentice card, but we hope to extend it as we slowly roll out the scheme. I urge the hon. Gentleman to come along to the launch this afternoon; he would be very welcome.
The effective rate of youth unemployment is devastating, and has been for the past decade. If we leverage Government contracts and planning, and boost the prestige of on-the-job learning through efforts such as the apprenticeship card, we will transform the lives of the 1 million young people who are out of work.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. I want the winding-up speeches to start at 10.40 am, and I have five people indicating that they want to speak—so, more brevity, more speakers.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing this important debate. I come from Northern Ireland and represent a Northern Ireland constituency. Along with my colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party, we want to bring to the debate the perspective from Northern Ireland, where devolution has given us the prime responsibility for apprenticeships and for tackling youth unemployment. However, social security and jobseeker’s allowance are issues of parity, because the funding comes directly from the Treasury here in London. We are keen and anxious that the levels of youth unemployment are gravely reduced.
Some of the issues go back to educational attainment. For example, one in every five children leaves primary school in Northern Ireland without proper literacy and numeracy skills, which can be directly correlated to levels of economic inactivity later on, because such people are not properly equipped to undertake skills and training. That is an issue throughout the United Kingdom. Although we come from different political perspectives, we are anxious for youth to be geared and invested with the skills and training necessary to ensure that they do not get involved in violence and terrorism, such as we have witnessed for the second night running in east Belfast. That road leads only to a different way of life, and we want youth to be channelled into positive activity, so that deprivation and social disadvantage do not mean no active work or engagement.
To emphasise the scale of the problem, we need to look at the stark figures. The annual increase in JSA claimants in Northern Ireland is the largest among the UK regions. Over the past year, 3,900 people have joined the dole queue, and that is an increase of 7%, compared with a rise of 0.3% in the UK as a whole. Critically, the trend of increasing, long-term youth unemployment is most alarming, with Northern Ireland experiencing a sevenfold increase in long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds since the recession.
I do not want to indulge in ostrich economics. We must rebalance our economy in Northern Ireland, and that is why we are seeking the assistance of the Treasury. Some of us might have different views about the degree to which corporation tax should be lowered to attract foreign direct investment—I think it should be lowered—but I agree with my colleagues that small indigenous businesses must be encouraged as well to provide the opportunities for young people to be skilled.
David Simpson
The hon. Lady made a point about small indigenous businesses, but surely small businesses can be encouraged to take on more apprentices and young people by reducing the red tape and bureaucracy, as well as by the accessibility of bank credit. Currently, small businesses are experiencing such difficulties, which have a domino effect.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I agree that the Government, with the British Bankers Association, need to tackle directly the lack of availability of credit facilities for young people who have the skills to set up in business. Also, a prevailing view is that the Government’s failure to act with the necessary urgency and immediate action casts doubt on the coalition’s ability to deal with this crisis before it becomes a structural liability that will weigh down on our economy in years to come. Over the past 20 years, successive Governments have instilled in young people, quite rightly, the sense that by investing in their education, they are investing in their future career. To have them leave university during a stagnant job market is a fundamental failing, and another failing is in the whole area of welfare reform. We are encouraging people to go into work rather than to apply for benefits, which is all very well if the job and skills opportunities are available but, sadly, in many instances, that is not the case.
We must be aware of the economic cost that goes hand in hand with the social cost of youth unemployment. The London School of Economics found that each young person in long-term unemployment costs the Exchequer up to £16,000 a year. The Prince’s Trust has stated that youth unemployment in Northern Ireland costs up to £4.5 million a week, which is almost £250 million a year. The economic cost of the failure to tackle the problem could not be more evident.
In conclusion, while the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive must not shirk their responsibilities, there is no doubt that central Government have a profound role in influencing devolved Administrations. Youth unemployment lies at the centre of a constellation of other problems, including local economic performance, education, welfare dependency and the state of local infrastructure. It is most important that the Minister responds positively on how we can collectively tackle this pernicious issue, because we must ensure a future for our young people, that the issues of educational disadvantage and skills deprivation are properly dealt with and that a university degree is seen as on a par with skills training, and vice versa, because as soon as the public sees that equality of advantage, we will really be tackling youth unemployment.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I want to make three points. First, we must put the debate into context—the good news and the bad news. The good news is that the June official unemployment figures showed the number of young people out of work falling in the quarter to April—youth unemployment has continued to fall sharply—and the number of unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 24 dropped by 79,000, which is the largest fall since official records began in 1992. That point needs to be made in this debate. Against that, we must recognise that 900,000 young people aged between 16 and 24 are still out of work. I accept the earlier caveat of the Minister, that a number of them are youngsters who are studying but looking for part-time work; even so, there is still a problem, in particular for those not in education, employment or training, who have that hideous acronym of NEETs.
Secondly, in the Budget the Government announced an extra £180 million to help fund 40,000 apprenticeships, so over the next four years a potential 400,000 on-the-job training schemes will become accessible to young unemployed people. However, employers have a responsibility, too. We might get more apprenticeships, but a two-way process is involved: employers need to offer the apprenticeships. In a constituency such as mine, where the overall unemployment rate is about 2%, employers often bemoan the skills shortages when things are going well but fail to realise that the wise employers with foresight ensure that they train their own staff for the future.
Pro Drive, Norbar Torque Tools, Crompton Technology and Bicester Village in my constituency are flagship businesses with nationally and internationally recognisable names, and all have excellent apprenticeship schemes. Pro Drive has a scheme to send apprentices to university. Bicester Village has introduced a scheme for retail apprenticeships, and Crompton Technology, Norbar Torque Tools and many others are enhancing their work force and their future by investing in young people today. We cannot just stand on the sidelines and shout at the Government. The Chancellor made opportunities available in the Budget, and it is now for small, medium and large business to take up the opportunities.
My third point relates to NEETs. The NEET rate in many places is far too high, but young people do not start to become disengaged with education and employment at 16. That often happens much earlier. In Oxfordshire, we are launching an early intervention service that will start at a much earlier age to provide specialist services to families facing exceptional difficulties. The whole point about the early intervention service is that it will try to help to improve outcomes in relation to reducing persistent absence and exclusion from school in the hope that when youngsters get to 16 they will still be engaged in education and training. It is sometimes unbelievably depressing to meet young people who have fallen out of education and training, and we must ensure that many more of them are engaged. If they are unqualified and unskilled at 16, the chances are that they will be unqualified, unskilled and unemployed not just at 24, but for the rest of their life. Banbury and Bicester job clubs are organising specialist job clubs during the summer for young people to ensure that every youngster in the area knows about all the available opportunities, and that they get the fullest possible support in finding a place in the world of work.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this important debate. For me, it is crucial. Since the peak of the economic crisis, youth unemployment in my constituency was definitely falling steadily. It took a Tory-led Government to reverse that trend. The latest figures show that 1,450 16 to 24-year-olds in my constituency are collecting jobseeker’s allowance, which is one third of the overall claimant count, and 36 people chase each job vacancy. I am told that a year ago, 10 people chased each vacancy. Clearly, there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
It is crucial that Connexions is not allowed to close. The new Labour city council in Hull has overturned the Lib Dem council’s policy of withdrawing funding for Connexions, so we are lucky to an extent. But that raises the issue of what the Government’s agenda is, and that was made clear to me at my last surgery when a young, 18-year-old constituent, Michaela Droullos, came to my office. She is about to go off to do a degree in nursing at Leeds university. She said, “What have the Government got against young people?” I said, “How do you mean?” She said, “They are scrapping the future jobs fund, abolishing Building Schools for the Future, scrapping the education maintenance allowance, and trebling tuition fees.” The Minister is turning his back to me, but my constituent came to me highlighting how she perceives the Government’s agenda of the past 12 months. That is serious, and I respectfully ask the Minister to take notice of what my constituent thinks of his Government. They gutted funding for creative partnerships, and then attacked Connexions.
I intend to be brief, Mr Caton, but I want to ask the Minister some questions. I am concerned about the care to learn programme in my constituency. It is an initiative that concentrates on youth parents under 20, and I wonder whether it will continue after the 2011-12 academic year. I also wonder whether the Government have acknowledged the fact that by scrapping EMA young people will become estranged from their parents and will claim income support. What assessment has been made about the financial implications of that?
Face-to-face careers advice is crucial, certainly in my constituency. Young people should have an opportunity to sit with an expert careers adviser and receive face-to-face advice. What are the Government doing about that, and what is likely to happen to the statutory obligations on special educational needs?
This is important in my constituency. As I said at the outset, 36 people chase every job, and it is not a coincidence that that has increased by a massive amount in the past 12 months.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is a fellow graduate of the university of Bradford. I shall cut to the chase. I have quite a lot to say about the schemes to help young people aged 18 to 24, but that is not the contribution that I want to make. I want to follow on from some of the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about those in the school system. The Minister may say that I am making my speech to the wrong Minister, but in some ways that is the problem. There is a lack of joined-up thinking between Ministers.
The Secretary of State recently came to Bradford. I say Bradford, but it was Ilkley, where there are no NEETs, absolutely zero, and to Bingley where there are 19, but in my constituency, the average secondary school, let alone ward, has more young people than that on a reduced timetable and receiving specialist provision. I am not speaking behind the Secretary of State’s back because I have spoken to him about this, and I hope that he will remedy it with a visit to some parts of Bradford in the future.
The issue that I want to focus on is not what we do post-18 or post-16, but what we do from birth and certainly from the ages of 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. At that point, although there are still many problems to be faced, there is a chance with appropriate and skilled intervention to do something about the future life chances of young people. A reduced timetable tends to be the answer, but we are often dealing with teachers who simply do not have—why should they?—the necessary skills set to deal with often difficult young people.
The consequences of failure are there to see in the statistics on NEETs post-16, and teenage pregnancies. In my area, 20% of DWP claimants aged 16 to 24 are lone parents. The other consequence—this is stark language, I know—is the number of young people who end up in Armley prison. That is how serious the issue is.
The main problem seems to be that we burden the post-16 world with remedial work as a consequence of a failure to support structured interventions pre-16. The pre-16 work is often unco-ordinated and insufficiently funded. It involves a mixture of separate units and reduced timetables, as I mentioned. I am sorry to have to say that for many schools it is simply a case of getting a young person through, without losing track of them, to the age of 16, when they can pass them on to someone else because it is no longer their responsibility.
Why is no permanent, mainstream, funded provision available? Within these four walls, that has repercussions. There is additional funding for pupils who have English as an additional language, but none for white working-class pupils, whose literacy skills may be just as bad and whose oral skills are often deplorable. No wonder we have issues with the British National party and the English Defence League in some of our white communities. We need to have a positive response to that.
The answer to the question that I have posed is that often the provision is regarded as just a temporary measure. We see schemes in schools that involve a pilot followed by another pilot. A short-term pot of funding is available and then another one needs to be found. There is no continuation and certainly no mainstream funding available. However, until we deal with the high levels of deprivation in some of our communities, there will be a constant flow of disaffected young people who end up requiring post-16 and post-18 support, which by then will be of no value.
Some schools are doing well. Carlton Bolling college, a secondary school with which I was involved, provides an example of sustained effort. That includes off-site provision; learning support units; timetables that are reduced but with a mixture of provision; and the development of a vocational curriculum. However, those options are expensive and are all without additional funding. The Ilkley grammars of this world have the same level of funding per pupil, but do not have the problems that a school such as Carlton Bolling college has. It is hoped that the pupil premium will provide support, but that should not be required. What is really required is intensive, integrated multi-agency work, and much of that has to involve family interventions. That work is difficult and expensive, but the cost to society of not doing it is of course even greater.
We must consider how we assess our schools. How will we ever adequately fund measures to deal with some of these issues when we assess and evaluate schools based on league tables that reward a school that lifts a young person from a grade D to a C, but does nothing at all to acknowledge the fact that to get someone from nothing to something—G or above—is often a far more prestigious accomplishment? Again in stark language, how will we ever adequately fund such measures when a school receives more credit for converting a student from a D to a C than for diverting a student from a life of crime?
Much work needs to be done. No doubt the Minister will say that he is not personally responsible for the group to which I am referring. However, the conveyor belt of failure has to be picked up by the Minister. We need clear evidence first that the Minister is aware of it and then that measures are being taken to join up the provision required to stop that conveyor belt.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
We have heard a lot today about the statistics, so I will not go into those. The good news is that youth unemployment is dropping, but everyone shares the concern that it is still too high. As I think almost every hon. Member said, we must tackle the implications of long-term unemployment; the issue is not just those who are out of work for short periods. That is where the picture is looking quite good. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year has reduced from more than 26,000 to just under 15,000 in a year. That is good for all our constituencies.
However, research done recently showed up some worrying findings. One finding was that young people are very disillusioned about their prospects of employment. They believe that they will find it very difficult to get work. A very worrying number said that they would like to work but they were not even looking for work because they believed that no jobs were available, so in some ways we have talked ourselves into an even greater problem than we need to have. We therefore need not only to tackle skills levels, as a number of hon. Members mentioned; we also need to increase young people’s motivation to go out and compete for the jobs that exist. There are jobs around. There may not be as many as we would like to see, but there are jobs and young people need to be encouraged and supported to go out and compete for them.
We must not lose sight of the short-term and long-term implications of youth unemployment, both on a personal level and for society as a whole. We have heard about the financial implications of youth unemployment, but there are other implications for the individual and for society in the longer term. The longer someone has spent unemployed, the less opportunity they have to go up the career ladder. They are likely to have lower lifetime earnings, which means that they and their families are more likely to struggle. It also means that they are less likely to save for their retirement, so in the very long term they will end up with low or non-existent pension savings and either are likely to have to work for longer or are likely to be living in poverty as a pensioner. The implications can be very long term for the individual and for society.
This is one of a number of debates that we have had in the past few months on youth unemployment and what can be and is being done about it. Hon. Members are right to say that we need to improve the employability of young people, but I believe that the Government are trying to do that. I am reassured by work that is being done by the Department for Work and Pensions and by the other Departments with a responsibility in this area. The Government have been investing in apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has explained why that is critical and given very good examples of what can be done not only by Government, but by individuals. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has been doing in this area. He sets an example for all of us—we should be doing more.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what the Government are doing with regard to work experience placements, because for many young people that taster of the workplace and the opportunity that it provides for employers to see what young people are like and that they can step up to the mark is important. The Government are also investing in early support in the Work programme for NEETs, which many hon. Members spoke about.
Without wishing to play the blame game, I think that it is important to put it on the record that Labour did not do enough to tackle the trends in youth unemployment when it was in government. In many ways, that contributed to the problem of long-term unemployment among young people that the present Government are trying to resolve. Labour threw money at the problem rather than focusing on what worked. A number of hon. Members mentioned the future jobs fund, but it was created to ease the problem of youth unemployment, not to create long-term sustainable jobs. That was the problem with the programme: at the end of the placement, there was not always a job to go to, so the young person ended up back on working-age benefits. That also knocked their confidence, which takes us back to the problem that I referred to at the beginning of my speech of young people feeling disillusioned. We need to create long-term sustainable jobs and a skilled work force—a cohort of young people who are willing and able to take up those jobs.
I therefore welcome the early access to the Work programme for NEETs. I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether there are any plans to roll that out, if it proves successful, to more young unemployed people who are not necessarily NEETs. I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned investing in support for young entrepreneurs. A very small proportion of the under-24s are self-employed. That is understandable, but many young people have good ideas, are keen and enthusiastic and will generate wealth and jobs for the future. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little more about the support that is being, or will be, made available to help and encourage those young people, whether that is mentoring support or access to capital to enable them to invest in themselves and in jobs for the future.
I welcome the significant progress that has been made in tackling long-term youth unemployment. We cannot risk another generation facing the same problems as those who left school and university in the 1980s and 1990s. The Government are doing a lot, but there are some areas I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on, and I hope that that work will continue.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this timely and important debate.
Unemployment is too high across the board, but young people are being disproportionately hit, and the impact of youth unemployment is particularly damaging. Long spells of unemployment early in somebody’s working life can permanently harm their future potential. Paul Gregg at the university of Bristol has shown how severe that scarring was after the 1980s recession, when my hon. Friend was working among unemployed young people in Wolverhampton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) was doing similar work in Hartlepool.
It is that long-term impact which makes this topic important and which explains why it is important that the Government tackle it. I have been looking at the Churches’ seminal 1996 report on unemployment and the future of work, which powerfully set out the key moral case for dealing with this issue:
“it is wrong, in such a prosperous society as ours, for large numbers of people to be denied for long periods the means to earn a living”.
On youth unemployment, the report said:
“The reason for special concern about youth unemployment is not just that it is relatively high, but also that it comes at a crucial stage in a lifetime. The anxiety must be that young people who fail to obtain work experience at this stage will miss out an essential induction into adult responsibility and independence…It is…the main focus for the initiatives proposed by the Labour Party for their ‘new deal’.”
Indeed it was; in 1997, the new Government recognised the imperative to change things for the better, and they did so through the new deal.
Fifteen years later, however, that job needs to be done again. If anything, the case for action is even greater now than it was then. We have a particularly large cohort of young people aged 18 to 24, and large youth cohorts need to be cared for; there is a big risk of social damage if they are not. We now run the serious risk that this large group’s entry into adulthood will be stunted by unemployment.
As we all know, being unemployed has an impact on short-term and long-term health and even on life expectancy. However, if a young person is unemployed, it can hurt even more. Falling at the first hurdle in working life can mean missing out on the fulfilment that comes from a meaningful career. As the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), among others, said, high levels of youth unemployment also tend to be associated with poor social outcomes, including increases in crime, particularly property and street crime. We need to keep our focus on that, particularly when police numbers are being cut, as they are at the moment.
Youth unemployment means a loss of productive work, adds to the benefits bill and increases the costs of policing and long-term social exclusion. A couple of contributors to the debate have referred to the work of the Prince’s Trust, which estimated in 2010 that the cost to the public purse of a young jobseeker was up to £16,000 per year, which is too high a price.
In a recession, young people are most at risk in the labour market. Often, firms will operate a last-in, first-out policy, which naturally works to the detriment of their younger employees. Firms facing an uncertain future will often not take on new staff at all, which, again, disproportionately affects young people.
The problem is being exacerbated by the fact that the Government are cutting public spending too far and too fast, hitting families, costing jobs and running the serious risk that they will make it even harder to reduce the deficit. The Labour party’s case is that we should put jobs first. We do, of course, need tough decisions on tax and on spending cuts, and it is absolutely right to tackle inefficiency and waste. However, getting people off the dole and back into work is the best way to bring the deficit down. As the Prince’s Trust has said, keeping young people on the dole is a waste of money and talent, and it puts the future well-being of our economy and society at risk.
On the most recent figures, there were 935,000 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in the three months to March. That is a welcome fall on the quarter, but it means that there were 31,000 more young unemployed people than there were last summer.
Chris Grayling
The actual number in the last figures was 895,000, which is lower than at the general election.
Stephen Timms
Those were not the Office for National Statistics figures. The figure, as I read the release, was 935,000, which is 31,000 more than last summer.
Of course, it is no surprise that unemployment rose sharply in the downturn. However, a year ago, with the youth jobs guarantee and the future jobs fund in place, youth unemployment was starting to fall steadily, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). As we have heard, one of the new Government’s first acts was to scrap that successful programme, and we can see now some of the damage that has resulted. The rise in unemployment means the benefits bill is going up by more than £12 billion. As we have heard, that comes at a time when other Government decisions, such as scrapping education maintenance allowance and removing Connexions, are making it harder for young people who are starting out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said in opening the debate, the Labour party is arguing for a second, one-off £2 billion tax on bankers’ bonuses. Of that, £600 million should be used to help create 90,000 more jobs for young people at this crucial time, when those jobs are so badly needed. The remainder of the funding should be used to build more affordable homes—that, in itself, would probably create about 20,000 jobs for young people—and to support small businesses by increasing the regional growth fund. Later this month, we shall seek to legislate for that proposal through an amendment to the Finance Bill.
Last year, the bankers’ bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion. By comparison, the current Government’s bank levy will yield less than £2 billion in the current financial year. It is estimated—conservatively, I think—that a repeat of the bonus tax could bring in an additional £2 billion this year. That funding could be put to extremely good use.
As my hon. Friend said, youth unemployment in the 1980s continued to rise for four years after the recession was over. We need to act now to avoid another lost generation of young people. A fair tax on bank bonuses can help to get young people off the dole and into work. It would be hypothecated, and people would see where the money was coming from, what it would do and where it was going.
Official figures show that between October 2009 and January 2011 there were, as I said in an intervention, 91,890 starts in future jobs fund vacancies. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made some telling and important points, but his case was rather undermined by his suggestion that only 5,000 people started on the future jobs fund, which is not correct; it was well over 90,000, and the programme would have been well on track to achieve the 150,000 target had it been allowed to continue for the full two years for which it was planned.
A strikingly large proportion of those who started on the future jobs fund went on to other jobs when their placement ended. The crucial point, however, is that having a proper job for six months at an early stage potentially transforms a young person’s future career and life chances. That is why that intervention was so important and effective. More than 10,000 of the 90,000 were in the region of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—in the west midlands.
Of course the new youth jobs fund would be different. It would be linked with other schemes and with employers, to ensure that real jobs came out of it. No doubt lessons would need to be learned from the experience with the future jobs fund, and I agree about the importance of linking with apprenticeships; but the principle that substantial effort and investment are needed to safeguard the current generation of young people should be agreed across the House. The Government need to take that seriously, not just addressing the incentives for work, but taking responsibility also for there being jobs for young people to do.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate. I want to set out, as several hon. Members have requested, the details of the Government’s strategy to deal with youth unemployment, but I should start by giving a little context to the problem we now have.
Let me be clear, first, that the shadow Minister is plain wrong and a month out of date: the latest unemployment figures, published in the past month, show that the total number of young people who are unemployed in this country, according to the International Labour Organisation measure, is 895,000. That is 35,000 lower than at the general election. Let us put that in context. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and comments in the debate about the record of the previous and present Governments, but we should be clear that youth unemployment—happily, and long may this continue—has fallen since the general election.
Stephen Timms
The Minister made a case in an earlier intervention for perhaps taking some people out of that figure, because they are full-time students looking for part-time jobs. Is he suggesting also that the number of full-time students with part-time jobs should be taken out of the employment count?
Chris Grayling
I have issues generally with the way some of the ILO’s data are collected. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues would like to request another debate, and we can consider the question at length. What pleased me most fundamentally about the last set of figures was that the drop occurred not in the group of those in full-time education, looking for a part-time job, but in the group of those not in full-time education or employment. That is a welcome development.
There is a big challenge for us.
Steve McCabe
I do not want the debate to get bogged down in the question of figures, but I am not quite sure I understood that last point. I thought that the Office for National Statistics said that 61,000 of the 88,000 drop was accounted for by students becoming economically inactive because they are in full-time study. It is not true in that case to say that the bulk of the drop could be attributed to non-students. The reverse would be true.
Chris Grayling
There is a headline number of 895,000, less 277,000, so there has been a figure for the past few months of six hundred and something thousand young people who have been unemployed but are not in full-time studies. It is in that group that the falls of the past few months have happened. That is welcome; but it is only a small step in the right direction. We accept absolutely that there is a big challenge. It has been arising for much of the past decade. It began not even in the recession but in 2003-04. I think that the previous Government did not do enough to recognise that trend—the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) was right. We inherited from that Government a collection of inadequate and expensive schemes, as well as a monumental financial deficit. That led to our having to take some pretty difficult decisions, which we might rather not have taken; we had to, given the scale of the financial mess left behind.
We have put in place in the past 12 months a strategy that I believe will start to make a difference. It is of paramount importance that we should focus on the hardest-to-help in the group. The numbers show that about 80,000 young people have been on jobseeker’s allowance for more than six months and that there is a core of 300,000 young people who have been out of work for more than six months, according to the ILO measure. Happily, the majority of young people who go on to jobseeker’s allowance move off pretty quickly. That is good; it is a temporary phase and they move into employment. Many who are not in education, employment or training are only in that group as a temporary phase between school and college, or a similar situation. However, a core of young people are struggling to get into the workplace, and they are, should be and will be a priority for the Government.
Mr Iain Wright
Does the Minister think that the ending of face-to-face careers guidance will have an impact on youth unemployment?
Chris Grayling
Of course, we are not ending face-to-face careers guidance. Under the plans that we have put forward it is, first, for head teachers to look after careers advice for school-age pupils. However, for those over 18 we shall provide a face-to-face option through the all-age careers service. We are working carefully to ensure that Jobcentre Plus and the all-age careers service will work extremely closely together, to ensure that not only do we deal with job search requirements, but we steer young people towards that advice, which of course will also be available online. That is the right approach, and the work being done in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is important on that front.
There are three key elements to our strategy. The first, as the hon. Member for Cardiff Central mentioned, is work experience, to try to tackle the age-old problem that someone without experience cannot get a job, but they cannot get the experience unless they get a job. Earlier this year we launched our work experience scheme. Our target is to provide work experience placements for 50,000 young people per year over the next two years.
On top of that we are launching work academies later this year, to provide additional combined training and experience placements. We are looking to provide a very large number of young people with opportunities to take first steps in the workplace. Jobcentre Plus is engaging employers throughout the country. There is a national effort to get bigger employers involved, and already several thousand young people have gone through the work experience placements. Many of those have now moved on into jobs and apprenticeships. That is the first essential part of our strategy, and we have commitments from employers for tens of thousands of work experience places, which I hope can provide an extra leg up into the workplace for some of those who are shorter-term unemployed—some of those entering the labour market after school and college, and wanting to take their first steps in the workplace.
The second key part of our strategy is apprenticeships. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for the work that he has done. He has been a great champion of apprenticeships, and the initiative that he is launching—the apprentice card—is valuable. He should take great pride in what he has achieved with that. Since the general election we have announced tens of thousands of new apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised the question, and I can tell him that employers have taken up those extra places. We are meeting our goal of filling those apprenticeship places; long may that continue. It is an important part of building a long-term career opportunity for young people—not the six-month placements of the future jobs fund, which cost four times as much per job outcome as even the not terribly successful new deal for young people. Apprenticeships are a path to provide career skills for a lifetime and a long-term job in the private sector, where jobs are currently being created—with 500,000 more roles in the private sector since the election. That is where our focus should lie.
There is also, of course, the Work programme—intensive support for young people who are struggling to get into the workplace. Entry to that intensive support for any young person is after nine months, which is sooner than under previous schemes; but, crucially, there is entry after three months for some of those who are most challenged—those who have been NEET, and those who are struggling, from the most difficult backgrounds and circumstances—to get intense, personalised support from the Work programme providers. There is huge innovation among those providers, such as the recruitment of skilled military and leadership personnel to provide mentoring and guidance to young unemployed people; and the involvement of charities such as the Prince’s Trust, which have expertise in helping young people to meet their challenges and get into the workplace. All that is hugely important.
I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) about the need for a focus that is not just post-16 or post-18, and for a strategy of early intervention. That is why our school reforms are so important, and why we recently announced a package of support for 16 to 18-year-olds, who all too often are missed out in the current system. The innovation fund that we are launching this week will invite charitable groups to present proposals to tackle some of the challenges presented by 16 to 18-year-olds who drop out and do not go into education. That is all part of a strategy that we believe can make a big difference to an issue that is very real to the nation, and about which the previous Government did much too little.
Education Capital Programmes (Coventry)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Caton, to initiate a debate under your chairmanship, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate. What I have to say will be supplemented by my two colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). They will go into more detail, particularly about the schools in their constituencies.
I start by giving an overview and some background. I am sure that the Minister knows about it, as today is the second time that we have debated Coventry’s capital programme. We obviously have not moved far since then, which was some months ago. It is worth reminding the Chamber that Coventry lost about £300 million of its schools capital programme as a result of changes made by the Government. That, of course, has had an effect on the quality of teaching in our schools and on its buildings; indeed, we should not forget those employed in the construction industry. We should not lose sight of the fact that Coventry’s local economy has lost that £300 million.
We are awaiting the Secretary of State’s response to the James review. Even after he has announced the results of that review, and possibly talked of implementing it, in our view it would still take many months before anything could be done. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in Coventry, schools are crying out for repairs and, in some cases, rebuilds. We cannot go on like this for much longer.
We also want to hear from the Minister how the money is to be allocated to the various local authorities for their capital programmes. Will it be done on a regional basis? Will it be done by consortia? Exactly how will the money—if there is any—be made available and allocated?
We find it strange that the Government can find money for academies, but they cannot find money for school repairs. Many people in Coventry are asking why the Government can find money for academies but cannot find it for local education authority schools. It is obvious that the Government’s strategy about 12 months down the line will be to talk about profligate local authority spending. I and my colleagues will demonstrate that that is exactly what will happen.
Coventry is considering what it calls prudential borrowing. Following on from that, schools will probably be funding their own capital programmes. We should not lose sight of the fact that that will put an extra burden on them. As we have heard in our previous debates, schools are already finding money very tight, to say the least. The local authority obviously will have to service any debts incurred. Coventry will probably have to borrow about £3 million, and it will cost about £300,000 a year to service that debt. The council taxpayer will have to pay that money in addition to what has to be paid by the national taxpayer. Taxpayers will get a double whammy, yet get less from the Government. People in Coventry and the local authorities there want to know when we might have some information about the James inquiry and some answers to the questions that I have raised.
The late Dick Crossman, a former Leader of the House many years ago, said that the first six months of any Government determines their future. The first six months have certainly determined this Government’s future. They have made a number of U-turns, which shows that they rushed into decisions that, had wiser counsel prevailed, would have taken longer.
The combination of a significant increase in the number of births in the city and some inward migration has placed pressure on school capacity, particularly in the primary sector. Coventry city council proposes to increase pupil places. By 2012, a total of 120 additional places will be required at six schools, at an estimated cost of £9.4 million. I shall refer specifically to a few schools, but I shall touch on them only lightly as they are in the constituencies of my colleagues, and I would not want to tread on their territory. I think, for instance, of the Grange Farm and Sacred Heart schools. The latter demonstrates that capital programmes in the public sector are not the only ones to be affected; there is also what I would call the religious side. There are Roman Catholic schools in Coventry as well as Church of England schools and they, too, will face the same problems as the local authority schools. Furthermore, the local primary care trust’s figures suggest that between 150 to 180 additional reception pupil places will be required for September 2014. Work to identify possible sites for these additional places is under way.
There are, of course, other school funding pressures in addition to the need to provide additional primary places. There is an urgent need to replace two large primary schools because of structural problems. Coventry’s five-year building plan includes the replacement of two primary schools that have major structural problems with their roofs. Engineers have confirmed that these schools need to be replaced in the next four to seven years. The estimated cost of replacing them at today’s prices is approximately £20 million.
A significant amount of ongoing basic maintenance and refurbishment work is required to ensure that schools in Coventry meet the minimum standards. In recent years, schools have used their devolved formula capital to deal with such needs. However, that has been reduced by 80%, and schools will not now have the resources to undertake these essential repairs. The overall financial implications include the pressures of pupil placement and the cost of essential improvements and replacement of buildings, and there is a total funding gap of almost £54 million pounds up to 2015.
I shall highlight the key issues. The time necessary for consultation, designing and building requires projects to be planned some years ahead. Officers have told me that undertaking this work in the context of a one-year allocation of funding is utterly unrealistic. The city council cannot commit to contracts of that value without certainty on future funding levels. The city council has already had to make provision for prudential borrowing so as to fund projects that need to be started immediately in order to provide sufficient places in 2011-12. That still has to be cleared by the school forum. We also have to consider the legal implications.
Further delay in making funding announcements will jeopardise the ability of local authorities to provide sufficient capacity in schools. The delay of the James review means that it is unclear how funding allocations are to be made. That will further complicate how local authorities plan school-based projects. I am concerned that this may be an attempt by the Government to fragment the school system. If the James review takes capital funding for schools out of the control of local authorities, how will the money be allocated? Will it be done on a regional basis or will there be consortia? Exactly how will it be allocated? Although the Government say that they are trying to abolish quangos, will they introduce another one?
I have outlined the problems that we experience in Coventry but, as I said earlier, my two colleagues will elaborate on them. In the interests of the pupils and the people of Coventry and the local authority, we would like some clear-cut answers from the Minister.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting it and the officers who preside here today. It is a timely debate for Coventry. It follows an earlier debate, in which we tried to explain the particular difficulties faced by Coventry. I am pleased to see the Minister here today; I know that he is well aware of the situation in Coventry. It was dreadfully compounded by the fact that, for whatever reason—it was not entirely the council’s fault, although it was partly responsible—the city failed to get a single school under Building Schools for the Future. BSF said that much needed to be done, even in the secondary sector. As a result, the overall programme, including that for primary schools, has to be increased if we are to overcome the terrible disadvantage that we incurred.
That was all the sadder because we were on the verge of signing those contracts. If they had been signed, we would be going ahead with three schools, two in my constituency and one in my hon. Friend’s constituency, behind which we could bring on the other schools. As it is, rebuilding in Coventry has come to a virtual halt, leaving schools such as Woodlands in my constituency suffering as a consequence. The central block of the school, which is rather inappropriately known as the Gibraltar block—it is anything but firm or solid—is propped up by scaffolding. Last week, we had to close the block because even the scaffolding had begun to collapse under the wear and tear of the past five years. That really is not good enough. That primary school has produced no fewer than three members of last two Lions rugby football teams. It has a great sporting tradition. That scaffolding around the main block is a great deterrent to a very fine school in a very good part of Coventry.
That problem may be resolved as the school has now chosen to become an academy, and I hope that that will loosen up funds and speed up the repair work. I recognise that that will take money from where it needed elsewhere in the city. It is a pre-emptive strike, but what was it supposed to do? On reflection, it is rather sad that the only way in which it can overcome the sudden chopping by this Government of a rebuilding programme and get something in advance of everyone else is to become an academy. That sole reason has been the driving force behind its decision to become an academy.
Ahead of or along with the James report, may we please have a clear programme for Coventry’s schools, especially its primary schools? That would be very welcome. At the moment, we are in no-man’s land; we cannot go forward and we cannot go back and the situation is deteriorating. I have mentioned two schools in the primary sector in this marvellous debate, but we could talk about all of the schools in the city. We do not have to be parochial about it.
Two schools need to be demolished. The estimated cost to rebuild them is £20 million, so we are looking at £10 million a school under the new regime. I am the first to admit that the old regime was too cumbersome and took too long. I fought with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who was Secretary of State at the time, over the matter. I said to him, “Look, this is taking too long. We must get on with this.” None the less, I knew that the work would get done. I did not think that it would come to a grinding halt. It was just taking longer than it should. What the present Government have done is to bring the work to a grinding halt.
We also need two new primary schools. Fortunately, this is a happy period for us in that birth rates are up and migration is in favour of Coventry. Something in the region of 200 places will be needed by 2015. Again, where will we find that money? Time is also a factor. Even under the accelerated programme, of which I am all in favour, it takes engineers and architects three to four years to plan a project. If it is to be done to cost and on time, a good deal of planning is needed. When will we have the certainty that we can go ahead with such a project? When will we have adequate funds to meet the needs of the children who are coming into school? They do not want to go into over-crowded and unsatisfactory buildings.
As a minimum, we require £54 million for our building programme, which will take us through to 2015. Will the Minister tell us when we will be able to access such funds? I would also like the local council to be a lot more active. It has not been the most dynamic council in securing money for such purposes. Nevertheless, it is finding it extremely difficult to deal with the delays. I know that the present Secretary of State wanted to avoid them, but that is what we face.
Remarkably, Coventry council initially took the view that if it did not criticise the Government for cancelling BSF, and behaved responsibly and showed that it understood the difficulties of the Government, it would do better financially. Of course it has not; if anything it has done worse than expected. The leader of the council, John Mutton, now says:
“The antics of this government are appalling. Here we are in June and we still do not have a clue what we are going to have by way of a budget this year.”
Councillor Kelly, who is in charge of the education brief, makes similar remarks about the uncertainty over the Government’s intentions.
The position of Grange Farm school in Allesley is particularly concerning. It is in need of immediate improvement. Children can be scarred for life. Their impressions in primary school are vital. Will the Minister specifically respond to that concern?
In conclusion, the Coventry building programme has been cut to the bone and is full of uncertainty. The number of children is rising and we need new schools. Woodlands school in my constituency needs to be extensively refurbished. Perhaps funds could be released for it alone. It has had scaffolding around it for five years. One year into this present Government and little progress has been made in Coventry.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Mr Ainsworth, I did not receive prior notice that you wished to speak in this debate. I am happy to call you, but I need the Minister’s permission.
Mr Jim Cunningham
On a point of order, Mr Caton. I did tell you that Mr Ainsworth was going to speak in the debate.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
I may well have misheard you, Mr Cunningham, because I was trying to chair the meeting at the same time. Neither the Clerk nor I picked up a reference to Mr Ainsworth. We are wasting his time now, so let me call Mr Ainsworth.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I apologise for the misunderstanding, Mr Caton. I thought that the procedure was that we had to make arrangements with the individual who has secured the debate. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
On 15 March, I raised the dilemma of Richard Lee school in Coventry. Over the winter, the condition of the school became quite disgraceful. Children were being taught in corridors because of water egress in classrooms. The sewers are inadequate and spill out on to the playground. The wonderful teaching staff wrestle with those appalling conditions and continue to provide a good education for the children. I said then that I was really worried about whether the school would get through another winter. Sadly, crisis has struck before another winter. Last Thursday, the ceilings came down in one of the corridors. Fortunately, the rain storm was at night. There were no children in the building, and it was a teacher training day the next day, so education was not dreadfully disrupted. None the less, my fears for Richard Lee school have been exacerbated by the latest crisis.
If we are not careful, we will remove all hope. We had a reasonable capital budget that was getting around the schools in Coventry, and Richard Lee was right at the top of the council’s priorities. The council’s capital programme, which was £49 million last year, is now £9 million. It will take £9 million to rebuild Richard Lee alone, leaving no money for the rest of the city. The devolved budget that the school has, which has enabled it to patch and repair, keep the children going and make the environment acceptable, has been cut from £49,000 to £9,000. This is a desperate situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) has said, we need some certainty. We do not know where the funding is coming from. Coventry knows that it has to rebuild Richard Lee school without delay. It is already spending money on survey work, because it knows that that has to be done, but it has no idea from the Government whether it will get the necessary money to rebuild the school.
We badly need certainty, and we need some hope to be restored to those schools that for very good reason had reached the top of the list for a rebuild. Patch and repair at Richard Lee is not feasible, nor is it feasible at Wyken Croft. Those Hills-built schools are structurally damaged. They have come to the end of their useful life and need to be replaced, and I hope that the Minister can give us some hope.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate. Like the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), he is no stranger to education provision in the Coventry area. He has assiduously raised the difficulties faced by schools in his area through questions and a number of debates in the House, and he and his colleagues met the Secretary of State last July.
I fully understand the difficulties in Coventry both in providing sufficient primary pupil places and in ensuring that repairs and desperately needed capital improvements are carried out in schools such as Richard Lee primary, which is again in the news because of maintenance problems. That school is in not the hon. Gentleman’s constituency but that of the right hon. Member for Coventry North East, who secured a debate on the subject on 15 March this year.
The Government are fully aware of the pressures that many local authorities face in the light of the very tight spending review capital settlement for the Department, but we must not forget why we find ourselves in this difficult position and why we have had to make difficult decisions. Because of the size of the budget deficit and the increasing caution of the capital markets to fund sovereign debt, our top priority in the medium term has to be to reduce the country’s budget deficit, which means that we need to prioritise a diminished level of capital funding for school projects, on the basis of need, primary places and deprivation.
In the context of what we are currently spending on debt interest payments alone, the action that we are taking is essential. Those interest payments could have been used to rebuild or refurbish 10 schools every single day of the year, but despite the difficulties we have been able to secure capital spending of £15.9 billion over the four years of the spending review period. We know only too well that there are schools in desperate need of refurbishment that have missed out on previous Governments’ capital programmes, and we fully appreciate that some people will feel that they have been treated unfairly, particularly if they fall just on the wrong side of the dividing line that had to be drawn. Despite the austerity of the capital programme, we will continue to spend significant capital on the school estate, at an average of almost £4 billion a year.
I know that schools and local authorities will experience difficulty in adjusting to these lower levels of funding. Nevertheless, they are historically high levels and, taking a wider perspective, they are still higher on average that those experienced in the 1997-98 and 2004-05 periods. Even when funding is tight, it is essential that buildings and equipment are properly maintained, to ensure that health and safety standards are met and to prevent an ever-increasing backlog of decaying buildings that will be difficult and more expensive to address in the long term.
By stopping the wasteful and bureaucratic Building Schools for the Future project, which the hon. Member for Coventry North West referred to as cumbersome and taking too long, we have been able to allocate £1.3 billion for capital maintenance for schools, with more than £1 billion being allocated to local authorities to prioritise their local maintenance needs. We have also been able to allocate £195 million directly to schools for their own capital repairs. It is clear that rising birth rates mean increased demand and pressure on primary places, with more parents unhappy with the lack of choice open to them. The education system has rationed places in good schools for too long, which is why our reforms are designed to allow more children to go to the best schools and to drive up standards in the weakest performers.
We are encouraging scores of new free schools to be set up, run by groups of teachers or educational charities, in places where parents want them, particularly in areas that have been failed educationally for generations.
Mr Robinson
I tried to intervene on the Minister when he mentioned BSF, but unfortunately I did not manage to catch his eye. I directly criticised BSF myself to the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood. One thing that happens whenever a big programme of that kind gets into the hands of civil servants and others who want to control it to the nth degree is criticism, which is fair enough. However, nobody recommended bringing BSF to a screeching halt, which has been to the great detriment of Coventry. We have two schools at the moment where there are problems. We have Woodlands school, where the scaffolding itself is falling down and there is a danger that it will bring the whole building down with it. We also have Richard Lee school. The Minister must have seen reports on that school. There are gaping holes in that school that people might fall through. These are urgent matters. What will he do about them?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, which I am about to come on to. We have allocated £800 million of basic need funding for 2011-12, which is actually twice the previous annual level of funding, to support the provision of increased places, particularly in primary schools, as a result of the increasing birth rate. In addition, we expect similar levels of funding to be allocated from 2012-13 until 2014-15, which will address some of the concerns that he has raised.
Mr Cunningham
How much of that £800 million will actually be allocated to Coventry? That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West were getting at when they talked about the two schools.
Mr Gibb
The capital allocation for 2011-12 for Coventry city council and its schools was announced on 13 December last year, and it was in excess of £13 million. It is now for the council to prioritise how it will spend the available funding, taking into account the building needs of its schools and its own responsibilities to fulfil its statutory duties.
Mr Ainsworth
The Minister has said that it is important for schools to maintain their buildings, even if they are in need of a rebuild. How on earth can Richard Lee school do that with a devolved capital programme of £9,000? How does a school maintain an ageing building with that size of devolved capital programme?
Mr Gibb
We took a decision about how we allocate scarce resources to schools and local authorities. It was our judgment that, because of the cut in the capital budget, it is better to allocate the bulk of the capital to local authorities for them to decide where the greatest need exists in their area, rather than to allocate more of that money down to the school level, because there are many schools that do not have the same need as Richard Lee school. It is better to divert that money to the local authority, which can allocate it to those schools, such as Richard Lee school, that are in greatest need.
I will now turn directly to the difficulties encountered by the Richard Lee primary school.
Mr Robinson
This issue is not about the devolution of the budget, which is entirely up to the Government. The point is that £9,000 will not go anywhere, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East has said.
Mr Gibb
I understand that, but £13 million, which is the amount of capital allocated to Coventry, is a very significant sum. It is not as high as we would like it to be, or indeed as high as it has been in recent years, but it is high historically compared with spending in other Parliaments in recent times. We face a difficult budget deficit, and we want to ensure that any capital available is spent where the greatest need exists. That applies to schools such as Richard Lee primary school in Coventry. That case is a classic example of how we are trying to target the funding at the schools that need it most.
Mr Cunningham
What the Minister is actually doing is asking the local authority to use the wisdom of Solomon, when it needs just more than £40 million to properly resource its schools. He is putting the local authority in a terrible position, so it is no good blaming the local authority.
Mr Gibb
I am not blaming the local authority. What I am saying is that we took a decision that it was better to give the bulk of the funds available for capital spending to local authorities to decide how to allocate them rather than to maintain the levels of the devolved grant formula to schools in this spending review period in which we are encountering these very difficult decisions on the budget deficit. That is because local authorities, rather than the man or woman in Whitehall, are best placed to decide which schools in their area have the greatest need for capital to be spent on them, and that applies to Coventry. That is the decision that we took.
Officials at the Department have been working—
Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus
(13 years, 6 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
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship and I trust that it will not be the last.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
At the outset of this debate, it is important to refer to the strategic importance of Azerbaijan in the surrounding region. We must always remember that Azerbaijan sits between Iran to the south, Russia to the north and Turkey to the west. Of course, it is also adjacent to Armenia and Georgia, which I will say more about later.
Azerbaijan is a strategically important country that has freed itself from the yoke of the Soviet Union, and it is making tremendous strides as a democratic republic. It is important that we understand and appreciate the strides that Azerbaijanis are making. It is also important that we understand the importance of Azerbaijan to the British economy. Azerbaijan is a country that is rich in oil and gas reserves. Those reserves are strategically vital not only for the region but for Britain’s future economy.
I am particularly pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) will respond to the debate today. I know that the region that Azerbaijan is a part of is one that he picked up on quickly as part of his ministerial responsibilities. I congratulate the Government on taking a strong lead in encouraging diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan and the other countries in the region.
Azerbaijan was the first secular democracy in the Islamic world, created in 1918. It gave the vote to women before women in this country or the US had the vote, which is a tremendous history. However, Azerbaijan’s development was halted when it was annexed by the Soviet Union back in 1920. Of course, Azerbaijan was under the Soviet yoke for 71 years before its battle for independence began. After their second revolution and after large numbers of brave Azerbaijanis were killed by Soviet soldiers, the country was finally able to become free and to govern itself.
Azerbaijan has a variety of different arrangements with different international bodies, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the EU’s Eastern Partnership, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Euronest, the Non-Aligned Movement and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. So Azerbaijan is very outward-looking; it is not an inward-looking country. We must encourage and promote that outward-looking nature, and ensure that we safeguard the future of this burgeoning democracy.
There is one major issue that is mentioned by everyone involved with Azerbaijan, which is the current situation in the occupied territories. Between 1992 and 1994, there was a war with Armenia, which led to Armenia occupying the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The ceasefire in 1994 resulted in 17% of Azerbaijani territory being occupied by Armenia, an issue which remains a running sore today. It has also meant that 870,000 Azerbaijanis have been forcibly removed from their homes, and those people have had to be accommodated elsewhere in Azerbaijan.
The international community has taken action on that. There have been no less than five United Nations resolutions covering this issue, four in the Security Council and one in the General Assembly. All those resolutions have demanded the withdrawal of Armenian troops. However, the Armenians have refused to honour those resolutions, and they still occupy Azerbaijani territory today. That is a serious problem, because it has created 870,000 internationally displaced persons whom Azerbaijan has to accommodate. On my visit to Azerbaijan, I was able to see the new facilities that the Azerbaijani Government are developing for some of those people to live in. However, there are too few of those facilities, because those people live in dreadful conditions. Some of them live in tents and have done so for 10 years. Others live in slums or in old student accommodation, which we in this country would rightly condemn and ensure that it was removed. So progress in accommodating those people is slow, but they are due to return to their homes once the Armenian forces are removed from the occupied territories.
The current position has been negotiated over an extended period of time, but the progress of negotiations is far too slow. As part of the process, there is the Minsk group, which is co-chaired by Russia, the US and France. However, there is a debate about whether that group is impartial or is actually influenced by the Armenians. The reality is that Russia is a direct political, economic and military ally of Armenia, operating military bases within Armenia itself, so it can hardly be said to treat Azerbaijan and Armenia equally.
Under the Madrid principles, which are a proposal to resolve the conflict, there should be a phased withdrawal of Armenian forces. However, those principles have been accepted by Azerbaijan but not by Armenia, so there is a stalemate. The next meeting to discuss those principles is taking place this week. We hope that there will be progress, but so far there is little optimism, because nothing has happened. We have a concern, and we are a major investor in Azerbaijan’s economy. It is my contention that we should have a much more direct, prominent and vocal role in the peace process, to defend our own economy and to promote both our national interests and the interests of the region of which Azerbaijan is part.
In Azerbaijan, there are excellent relations between different people of different backgrounds and different religions. It is an Islamic republic, but the constitution guarantees that anyone has the right to choose any faith, to adopt any religion, to express their religious views and to spread those views. As many hon. Members know, I am a strong promoter of the Jewish community, and I try to combat anti-Semitism wherever it raises its head. The Jewish community in Azerbaijan is an excellent example of Azerbaijan’s different minorities.
Krasnaya Sloboda, in the region of Guba, is the only completely Jewish town outside Israel. The Bet Knesset synagogue in the town was restored by Government aid to ensure that Jewish people in the area can celebrate their religion. Other than Israel, Azerbaijan is the only country in the world where the finance to rebuild and refurbish a synagogue has come from a national Government. Opposite that synagogue there is a leading mosque, so religions co-exist side by side in Azerbaijan. Indeed, Azerbaijan has excellent diplomatic relations with Israel, and in many ways the relationship between the two countries demonstrates the future of diplomatic relations between Islamic countries and Israel. Israel has an embassy in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. All communities in Azerbaijan have the opportunity to celebrate their religions and their faith, which is a shining example for other former Soviet countries as they emerge from years of dictatorship.
There is one sad fact. Relatively recently, mass graves were discovered. At the moment, the one certain fact is that large numbers of people were murdered—battered to death—but when that happened, who the people were and who was responsible is disputed. I contend that it is vital that the international community gets involved in the discussion, in analysing what happened, in excavating the graves and in dating the murders, so that an international inquiry can establish responsibility and the perpetrators can be brought to justice. That is clearly a concern for everyone. Seeing the mass graves is thought provoking, because terrible atrocities have gone on down the years.
On my recent visit, I was astonished to see a war memorial to British soldiers and sailors who sadly died at the end of the first world war. I have to confess that it was news to me that we had had any involvement with Azerbaijan at any stage during either of the world wars, but there the memorial stood, in all its glory, restored by the Azerbaijani Government. I plead with the Minister to visit that memorial and see that we need to honour those brave British individuals who gave their lives by ensuring that the memorial is brought up to a decent modern standard. Some colleagues and I were privileged to lay a wreath at the war memorial, because those brave people need to be remembered.
The key issue in relation to Azerbaijan’s economy is energy supplies. The country sits on the Caspian sea, which has huge deposits of oil and gas, which are strategically important. Azerbaijan is the only country that can guarantee a gas supply through the southern corridor without going through Russia. A pipeline exists to take gas through Azerbaijan, bypassing Armenia, and then through Georgia, into Turkey and on to Europe. BP has just signed a major contract, which means that by 2015, I think, that one gas field will be able to supply twice the needs of Europe in any one year, which offers huge future potential. We have a direct and natural interest, because BP is the only external contractor and, once the process is complete, it will be the biggest gas and oil terminal in the world. BP is investing $20 billion in Azerbaijan, and one of the great things is that the Azerbaijani Government say that they are ensuring that the wealth that is created is recycled among the whole Azerbaijani people, rather than going into the hands of relatively few individuals. The great attraction is that they will regenerate their economy while ensuring that everyone benefits.
There are, of course, things on which Azerbaijan needs to make progress. There is the problem of 870,000 internationally displaced persons. Azerbaijan is still at war with its immediate neighbour, so stability is its greatest priority, and here is an opportunity for Britain and the European Union to work in partnership with the fledgling Azerbaijani Government to ensure that things improve. Azerbaijan does not have a perfect democracy, but its Parliament building is a darned sight better than the one we sit in—especially in terms of the seats that we all enjoy. Importantly, Azerbaijan has embarked on peaceful elections, the last of which was watched by 2,500 foreign observers, who clearly stated that the election was free, fair and appropriate.
There is a worry about corruption. Corruption can be a problem anywhere there is oil, gas and a burgeoning economy, but when accusations have been made, the President has taken direct action by ensuring that people who have allegedly taken bribes are dismissed from the Government straight away.
The other worry is that Russia continues to wish to extend its interests and influence in the region. It has just extended its lease on the air base in Armenia by 40 years, even though the last lease had a full 10 years to go before expiry. That demonstrates that Russia is not going to let go and still wishes to influence and control the whole element of Azerbaijan and the surrounding areas.
In conclusion, the fact is that there is a great opportunity for Britain and its economy, for the promotion of jobs and for furthering British interests in the region. Probably more importantly, there is an opportunity to encourage and promote a democracy that is relatively in its infancy and freeing itself from dictatorship to ensure that it recognises and benefits from everything that goes on. We also have the opportunity of saying to Armenia, in our diplomatic way, “If you reach a satisfactory conclusion and a proper settlement on the occupied territories, there is absolutely no reason why you can’t benefit from the economic activity that will flow. If however, you continue to blockade and prevent progress, the natural result will be that you will not benefit from the burgeoning economy.”
My final point is that most people do not know where Azerbaijan is. Not the greatest thing in the world as far as I am concerned, but the greatest thing as far as Azerbaijan is concerned, was winning the Eurovision song contest this year. I will not sing the song—[Hon. Members: “Oh, go on.”]. Azerbaijan is looking forward to hosting the contest next year and having the opportunity to bring people in to witness it from all over Europe. It plans to build a concert hall specifically for the occasion. This really puts the country on the map, in a very positive way, which is, I think, warmly welcomed by all concerned. Of course, if we can encourage better diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan, it might give us votes come the next Eurovision song contest—[Hon. Members: “Please, no.”] On a serious note, the contest has put Azerbaijan on the map, as has the expansion of oil and gas. The country has become a major strategic area of Europe and of the world, and we can invest and be directly involved in it. I trust that I have given a flavour of the debate. There is now an opportunity for other hon. Members to join in with their contributions.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, declare an interest as a member of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, and as someone who went on the recent visit to that country.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate, and it is good to see colleagues around the room who have a great interest in what I found to be a tremendous country. I will come back later to the fact that Azerbaijan does very well in sport, but I am grateful that the Minister, who was a good footballing colleague of mine and who knows of my love of sport, will reply to the debate. It is also good to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who will be leading for our side, in his place.
I shall follow the lead given by the hon. Member for Harrow East on what we found in Azerbaijan. He is right that, when we speak to most people about Azerbaijan, they do not know where it is. As he has said, it is strategically placed between Russia and Iran, on the Caspian sea, and it is a strategic country internationally in terms of various economic and historic events over many years. He is right that we should do everything in our power to ensure that the good links that exist between the UK and Azerbaijan continue.
When we went to Azerbaijan, people were very hospitable, and we were able to ask any questions that we wanted and to see a whole range of things. We were welcomed by the President, who I thought was very forthright. I have spoken to the Prime Ministers and Presidents of other countries, and I found his honesty refreshing when he discussed some of the problems that the country faces as well as some of the successes. There is also a great deal of optimism within the country, which might be mildly surprising considering, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the issue that they face in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh.
We were fortunate—if that is the right word—to go to the front line to see first hand the problems that have arisen there. We also had the opportunity to speak to villagers who had been displaced. These were moving events in which a group of small schoolchildren sang us a song and then the villagers talked to us about the problem of not being able to go back to their homeland. We could see that the Government had a dilemma. In the capital, Baku, we visited some of the tenements—that is the only way to describe them—that the displaced people were in, and the living conditions were very poor. The dilemma for the Government was, yes, they wanted to re-house people in better housing, but those people did not want better housing in Baku; they wanted to go back to Nagorno-Karabakh.
As the representative of a Bradford constituency, I see parallels between Nagorno-Karabakh and the issue of Kashmir, where UN resolutions that have been in place for more than 40 or 50 years have never been acted on. The situation is similar in Nagorno-Karabakh. We sometimes wonder why some Muslim countries are angry at the way in which we in the west deal with UN resolutions—the issue may be more significant and complex than the picture that I am painting—but, if we consider that those resolutions have been in place for so long without any action being taken, it is possible to understand why that is the case. Indeed, the refugees and villagers told us, “You act in Libya and elsewhere in the world, but you don’t act on the legitimate issue of our problems with displacement.” Every contribution and every discussion and debate that we had made us aware of people’s concern about Nagorno-Karabakh and the need for the issue to be resolved.
On Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia has a wonderful opportunity, if it could only be seen. The hon. Gentleman has discussed Azerbaijan’s success with oil, gas and the pipeline. Armenia could get the same sorts of benefits, if it thought about its people and its future. We were reminded of parallels with Northern Ireland. Some expatriate Armenians are highly placed in Governments and lobbying groups across the world. They remember their homeland and are passionate about what it used to be, but the reality is that Armenia is a poor country that needs investment and support.
I hope that the discussions with the Minsk group will result in a positive outcome and that the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh can be resolved. The optimism of the Azerbaijanis was reflected in what the President and others told us. They said that the country feels the issue deeply, but that it was not going to hold them back from doing the other things that they need to do.
The UK’s links with and investment into Azerbaijan have been mentioned, but the relationship can work both ways. In fact, I know a small community of Azerbaijanis at Bradford university. One of the things that we need to look at on a wider scale in relation to general Government policy is student visas. We need to make sure that we do not stop people from countries such as Azerbaijan coming to the UK to enrich and enhance our cultures.
As I have said, Azerbaijan has a rich history. It wants to get involved with the wider world, particularly the European Union, and there are plenty of opportunities. On oil and gas, it is interesting that there is not only a British Midland flight from Heathrow to Baku and then Tbilisi, but a regular flight from Aberdeen to Baku, which carries Scottish oil workers. The links are there, and the opportunities are many.
On the area in which I have a great interest, sport, we were pleased to see the Azerbaijanis’ Olympic training centres. They relish and love sport. The Olympics and Paralympics will be in London next year, and the Azerbaijani team will be based in Ipswich. That will offer opportunities for cultural and sporting debates and exchanges. I have spoken to the Ministers with responsibility for those issues and to regional spokespeople, and they are keen on setting up groups of young people to get together to develop sport.
On the football front, one of the teams whose name I cannot remember is trying to get a strong team in Europe. An ex-Arsenal player, whose name also escapes me—[Hon. Members: “Tony Adams.”] Thank you. Memory loss is a sign of old age. Tony Adams is the manager of Azerbaijan’s most successful team and there is an ambition for that team to do well in Europe. They will be playing friendlies in the UK soon. It is an outward-looking country that wants to engage with the European Union and with us.
I was as surprised as the hon. Member for Harrow East at the relationship with the UK. It was moving to see the war memorial to the soldiers and sailors in an area in which Azerbaijanis had lost their lives during so many conflicts. It was a pleasure for us to see the memorial and the way in which the country honours our fallen servicemen and women. I encourage the Minister to go to look at it, if he gets the opportunity. It is of great significance.
The Eurovision song contest may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but when Azerbaijan won, it provided a great opportunity that it wants to grasp. About 35,000 people attended the Eurovision song contest in Germany, and the same number will attend the event in Baku next year. Work is already under way to get the appropriate venue and the appropriate hotels in place. I think that there are five five-star hotels being built and that a number of other hotels are on the way. They also want to sort out issues in relation to visas and visa restrictions, and we have been informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has responsibility for tourism, that that will be resolved shortly. It would be difficult to have a year of tourism without people being able to get into the country. They recognise that and are going to try to do something about it.
I have a plea from a big fan of the Eurovision song contest. Richard Pengelly, who is senior barperson in the Strangers Bar of the House of Commons, is an avid fan of the Eurovision song contest. He has asked me, given my involvement with Azerbaijan, whether I can make sure that he gets there next year, so I shall put that on the record on the basis that somebody who is listening may give him the opportunity to attend. He has said that he could act as a cultural adviser to Azerbaijan. It is a great opportunity for that country to have the rest of Europe visit it and see its facilities. People will be heartened to see the investment being put into the infrastructure, the roads and all the other things. They will also see the housing developments, that people are working very hard and that the investment is going right down to the people who count.
The UK Government should be proud of our relationships, and we can develop them further. Cities such as mine would benefit from visits from people from Azerbaijan in order to discuss religious freedom and tolerance. Azerbaijan had a problem with mullahs from outside preaching radicalism. It decided to deal with that, and it has done so. A mullah who does not come from or was not born in Azerbaijan cannot preach in the mosques. There are also important issues surrounding education and integration. We can learn a lot as well as give a lot to Azerbaijan, and I hope that we will do so.
I thank all those who were involved in the visit to the country. From that, I know that those who support Azerbaijan in its attempts to ensure that it opens itself up to the wider world will gather in strength. I wish the country well.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am lucky enough to be the chairman of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, and I was also on the trip that the previous two speakers attended in recent weeks. In addition, in recent months I have been board adviser to the European Azerbaijan Society.
We had a tremendous trip to Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh and Quba during the Whitsun recess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate. Like him and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), I was particularly moved by being at a war memorial that faced and was yards from the Parliament building. It was a particularly important war memorial because, as those who are familiar with the history of this region will know, fighting took place in areas such as Baku during the great war. Such areas were part of the Ottoman empire at that juncture.
I very much hope that the Minister will take the opportunity when he is next in Baku to visit that memorial. Clearly, I suspect that work has been carried out by the war memorials body to keep the memorial in reasonably good shape. What struck me was that the memorial is an important part of what is called Martyrs’ Alley, which is the memorial for various conflicts that have taken place in Azerbaijani and, indeed, Turkish history over recent years. In particular, there were problems during 1990 when there was a move by the then USSR, which was on its last legs, to try to put down conflicts on the streets of Baku. There was also the conflict with Armenia, which started two years later. What struck me was that, given the importance of pride and face in what one might broadly call the Muslim world, we should be intensely proud of the fact that a small corner of this sacred ground is in the hands of a British war memorial.
I reiterate both previous speakers’ words. There seems to be a tremendous opportunity in relation to Azerbaijan. It is essentially a secular Muslim state. Some 94% or 95% of its inhabitants are Muslim, and the remainder are a few Jewish and some Christian inhabitants. Given Azerbaijan’s strategic importance between Russia and Iran and the daily security concerns that we face in this country from difficulties in that part of the world, fostering closer links with Azerbaijan seems to be an extremely sensible way forward.
Although we had a tremendously interesting visit and we felt it was very open, it would be wrong to be ludicrously idealistic and not to recognise that Azerbaijan faces some issues. It is not a functioning democracy as we would understand the term here in the UK. However, it has made tremendous strides forward both politically and economically in recent years. That should be recognised and rewarded as far as our relationship with the country is concerned.
I became involved with Azerbaijan immediately after the previous election, when there was a move to reconstitute the all-party group. I did so partly because local Azerbaijanis who have business interests in the UK and other parts of Europe have had a big impact in trying to ensure that the country is not just seen as another oil and gas state. It would be all too easy to put the country in a box as being one of the “stans” of that region, as if such countries are somehow similar in history and outlook to other countries strong in the oil and gas area.
However, it would be wrong to understate the importance of oil and gas and of the tremendous trading links between the UK and Azerbaijan that go back some 20 years to the signing of long-term contracts by BP, which is and remains tremendously committed there. Some 4,000 or so permanent UK expats live in Azerbaijan. They are predominantly Scottish, but a significant number of people from other parts of the United Kingdom also live there. They make a good living and play an important part in developing the economy.
The Azerbaijani economy has grown. There has been compound growth of 7% or 8% in recent years, partly on the back of oil and gas. However, Azerbaijan is keen to promote to the world that it is about other things. In particular, it is looking to develop its financial services expertise. Obviously, I hope that my background as a Member of Parliament for the City of London will assist in that regard. It is also looking to develop areas such as high quality agricultural produce—some significant manufacturing goes on—and the tourism industry. Baku was always regarded as the third city within the Soviet Union after Moscow and St Petersburg. It has tremendous tourism opportunities in a quasi-alpine area in the north of the country. Benefits will arise there in the coming years and I hope that the tourism trade begins to assert itself.
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Bradford South said. There is clearly an issue with visas. It is probably fair to say that there is a two-way issue and that there is a problem at this end, too. I hope that people will begin to learn more about Azerbaijan. We can laugh about the Eurovision song contest, but it will provide a phenomenally important showcase for that country. On that particular weekend, Azerbaijan will have an opportunity to open itself up not just to the United Kingdom, but to the other countries of Europe to show what it is all about. I hope that Azerbaijan will use that opportunity to say more about some of its great beauty. As I say, Baku is a very cosmopolitan city. Obviously, it has benefited in recent years from oil and gas, but it is clear that it has a lot of architecture and history that goes back many centuries and shows what an important city it was.
It is only fair to say a few words, as other hon. Members have, about the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. That is understandably close to the heart of many political leaders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned, we were very fortunate to have a 40-minute audience with the President. As mentioned, he was very keen to talk extremely openly about all the issues that have been touched upon already in this debate, but he also wanted to stress the importance of Nagorno-Karabakh. There is an understandable feeling in what one might call the moderate Muslim world that perhaps it is all too easy to look at UN resolutions that are immediately acted upon, particularly UN resolution 1973, when other resolutions—there were four resolutions between 1992 and 1994 on the ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia—have, to a large extent, been ignored. Lip service has been paid to trying to put those resolutions in place. I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say about the ongoing work that is being done not just within the UN, but as part of the bilateral relationship.
I totally agree with that the hon. Member for Bradford South said. It is in Armenia’s interests for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. That country does not have the benefit of oil and gas and its people are becoming increasingly impoverished by its being regarded as a pariah state. As I say, it is evident that significant wealth from Azerbaijan’s oil and gas fields is going into building up a good life, even for those who feel themselves dispossessed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. It would be in Armenia’s interests to recognise that there are tremendous advantages to being part of an area—albeit a little-known area as far as people in the UK are concerned—that has its eye on the future.
Finally, I wish to mention student visas. On a number of occasions I have made it clear that I have some concerns about the Government’s policy in that regard. We must recognise that education is a tremendous earner for this country and that our gold standard is recognised across the world—the English language has a part to play in that. We should also look to encourage the brightest and the best young people from across the world—not only Chinese and Indians, but Azerbaijanis—to spend time studying in this country. They could do two years of a postgraduate degree or part of a sandwich course, and they could, indeed, work for a year or two in this country afterwards. Such citizens from some of the less well known but fast-developing countries will be ambassadors for this country for the rest of their lives if they spend time here.
I recognise the political constraints that we are under in terms of getting our immigration numbers down, and there are, of course, great financial constraints on all our educational establishments, but it is self-defeating for this country to make coming to this country difficult for students and for highly skilled individuals from countries that are not members of the European Union or the British Commonwealth. We need a much more serious debate about that, and it behoves the coalition Government to be quite up-front about the issue. Immigration should not be about just headline figures and seeing such things as a great success going forward.
As I said, that issue is particularly important in developing countries, including not only Azerbaijan, but other south Caucasian countries, and I hope the Minister will be able to play some part in making a case on that issue. Indeed, I know he does that, and, like me, he probably believes that if Britain’s place as a trading and mercantile country is to be maintained, we need to make sure that we have as much free movement as possible for some of the best and brightest labour in the world.
Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this important and interesting debate, Mr Hollobone. I hope that the Minister and the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), will take on board some of the positive impressions that we have all gained from our brief introduction to Azerbaijan.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for debate.
As previous speakers have indicated, the United Kingdom has important economic and business ties with Azerbaijan; indeed, almost 52% of Azerbaijan’s contact is with the United Kingdom and other countries. However, I want to discuss religious and racial discrimination, which I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman before the debate, and which he touched on early in his deliberations. Although incidents of discrimination have taken place over the past few years, I want to mention a couple that have taken place in the past two weeks, so they are very relevant to the debate.
The secular Government continue to control religious freedom. Racial discrimination also affects religious freedom, because the Christian population is almost entirely ethnic Armenian and Russian, while the Muslim population is largely ethnic Azeri—given my Northern Ireland accent, some of those words will probably come out in a completely different way from usual, and I am not sure how they will be translated in Hansard, but that is by the way. A 1992 religious law initially granted more freedoms, but it has been amended several times, and restrictions have been introduced. Interestingly, Azerbaijan’s constitution clearly safeguards religious freedom, freedom of expression and human rights, but those things are not practised in reality, and that is where the problems are.
The state committee for work with religious organisations, which was formed in 2001, demands the registration of religious communities and censors religious literature. Christian groups that do not register are considered illegal and often face discrimination. In December 2007, following a police raid, five church members and three visitors were imprisoned and fined for meeting without state registration. Police officers also confiscated their books and other religious materials. On 20 June 2008, police arrested Pastor Hamid Shabanov on allegations of possessing an illegal weapon, which church members said was not true. They felt the arrest was an attempt to halt Christian activity in the area.
The state religious affairs official who led a police raid on a Baptist congregation in Sumgait during Sunday morning worship on 12 June this year explained away the lack of a warrant, saying:
“I’m the permission and the warranty”.
If a country enshrines religious freedom and human rights in its constitution, it must abide by that; it cannot make up the law as it goes along or discriminate against Christians and those of different racial identities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is outlining some recent and topical instances of religious suppression in Azerbaijan. Does he agree that the best way to draw attention to the problems faced by Azerbaijanis going about their religious worship under intense pressure is sometimes through diplomatic channels and all-party group discussions and visits? In that way, we can try to get the Governments of nation states such as Azerbaijan to look again at their human rights approach.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which clearly highlights the issues. We will be asking the Minister and perhaps the all-party group to take the opportunity to raise these issues on behalf of people in Azerbaijan who are discriminated against.
On 12 June this year—the same day the Baptists were raided—Jehovah’s Witnesses in Gyanja stated that they were raided because they did not have compulsory state registration. An official of the state committee for work with religious organisations defended its officials’ participation in the raids, saying that they were working
“in accordance with the law".
However, it is an oppressive law and it is not right. The law on religion has been amended 13 times since 1992.
As I said, police and local state committee officials raided a church in Sumgait, near the capital, Baku, on 12 June, and they raided the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the same time. They were clear that they did not need the law of the land—they had permission and the warrant. Following both raids, fines are expected under the code of administrative offences for meeting for religious worship without state registration. The raids—the latest in a series on religious communities—came two days after Azerbaijan’s Parliament had adopted further restrictive amendments to the religious law. The Government are continuously moving the goalposts, and I am quite concerned about that.
A spokesperson said the law enforcement officers conducted these operations in accordance with the law, but he refused to give his name. When he was asked how raiding worship services was in accordance with religious freedom commitments enshrined in Azerbaijan’s constitution and the country’s international human rights commitments, he put the phone down—in other words, he had made his mind up about that.
Controversial and restrictive new amendments to the religious law have gone to the President, and this will be the 13th time that it has been amended since it was adopted in 1992. The amendments, which were given preliminary approval in a matter of weeks, on 31 May, raise the number of adult founders required for a religious community from 10 to 50, introduce new controls on religious education and increase the controls that the state requires religious headquarter bodies or centres to have over all communities under their jurisdiction. The amendments apply especially to the state-controlled Caucasian Muslim board, to which all Muslim communities must belong. Although I have outlined the raids on the Baptist church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there are also restrictions on those of a Muslim persuasion, so three religious groups are having problems in Azerbaijan.
Even before their adoption by the Parliament, the amendments have aroused concern among religious communities. In particular, those that had lodged re-registration applications in 2009, but which are still waiting for a response, fear that the new requirement for 50 adult founders will allow the state committee to reject their current applications. Potentially, churches that have been in operation for 20-plus years could have their activities restricted, and that would concern me.
In the Sumgait raid on 12 June, about 100 Baptists were at their Sunday morning worship service when about 20 police officers and men in civilian clothes broke in. The people in the church had been praying for about half an hour when the police burst in and they asked the police to wait until the end of the service before doing anything. Everyone present was told that it was up to each individual’s conscience whether they gave their name, as the police demanded. The police blocked all the exits out of the church and would not let anyone through without giving a name and address so, clearly, what they had said earlier meant nothing because they already had the details. Furthermore, police filmed the premises and the people attending on mobile phones and later on cameras. They confiscated all the religious books they could find—4,645 booklets, 9,229 individual books, 152 religious textbooks and 2,470 religious invitations—to have a wee look, to see if they were acceptable under Azerbaijan’s tight censorship of religious literature of all faiths.
Those raiding the Sumgait Baptist church refused to give their names, but the raid seems to have been led by state officials. Despite a number of phone calls, which went unanswered or were put down, there seemed to be a refusal to help those of a Baptist persuasion who wished to worship God in their church, their right to do so being enshrined in the constitution. Article 299 includes a wide range of offences, including meeting for worship without state permission. In December 2010, sharp increases in fines were introduced for all violations of article 299. Again, that will hit those who wish to worship God in their chosen way, and I am concerned that it has not been carried out as it should be. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to indicate what he can do to help those people.
The police were told that the church has no intention of applying for state registration because it believes that it does not need it and because it regards enforced state registration as an unwarranted intrusion into its internal affairs. Officers told the church that it would be fined. The Baptist pastor believes—as I do—that he has done nothing wrong. He adhered to the law of the land and to the wishes of a congregation who wanted to worship God on a Sunday morning and who have been worshipping in that building for a long time—some 20 years.
I am conscious of the time, so I will run through my remaining points quickly. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had a similar experience; 37 people were present during one raid, some of whom were taken away by the police for questioning for a number of hours and the rest given verbal warnings. Some were punished under the administrative offences code.
Earlier raids included three on Protestant churches in Sumgait over a three-day period in mid-May just past. Religious books were confiscated and two members of one congregation, a husband and wife, were each fined the equivalent of two weeks’ average wages. Other raids took place in Gyanja, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses had been raided, and those groups were banned from meeting for worship because they had not registered. At least one Star of the East Pentecostal church had a visit from the police and riot police to prevent worship. Even though the constitution says that such worshippers have rights, they do not. All the evidence points in a certain direction, and I am concerned about that. The state committee rejected the findings of a Council of Europe report, stating that
“it did not reflect the real situation in the country and bears a superficial character.”
However, I have talked about the evidence, which says something completely different.
In conclusion, Azerbaijan is a country rich in natural resources with which Britain has a special relationship. It has a wonderful people who are admired by those who have met them. At the same time, it has repressive laws that discriminate against those who want to practise their religious beliefs and against those of a certain racial persuasion. The Minister has an opportunity today, and I ask him and the all-party group to use their influence to ensure that those who want to practise their religious beliefs can do so without fear or discrimination.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We have 18 minutes left until I call the winding-up speeches at 3.40 pm. I will call Karen Lumley, then Martin Horwood and Stephen Hammond.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing an important debate.
I visited Azerbaijan before I came to this House, and I thoroughly enjoyed my visit, which was a major eye-opener for me. Baku is a fantastic city, which is growing month by month, and the opportunities for us in the UK are enormous. It is certainly a change from 20 years ago when my husband worked in the country as a geologist discovering oil. When I returned, it was apparent how much Azerbaijan had been transformed. What could happen in the next 20 years?
We must, vitally, get more involved in this important market. The UK is Azerbaijan’s largest foreign investor, and as the country develops, so must its infrastructure, bringing an exciting array of prospects for UK investors. UK investment has had an impressive start, but we can get involved in so much more. If more British companies are to be encouraged to invest in Azerbaijan, the Government must impress on the Azerbaijanis the importance of stability and of open and transparent government. Corruption is widely reported to be a big problem. Transparency International, in its corruption perceptions index, ranks Azerbaijan 134th. Tackling the general problem of how the country is perceived is critical for Azerbaijan’s development. It has a fantastic, growing economy, but that does not mean there is not considerable room for improvement or space for UK investment to expand further.
For the moment, the population appears relatively content with the regime. That is to say, there are not currently scenes of revolt, such as we have seen in other parts of Asia and north Africa, but let us remember that in the 2010 elections, Opposition rallies were forbidden. That, combined with reports of corruption and of violence in and along the borders, will not encourage new and perhaps nervous investors, especially those without experience of operating in countries with security challenges. BP was taken into Azerbaijan by the oil and gas, but financial services are not so fixed in where they can invest and so could look at other countries. We must emphasise Azerbaijan’s advantages.
Openness will improve when journalists are free to report and Opposition parties to protest. Azerbaijan is part of the Council of Europe, and that the country must not continue to disregard human rights law has to be made clear. Industry is not totally separate from such issues—we must look at Azerbaijan as a whole. I hope that the Azerbaijan all-party parliamentary group, of which I am a member, will raise this country’s profile as much as possible in the UK and that the Government will be more specific when outlining their objectives for their involvement in Azerbaijan. We look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Financial services, business services, engineering projects and project management are all areas that will grow with the Azerbaijani economy. We might not be able to compete with the cheap labour within the country or in neighbouring Turkey and Russia, but the UK’s expertise in business and financial services could benefit the Azerbaijani economy considerably. There are huge opportunities for Britain and it is up to us—the UK Government and UK industry—to lead the way. BP Azerbaijan comprises a large part of our financial presence and, as a company, has made a concerted effort to increase interaction between local companies and foreign investors with a scheme to introduce the two and under which they can interact and discuss how to do ventures together. We must support such schemes.
We have already heard about the UK education sector. English is used more and more in the country, especially by young people because it is seen as a language of business. UK education is increasingly looked at as offering international status and opportunity. The British Council has been encouraging cultural exchanges and we should be looking at that sort of thing on a much larger scale, with students from our country also going to Azerbaijan. We must encourage our universities to explore such programmes. It would be good to see some of our universities providing satellite centres in places such as Baku to educate the young people in their own country.
Although our economy is becoming stronger every day, we must not be complacent about our recovery. Abroad, in counties such as Azerbaijan, there is money to be made, which could benefit all our constituents. The Government are doing everything they can to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in the UK, and must do so in UK companies looking abroad. New, expanding economies provide an exciting environment and we should take full advantage of each opportunity to help the UK to prosper.
Finally, as mentioned by my colleagues, we wish Azerbaijan every success in hosting the Eurovision song contest next year. Who knows, some of us might even be there—including Richard, from the Strangers Bar.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Hollobone. I will try to keep an eye on the time. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate, and for resisting the impulse to give a rendition of the Eurovision song contest’s winning song. That is a mercy to all of us.
The debate is very important because although the region is ostensibly stable at the moment, it clearly has potential for a lot of volatility. As well as the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, there was the war only a few years ago between Russia and Georgia, there is unresolved conflict over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and we now have other regional powers, such as Iran, taking an interest, although apparently in the unlikely role of peacemaker at the moment. That all underlines how such a potentially volatile region could deteriorate quite fast. If we have learned anything from events in the middle east and north Africa, it is that one cannot take one’s eye off the ball and expect stable regions to remain stable just because they are at the moment.
Reference has been made to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, and in fact it has been called the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. Clearly, one person’s occupation is another person’s liberation, and the origins of the dispute started with a regional soviet voting to attach itself to Armenia in 1988 under the USSR. It is important that while emphasising many other universal values such as human rights, the rule of law and democracy, we remember the important right to self-determination. That will clearly be a live issue in this country for the next couple of years. Should the people of Scotland, however unwisely, decide to vote for independence or a different constitutional arrangement with the United Kingdom, we would of course respect that, just as Czechoslovakia respected the right of Slovakia to separate from the Czech Republic some years ago.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s point about self-determination is of course right, but if the indigenous population has been expelled, self-determination and its result will be rather different from what might otherwise be expected.
Martin Horwood
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Perhaps the way forward is that suggested by the European Parliament in its 2008 resolution, which recognised the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but referred specifically to rights to self-determination, whether in the form of home rule, devolution, confederation or whatever. It is crucial that popular consent is part of the process.
I agree that progress towards a peaceful resolution seems to be frustratingly slow, although it is positive that all parties now seem to have committed themselves to peaceful resolution of the dispute. I gather that the South Caucasus security and co-operation conference has now resolved that all outstanding issues in the region should be tackled by 2014, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister—his enormous portfolio now also includes that troublesome region—what pressure Her Majesty’s Government will put on the Governments of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia to make that process a success.
I want to mention briefly two wider issues. One is the role of western foreign policy in the post-Soviet space in the world. Clearly, discussions are continuing between NATO and Azerbaijan, which is interesting. It is probably right and wise that those negotiations are concentrating not so much on Azerbaijani membership, but on building stability and ensuring that Azerbaijan is a barrier to the spread of weapons of mass destruction and other things that contribute to the stability of the region and the rest of the world.
The other issue, which other hon. Members have mentioned, is human rights. The Arab spring or awakening has underlined the importance of what President Obama called
“the false promise of stability”
sometimes enforced by repressive tactics. Azerbaijan is not Libya; it is not Syria; it is not Iran. It has many of the characteristics of an increasingly prosperous multi-party democracy, yet there serious concerns. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe described the 2010 parliamentary elections as “peaceful”, but
“not sufficient to constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of the country.”
Amnesty International reports:
“Threats, harassment, and acts of violence against journalists, civil society activists and opposition activists continue with impunity, leading to an increase in self-censorship. Criminal and civil defamation laws are used to silence criticism, resulting in prison sentences and heavy fines against journalists.”
If I had more time, I would highlight the cases of Jabbar Savalan, Eynulla Fatullayev, Adnan Hajizade and Emin Abdullayev. I hope that the Minister will be able to take up those cases in particular with the Azerbaijani Government.
If Azerbaijan is to take its place in the democratic family of nations—I agree with hon. Members who have said that it is important to have examples of Muslim countries that are emerging as stable and free democracies—it must recognise the importance of tackling the human rights issues that still exist there. I hope that the good offices of the Minister, the Conservative Friends of Azerbaijan, and the all-party Azerbaijan group will be utilised in that effort. That would be extremely positive for Azerbaijan.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
As befits the importance of this debate and of your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, I have prepared 25 minutes of eloquent speech, but as only five minutes are available to me, I shall cut to the quick and not discuss issues that colleagues have already mentioned this afternoon. I also refer hon. Members to my declaration of interests.
Some hon. Members have discussed the petroboom in Baku. Clearly, there is a wide spread of economic prosperity in that country, and I want to concentrate on two issues. The first is the prospects for UK industry. Wherever we look across the globe, instead of being cautious and concerned, we in the UK should be embracing some of the opportunities. Notwithstanding some of the issues that hon. Members have raised, it seems to me that beyond the fact that BP has its biggest European plant and refinery in Baku, and that we are already the largest foreign direct investor into that country and the largest exporter in that region, this country is missing some significant interests and opportunities.
It has been said that the construction boom is being driven by the petrodollar, but the construction boom is there, and yet another concert hall for the Eurovision song contest is being built. Where UK industry is missing out, I encourage the Minister to chide UK Trade and Investment, which is not doing enough in that and other regions of the world. UK civil contracting still has a global competitive advantage, so why is it not taking this opportunity?
The infrastructure boom is driven by the needs of agriculture, industry and increasingly tourism, and some providers in the UK have international advantage and strength, but yet again some of the opportunities are not being seized. That point was made to us by the ambassador, and our commercial interest is being neglected in our relationship with Azerbaijan.
I was particularly struck by our meeting with the Tourism Minister. Many of us will remember it for all sorts of reasons, not least for the most stylish carpet I have ever walked across. None the less, one of his points was that on the back of the Eurovision song contest, Azerbaijan’s historic importance, its historic attractions—Baku’s importance has been attended to by a number of nations in world wars—and its natural features, the tourist industry is likely to expand. We have seen tourism in our country move slowly eastwards across the continent, and it is now moving even further eastwards from Croatia. The point that the Tourism Minister made to us was, “What is the UK going to do to grasp this opportunity? Who should we tie up with?” He was asking us to do something about it, and UK plc should grab that opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) has discussed financial services. One of the most impressive people we met was the gentleman running the sovereign wealth fund, which is putting on $1 billion a month. When that fund moves from debt instruments into equities, private equity and property, we want to make sure that we are in there ensuring that our opportunity is taken. My hon. Friend has also discussed education, as I was going to, but I will not.
I want to challenge the Minister on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. Can we put this on the record today or not? Whatever has been said about self-determination, there are 700,000 internally displaced people—three times the number of Sri Lankan internally displaced people, which I know the Minister is acutely aware of as well. If those people were back in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the seven surrounding satellites, self-determination would be a relevant issue and the right to it would be important. At that stage, it would be important for the UK Government to take notice. Will the Minister comment on that point? And will he comment on the outstanding UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884? Does he accept that we should put pressure on Armenia to accept those resolutions? Do the UK Government believe that they should support the Azerbaijanis in the settlement of the resolutions? My five minutes are now well and truly up.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I have been in a number of debates with you, but never with you in the role of a mute, so this is a new experience.
This debate, apart from being very interesting, has shown the value of delegations of Members of Parliament. If I may say so to the Minister, that is a message that needs to be heard both by the Foreign Office and by the House authorities. Participation in such delegations enables hon. Members to expand their horizons and brings a much more well informed atmosphere to the debates in the House in their various venues.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate on a country and region—the wider subject of the debate—that receives too little attention considering its crucial location, importance and, as we have heard, potential for conflict. It is also significant in terms of European energy supplies. I make no apology for highlighting that fact. When President Obama was speaking just outside this Chamber in Westminster Hall recently, he dealt head-on with the issue of the importance of energy supplies to countries when he observed of the middle east that the west squarely acknowledges that
“yes, we have enduring interests in the region—to fight terror, sometimes with partners who may not be perfect; to protect against disruptions of the world’s energy supply.”
It is a perfectly proper aspect of foreign policy that we should be concerned about that.
As has been mentioned, both Britain and the EU have considerable interests in that regard. The EU countries are considerably helped by the diversity of supply, both from the existing pipelines and, potentially, from the Nabucco pipeline providing a route for gas, not only from Azerbaijan but from the Caspian region as a whole. That gives the promise of a more balanced and diverse gas supply for western Europe and, we hope, will avoid some of the problems that Europe has experienced with interruption of supply, which has periodically caused such difficulties, particularly in the accession states. That problem will potentially be exacerbated by the recent decision of Germany to shut down its nuclear reactors, with the inevitable and immediate impact on gas demand in Europe.
Therefore, the situation that I have described is good news for those countries and for us. The hope is that as the European region gets more competitive sources of supply and more diverse sources of supply, we will also start to see more stabilisation of prices, rather than some of the spikes in prices that we are seeing and the way in which, bluntly, those are exploited by the ever-greedy utility companies to introduce substantial increases in the charges for domestic gas supplies in particular. That will be important for us all. It is therefore encouraging that the EU will be supporting the Azerbaijan Government to move the Nabucco project ahead.
In that context, it was pleasing to see the report this month that the EU Energy Commissioner had characterised Azerbaijan as “the EU’s key partner” on regional energy projects, while delivering endorsements of the Nabucco project. It was also reported earlier this month that the legal framework for the pipeline had been finalised, with the support of the relevant Ministries of the transit countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Turkey. All that is extremely welcome news.
Britain, of course, also has a significant role. I partly take issue with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on project management. AMEC, for example, has been a major presence in Azerbaijan for some time, operating out of Baku. Perhaps it has been there so long that he does not look on what it is doing as a recent innovation, but it has been immensely successful and is seen as a major partner by the Azerbaijanis.
Stephen Hammond
I recognise that there are 175 companies beyond BP in Azerbaijan. My point was not about those that are there already, but that there are significant opportunities, particularly in areas where we have a worldwide competitive advantage.
Mr Spellar
There is always opportunity, but we should equally recognise when people are taking advantage of that opportunity. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that BP is a major supplier, but this is about more than being first among equals. The UK accounts for some 52% of all foreign investment in Azerbaijan. BP’s stake is enormous. It will be one of the largest terminals that it will be operating on behalf of the Azerbaijanis.
Reference has rightly been made to the very significant presence in British tertiary education institutions from Azerbaijan. I have seen an estimate that some 80% of Azerbaijani students who study abroad study in the UK. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). In the strategic context, we must remember the importance of Azerbaijan as a route for supplies and forces going into Afghanistan. That is not insignificant in terms of Britain’s interest.
We must also consider the broader security situation. Nagorno-Karabakh has been mentioned. In many ways, that is a synonym for many of the difficulties faced right across the south Caucasus. We are aware of the recent history. What was said about the end of the cold war? It led to a period of less threat and less peace. Certainly the region that we are discussing experienced that. I am thinking of the two wars in Nagorno-Karabakh, with Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the considerable number of displaced persons. The hon. Member for Harrow East rightly drew attention to the UN resolutions. He also mentioned the Minsk group, which is currently the main forum for resolution of the conflict, although we have to recognise that, unfortunately, progress has been fairly limited in that context.
This debate is particularly timely, in that the meeting on Nagorno-Karabakh has been taking place in Kazan, I think, yesterday and today, with Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that. We obviously hope that there has been progress, but it would be interesting to be updated on whether there has been any progress or developments at that meeting.
Before I yield to the Minister—I want him to have the full amount of time to deal with the many points that have been made—I want to sound a cautionary note. We should accept that in the Caucasus, progress will quite often take more time than we would hope. It will be slow—certainly slower than we would hope— and evolutionary. Russia may no longer be one of the two superpowers, but it is still, not only in its own estimation but objectively, a major and very significant power, a P5 member and a nuclear power. It is also clearly the regional power and has very clear interests in what it would regard as the near abroad. Therefore, its views, interests and perspectives have to be taken fully into account. That is the reality not only for the countries of the south Caucasus, but for those countries that are engaged there diplomatically or economically. It is therefore crucial that we have full engagement with Russia, recognising its legitimate interests but also representing ours, as well as the understandable concerns of other countries in the region. I hope that the Minister will be able to report the Government’s actions in this regard.
The debate has demonstrated the considerable interest that Members of Parliament take in Azerbaijan, and they are very well informed about it. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
Like others, Mr Hollobone, I welcome you to the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate.
I thank the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) for his usual well-grounded and thoughtful contribution. I shall do my best to respond to as many of the issues that have been raised this afternoon as I can. Nagorno-Karabakh was mentioned by many. The economy and investment matters were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). Students were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). A number of colleagues spoke about sport and Eurovision, but particularly the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised the matter of religious freedom and human rights.
I begin with an apology. My already exciting portfolio of north Africa, the Gulf, the middle east and south Asia, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran, now includes Azerbaijan—but only for today. I apologise for the fact that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is not able to attend this debate. It is his region, however, and I shall faithfully report to him what has been said today. I hope that colleagues will excuse me if I am not able to deal with every question, but information will go back to my right hon. Friend.
We have a good bilateral relationship with Azerbaijan, which has a growing economy. We are a little worried about a slippage in transparency in recent years, but there is no doubt that a strong relationship has been built on a variety of factors, many of which I shall touch upon. I shall deal first with two of the lighter ones. The disproportionate impact of Eurovision could not be better demonstrated than by the fact that everybody in this debate has mentioned it. I share the excitement that must have been generated by it. There is no doubt that, as a focus of attention and as an opportunity, it will offer a terrific chance. We hope for its great success next year.
I should also mention the importance of sport, especially as football is the most popular game in Azerbaijan. Whatever Azerbaijan’s activities on the playing field, the hon. Member for Bradford South and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who share my devotion to Bury football club, will know that Azerbaijan’s greatest contribution to football was to provide the most clear-sighted linesman in the history of World cup finals. It was Tofik Bahramov whose eyesight distinguished Geoff Hurst’s goal in the 1966 World cup final—for ever an honoured gentleman in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has clearly outlined his vision for our foreign policy. Our focus on building Britain’s prosperity and security provides an effective framework for today’s debate. Supporting Britain’s prosperity is one of the central themes of our foreign policy, and Azerbaijan is an increasingly important partner. There are shared benefits in co-operation; at a time when global economic recovery is still fragile, Azerbaijan’s economy is a driver for growth for a wide range of British businesses.
British expertise and industry has helped modernise and develop many sectors in the south Caucasus, including oil and gas, the development of infrastructure and information technology. The UK is well-placed in Azerbaijan, as a number of colleagues have said. We are the largest foreign investor, with 50% of direct foreign investment. Led by BP, British companies have invested more than $23 billion in Azerbaijan. Although the energy sector is the main focus for British companies, as was emphasised this afternoon, it is far from being the only one.
Azerbaijan and the south Caucasus region as a whole have increasingly dynamic and diversified economies that offer significant opportunities for UK business in financial services, retail, infrastructure, law, tourism and construction, among others. However, we need to do more to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available. I am therefore pleased to say that the Government and the private sector have increased activity there. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe led a successful UK trade delegation on a visit to Baku last year; and Lord Howell, a Minister of State, spoke at the launch of the Central Asia and South Caucasus Association. I shall take back to them the fact that Members have mentioned the increasing importance of trade.
The right hon. Member for Warley was right to mention European energy security. With its natural wealth of oil and gas resources, the region will play a vital role in ensuring Europe’s energy security. The transit of hydrocarbons to Europe via a southern energy corridor would give the EU a new and important source of energy. That would benefit not only the EU but the region itself, as it seeks to diversify its export routes. There are other opportunities for co-operation in the energy field. Working together on energy efficiency, creating more effective and more open markets, and addressing climate change are all areas on which we wish to engage more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned the importance of students. It is not the Government’s policy to discourage the brightest and best from coming here. There are numerical issues, which we all understand, but part of the process is to identify those whose future relationship with us will benefit not only ourselves but, importantly, the countries to which they will return. We all recognise that long-term relationships can be created, and my hon. Friend was right to raise the matter.
I want to talk particularly about Nagorno-Karabakh, as so many Members concentrated on it. The right hon. Member for Warley was right to speak of it in the general context of security in the area. I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I concentrate on that region for the moment. It is a complex matter. The conflict has left many dead and thousands of Armenians and Azerbaijani people displaced. Sadly, as colleagues reported, deaths still regularly occur along the line of contact. It is a human tragedy and a tragedy for the region. We are clear that there can be no resolution of this conflict through the use or threat of force; nor does continuation of the status quo offer an acceptable long-term prospect for the region. I assure the House on behalf of the Government that it is a conflict to which the UK and others in the international community pay close attention.
France, the United States and Russia are the co-chairs of the Minsk Group peace process, who lead on negotiating a settlement to the conflict. The UK fully supports that work. This coming weekend, the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia will meet in Kazan further to discuss the Madrid basic principles document, which aims to agree a starting point for eventual peace negotiations. In that regard, I fully support the recent statement of the co-chairs that urged the parties to avoid provocative actions or statements that might undermine the negotiating process during this critical period.
The line of contact has become the front line of this protracted conflict, and people tragically continue to die along it. The Minsk co-chairs have taken a significant, albeit symbolic, step towards opening up communication by crossing the line and travelling across no man’s land. They did this most recently earlier this month, as they did when they conducted a field assessment study in October not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but in the occupied territories that surround Nagorno-Karabakh. The parties have seen this report, and the Minsk Group’s assessment of the situation on the ground, but have agreed to keep the detailed contents to themselves in order to avoid heated media allegations of blame.
Does the process go far enough? Is it quick enough? These are always difficult questions, and in the circumstances everybody would like to push for more. However, the UK believes firmly that the process is making progress, albeit slowly, and it is important to back it as the most likely opportunity for peace. The peace process will need to address a number of sensitive issues. As was mentioned earlier, they include a mechanism for investigating any allegations of war crimes from both sides, a system for the return of displaced persons, and other issues. It will be no easy task, but it is right that we support Armenia and Azerbaijan in making the difficult decisions that are needed and in helping to create a conducive atmosphere to achieve peace.
I turn to the question of human rights. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the problems that he has discerned in that regard, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham made the connection with the Arab spring. Human rights are not the same as they used to be. It is not possible for any society to believe that these are purely internal matters in which the rest of the world is not concerned. They must address these matters on their own—they are sovereign issues—but regardless of whether it is about religious or media freedoms, the fact that the world pays interest is likely to be a fact of life. I am sure that the comments of the hon. Gentleman will have been noted. We raise these issues in our bilateral conversations, and we will continue to do so. The particular issues picked up by the hon. Gentlemen will form part of our next discussion with them.
Much more could be said; however, as the right hon. Member for Warley said, the fact that a delegation is able to go to Azerbaijan and come back well informed is of immense importance to Parliament—and to Ministers, who cannot be everywhere. The debate will be reported to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who I know cares about the area very much. I am indebted to colleagues for their advice and views, and I hope that I have answered some of their questions. I know that my right hon. Friend will pick up others in due course.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate, and I thank all who have taken part. Their contributions were most interesting and informative, and the debate was a real credit to the House.
Hadrian’s Wall
(13 years, 6 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
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I want to talk about Hadrian’s Wall, its ownership and the future management and marketing of it.
Hadrian’s Wall is of great importance to the economy not just of my constituency of Carlisle but of the north of England from Wallsend to the Solway. The future arrangements for this world heritage tourist attraction could have significant implications for the area. The beauty of Hadrian’s Wall is that it combines educational and economic benefits into one attraction.
Let me focus first on the educational benefits. Our country has an important link with Roman history. The Roman occupation of Britain is very much part of our heritage. Hadrian’s Wall gives schools and colleges the opportunity to educate their students in a very real way. Instead of using just textbooks to study the period, students can see the physical evidence of the Roman occupation. In addition, people visiting the area can also benefit from the various educational and visitor centres along the wall, giving them a much better insight into Roman history and culture.
We often talk about the impact that the Roman empire had on world history, but it also had an impact on the social and economic life of small communities in the north of England. The physical presence of some of our Roman heritage truly helps to bring this history to life. Many people have had the opportunity to visit Hadrian’s Wall and learn about the way in which the Romans lived nearly 2,000 years ago. The best demonstration of that are the educational facilities along the wall, which will be hugely enhanced by the opening on Friday this week of the Roman Frontier Gallery at Tullie House museum and art gallery in Carlisle. This gallery will enable schools, colleges and the general public to discover more about our Roman ancestors.
There are also vital economic benefits. In the past, following the demise of the Roman empire, the physical structure of the wall provided building materials for locals to construct houses, steadings and much else. In modern times, Hadrian’s Wall has become a significant tourist attraction, bringing thousands of people to the area. Those tourists may come to view the wall and its remains or to visit the different forts and steadings. Alternatively, others have come to walk or cycle the length of the wall. Indeed, my colleagues and I are hoping to walk across the wall this summer to see what it has to offer. All such visits bring much-needed investment to the area, which helps to support existing businesses as well as creating new ones. On my own trip this summer, there will be six of us who will need accommodation, food and transport, all of which adds to the economy of the area. It may be a small contribution, but if we multiply it by the many tourists who visit the area over the summer, it is a substantial boost to the local economy. I want to concentrate on how we maintain and develop the two benefits of education and economics. Before I do, let me give a bit of background on Hadrian’s Wall so that we get some idea of its worth and potential.
Work on Hadrian’s Wall began in 122 AD during the reign of Emperor Hadrian. At the time, it was one of the most fortified borders in Europe, taking around 16 years to complete. The wall is more than 75 miles long from east to west and a further 75 miles down the west coast. The first 45 miles of the wall, from Newcastle to the River Irthing, was constructed of stone, and the 31 miles from the Irthing to the Solway coast was initially of turf. Along the wall, there were 16 forts. Castles were built at intervals of 1 mile with two watchtower turrets between each one. The precise reason for building the wall is not known, although it is reasonable to assume that it was to secure the northern frontier of the Roman empire. Undoubtedly, it was a major undertaking at the time. The numbers who garrisoned the wall fluctuated throughout the life of the Roman occupation but it was usually around 9,000. The impact of the wall on the local population would have been considerable. Fortunately, there are remains from the original wall, forts and steadings that have allowed academics and archaeologists to study the wall, the Roman way of life and the effect it had on the local community.
With the decline of the Roman empire, the wall was abandoned as a military outpost for the Roman army, though it is believed that the local population continued to live and farm around the wall until the 8th century after which the wall was effectively abandoned and allowed to fall into ruin. Much of the wall has disappeared, but in the 19th century, John Clayton, the town clerk of Newcastle upon Tyne, began taking an interest in preserving as much of it as possible. Indeed, he acquired some sections of the wall in an effort to stop farmers using the stones. Anyone who visits the place will find a number of steadings and houses that were clearly built from the remains of the Roman wall.
It is hard to believe that it was not until the later part of the 20th century that a real interest in Hadrian’s Wall started to take hold. It hit real prominence when it was declared a world heritage site in 1987. It achieved that status because of its uniqueness as the most complex and best preserved frontier of the Roman empire. However, even then the full potential of the wall was not realised, not just as a source of education but as a major tourist attraction with the potential to give a significant boost to the local economies along the wall.
Although Hadrian’s Wall was now recognised as a site of international importance, it was not managed in any meaningful way. It took until the early part of this century before an attempt to co-ordinate the management of the wall was made. That came in the form of Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd, which was set up in 2006 as a company limited by guarantee. It was set up following a study in 2004 that identified the fact that the heritage site was failing to achieve its potential.
This organisation has been extremely successful in turning the site around and helping to raise the profile of Hadrian’s Wall and developing it as a tourist attraction. I would like publicly to acknowledge the hard work of the board, staff and volunteers who have done a terrific job, and continue to do so, in promoting Hadrian’s Wall through the Hadrian’s Wall company and the many other organisations which have an interest along the wall.
Why are we having this debate today? In one sense it has been an opportunity for me to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the importance of Hadrian’s Wall and its relevance to us today. Hadrian’s Wall is a major tourist attraction of significant historic and economic importance. It is also a resource for the local communities along the wall, which should be exploited in a responsible way by the Hadrian’s Wall Heritage company. What, therefore, are the problems? It is hard to believe that the wall and land that adjoins it have more than 125 different legal land owners. Some of those owners are private land owners, but many are public and they include councils, the National Trust, English Heritage and the Hadrian’s Wall Heritage company itself. Unfortunately, the company is a very small landowner, yet it is charged with promoting and caring for the wall almost in its entirety. Would it not therefore make sense for much if not all of the ownership of the wall and relevant surrounding land to be transferred into the company’s ownership? I fully accept that that cannot happen overnight, but it would appear to be sensible in the long term. It would allow the company to manage, maintain and promote the wall in a far more efficient and systematic way.
I accept that these are financially difficult times, with little public money available to help boost projects such as this one. However, notwithstanding that reality, why should the various councils or public bodies, such as the National Trust or English Heritage, that own part of the wall not act—by way of setting an example and in the interests of preserving and promoting the wall for environmental as well as economic reasons—and transfer their ownership of parts of the wall into the ownership of the Hadrian’s Wall company? If they think that that is a step too far, there might be the opportunity for them to lease their interests to the company or to pass the direct management responsibility for their section of the wall to the company. Clearly, the company would have to accept the responsibilities that go with ownership or control, but it would be fairer for it to have the responsibility for preserving the wall and at the same time it would have the opportunity to generate some kind of income stream, which could then be reinvested in the preservation and promotion of the wall.
A lot of the wall is not actually in public ownership but in private ownership. Quite simply, I say to those private owners of parts of the wall that those who want to could voluntarily transfer their ownership to the company—hopefully at little cost—and those who do not want to do so could just continue with the present arrangements and retain their ownership.
What, therefore, is the purpose of this debate? First, I want to raise the Minister’s awareness of the international, national and local importance of Hadrian’s Wall. I also want to encourage him to visit the area. I understand that he may well be going to the north-east and may visit part of the wall, but I encourage him to visit the western end of the wall at some point in the future, in particular the new gallery at Tullie House. As I mentioned earlier, that gallery opens on Friday.
Secondly, I want to highlight the various ownership issues to the Minister. Thirdly, I ask him to support the idea of unifying the ownership of as much of the wall as possible, and to help to facilitate the Hadrian’s Wall company in doing so. Having said that, I fully acknowledge and accept that that would be a long-term project.
Fourthly, I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of Hadrian’s Wall within the national tourism strategy. Will he say what the Government can do to achieve that goal, which would ensure the success of the wall for the country as well as for the region?
Fifthly, I ask the Minister to help to identify sources of funding for the company. That could be funding to invest in the physical aspects of the wall, in its preservation or in the promotion of the wall as a tourist attraction, which would link in with the Government’s growth and tourism strategies.
The Minister will be very aware of the huge economic benefits that flow from tourism. However, there is always a great difficulty in how we finance and market tourism as it involves trying to calculate the benefits of tourism, including how it creates jobs, economic growth and so on. I accept that that is difficult, but I genuinely believe that Hadrian’s Wall is a major tourist attraction and that it has the potential to create huge economic benefits for my region.
We are starting to see a great deal of improvement, in that there are more and more visitors to the wall every year and new businesses are opening up along the wall, such as bed and breakfasts, restaurants and coffee shops. That trend is to be encouraged. However, I fear that, given the economic difficulties that we are in, funding for the marketing of the wall will be reduced and that could have a knock-on effect on the economy of the local area. If we do not promote the wall sufficiently, that will result in a decline in the area’s economic activity.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. When I saw that he had secured this debate today, I wanted to come along to Westminster Hall and support him. He said that Hadrian’s Wall is a UNESCO world heritage site. When I think of other world heritage sites—other fantastic places such as Petra, the pyramids at Giza, Angkor Wat and Machu Picchu—I feel that we should certainly encourage people in this country to go along and see Hadrian’s Wall.
However, will my hon. Friend say a little more about the number of people who visit the Lake district, for example, and perhaps suggest how we can encourage people not only to visit the Lake district but to go a bit further north, to spread the money that they spend across the whole of the county instead of just in the southern and western parts?
John Stevenson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and he raises a very important point. In my part of the country, the Lake district is clearly dominant as a tourist attraction. I think that it is the second most popular tourist attraction in this country, after London, with about 16 million visitors annually. However, because of the dominance of the Lake district locally, Hadrian’s Wall sometimes loses out on visitors and indeed my own constituency, the city of Carlisle, sometimes fails to receive as many visitors as it might.
This debate has raised considerable interest in my local community. That is a good sign, because it means that people in my patch are interested in promoting Hadrian’s Wall. I look to the Minister today, to see how we can build on that to ensure that the wall has a very prosperous and successful future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is always a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I was debating opposite you yesterday with someone else in the Chair, but it is good to see you back in your accustomed place, looking after us today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing the debate and putting the case so strongly. It is always good to see a constituency MP batting hard for an important local asset and industry. It is absolutely clear, as he rightly pointed out, that tourism is one of the most important industries, if not the most important, in the Lake district as a whole, including the area around Carlisle. It is a crucial part of the local economy. The area does not have just beautiful scenery, but one of the country’s—indeed the world’s—pre-eminent heritage assets, in the shape of the wall, running right through the middle of it. There is plenty to be proud of, raise awareness of, and shout about to attract more people to visit both Carlisle and the wall, and my hon. Friend has contributed to that by securing this debate.
My hon. Friend asked me to acknowledge and comment on the importance of the wall to tourism, and I do not think it possible to overstate that importance. The wall is a crucial part of this country’s offer. One of the reasons most frequently given by foreign visitors for coming to the UK is our heritage. Heritage is an incredibly broad term, including everything from Stonehenge, which is plus or minus 4,000 years old depending on the part of the site, right the way up to modern culture such as the Glastonbury and Reading music festivals, and everything in between. There is no doubt that Britain was a very important part of the Roman empire; in fact, the city of York was effectively its administrative capital for decades. The wall is an incredibly visible and solid reminder of that period, and is an iconic example of the kinds of things that people come to Britain to see.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the wall is a very important site, and is part of a world heritage site. I think it was one of the first transnational world heritage sites, because it takes in not just Hadrian’s wall but the Antonine wall, which runs parallel to the north, and goes across into the northern German elements of the old Roman empire. It is part of a project that is, I think, ultimately intended to include the entire borders of the old Roman empire, right the way around through to the coast of north Africa. It was one of the first elements of that project to be put up, and it is of global significance. We are incredibly lucky in this country to have something that is so well-preserved and, importantly, properly looked after to ensure that it remains preserved for not just our generation but future ones. My hon. Friend is also entirely right to say that it is an essential part of rounding out the local tourism offer, so that the area does not have just beautiful countryside and lakes—which it undoubtedly does—but an incredibly impressive heritage offer.
There is, however, the problem that my hon. Friend was right to raise. Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd is struggling, along with a great many other destination management organisations. That is what they are called in the jargon, Mr Hollobone, but you and I would probably call them local tourist boards of one sort or another. They are organisations that are having to make the transition from an era when money was a great deal freer and the Government’s budget was a great deal larger, through to an era when regional development agencies no longer exist and everyone has to cut their cloth to fit. I will not try your patience, Mr Hollobone, by going too far off piste by talking about the economic mismanagement that led to that situation. However, for whatever reason, we are faced with a far tighter economic and fiscal situation. Therefore, everyone is having to cut their cloth to fit. Indeed, I am sure that the various business owners, land owners and attraction owners along the whole length of the wall would all understand that it is important for someone not to spend more than they earn, otherwise pretty soon they will go bust. This country is no different. We must ensure that we are living within our means. Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd is faced with precisely the same challenge as many other local tourism bodies around the country: that budgets are smaller. It is therefore trying to find and plug a hole in its budget.
My hon. Friend came up with a creative and intriguing potential solution to that. It is not something I have heard before, and interestingly, it is certainly not a solution that has been suggested to me in other parts of the country. It has the merit of being entirely original and certainly very thought-provoking. His suggestion is that public sector bodies along the wall might want to hand ownership of their assets over to Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd. I suspect that the underlying assumption behind that idea is that enough cash will be thrown off to plug all or at least some of the gap in the organisation’s funding.
I am not sure that that underlying assumption is necessarily correct, although my hon. Friend is entirely within his rights to ask me to check it, which is effectively what he has done. We have gone away and done some numbers, and I am not sure that such an approach would fill the gap as it currently stands. The organisation is going through a great many other changes.
John Stevenson
Yes, the Minister is on the right track in terms of what I am thinking. However, I am also thinking that the sole purpose of Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd is to maintain, preserve, look after and promote Hadrian’s Wall. Some of the other organisations have other interests and will have calls on their resources from the other attractions that they may have. If the wall’s assets were transferred into the Hadrian’s Wall company, the focus would be solely on Hadrian’s Wall.
John Penrose
I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying; he gave a capable exposition of his idea. However, the stumbling block for me is simply this: if we consider other destination management organisations—local tourism bodies of one kind or another—he is absolutely right to say that Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd is unusual in that the collection of tourism assets with which it is dealing happen to be stretched out in a long, thin line that cuts through a variety of different villages, towns, steadings and local authorities.
Apart from that geographical oddity, it is entirely normal that Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd has to interact with a breadth and variety of different types of organisation. There are different owners—public, private and in some cases third sector—and people from the National Trust as well. Any destination management organisation must deal with a variety of local tourism companies. We could be talking about destination management organisations in York, in my constituency of Weston-super-Mare or in Bristol—it does not matter where someone is in the country; they could be in the Cotswolds or anywhere else. Such organisations have to deal with everything from local hotels to local restaurants, attraction owners and everything else in between, plus local councillors and so on. They are all faced with that precise mixture of stakeholders and interests to match up.
The interesting thing is that there is no instance of such organisations expecting to own the assets that they are helping to promote and manage. In fact, their role is subtly different. They are not quite a trade association, but they are an organisation that helps to promote a particular area. The attraction owners, whether they are private, public or third sector, are key members of that organisation. They come in a variety of different legal wrappers—partnerships, companies limited by guarantee or whatever—but in each case, the various different stakeholders are key members of that organisation and if it is well run, they are the people who dictate terms and set the agenda for what the organisation is trying to do.
It is therefore crucial that although the organisation does not have to own the assets that it is working with, it must have an extremely close and effective relationship with the people whom it is seeking to represent. I am talking about a different kind of relationship, which is a bit more flexible. I would suggest anyway—my hon. Friend was right to point this out—that going down the route of trying to transfer ownership is not necessary, because many other examples of a membership model are being pursued successfully throughout the rest of the country. He was also right to say that it would be an extremely long and slow process.
In the case of private sector owners—from what I can see, some 90% of the wall is in private ownership of one kind or another—I suspect that, persuasive, effective and passionate as my hon. Friend is, he would have to go some in order to persuade most of them to give over voluntarily property that may have been in their family for generations. They may have purchased it recently, but either way, it is private property. I am a huge fan of the Government’s philanthropy agenda, but I suspect that that would be philanthropy on a different scale and that, if my hon. Friend managed to do it, he would go down in history as one of the greatest philanthropic persuaders this country has ever seen.
I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from and why he is making that suggestion. What I would suggest in return is that I think there is an alternative way, which may be a little quicker and simpler, of achieving the goals that he and I both share, and that is to make sure that we have some kind of membership-related approach, whatever kind of legal wrapper it may come in. If we can get to that position—I understand that that is where Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd is trying to move—the company will be able to do precisely the kinds of things that my hon. Friend is talking about and attempt to market and promote the entire wall from one coast to the other, and put across and sell the huge benefits that he has rightly and passionately outlined in his speech. That is precisely what needs to be done and, I think, what everybody wants to see happen.
The huge advantage that Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd has is that, after many years of trying, it is managing to stitch together an incredibly disparate range of people, simply because of this geographical oddity. The asset, associated companies, attractions and issues that it is trying to deal with stretch from one coast of the country to another. I do not know how many different local authority areas it goes through, but it is a very large number, and it has proven extremely difficult to co-ordinate it in the past. It has started to do it, but as my hon. Friend rightly points out, it has to make this transition.
My hon. Friend has asked about other kinds of funding sources. It will be partly up to local tourism companies and local attraction owners, be they public, private or third sector, to say whether it is in their commercial interest to be part of a collective marketing scheme. I am not suggesting that this should be a piece of corporate philanthropy, but that it should be a natural part of everybody’s corporate marketing plan to say, “If we contribute to a collective marketing plan for Hadrian’s Wall as a whole, it will help my business and my neighbour’s business as well.” This is, therefore, a piece of self-interest as well as collective action, and I think it will be tremendously positive.
It is also worth saying that local authorities may conclude, as is happening in many other parts of the country, that tourism is such an important part of the local economy—my hon. Friend rightly pointed out that it is very important in Carlisle and Cumbria as a whole—that they want to contribute in some way to some of these collective marketing operations through council tax payers’ money. That is happening, as I have said, in many other parts of the country. It depends on the importance of tourism in the local economy, but as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that is a very easy point to make in his part of the world, because it is such a vital part of local job creation. I encourage him to speak to his local council and fellow MPs in the area, to see whether or not they feel that the local authority’s contribution reflects the importance of this crucial part of the economy to local jobs and employment.
I think that we are speaking a similar language in terms of what we want to achieve and that everybody agrees about the importance of Hadrian’s Wall to the nation’s heritage, the world’s heritage and the local tourism industry. I think that we have slightly different recipes for how the issue might be addressed, but a great deal more can be done and I suspect that my hon. Friend and I will look to work with the local authority and local businesses to ensure that that happens.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I congratulate and thank the hon. Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Hendon (Mr Offord) and the Minister for their participation in a most interesting and informative debate.
Dangerous Driving Offences (Sentences)
(13 years, 6 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
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I start by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, although to be perfectly honest I am not entirely sure yet whether it is, given that this is the first time I have had such an opportunity. I am grateful to be able to debate this issue.
Dangerous driving is a very serious offence, and the maximum sentence available to courts is nowhere near long enough, considering the impact on victims. I welcome the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) to the debate. She is a member of the Bar and a very experienced barrister, who I think spent the majority of her practice defending criminals. However, considering her seniority at the Bar, it was probably a long time ago that she defended someone for dangerous driving.
This debate follows my introduction of a ten-minute rule Bill in the House on 14 May. The Second Reading is on 9 September, and I am happy that many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have come to me to say that they support my proposals.
There is a massive disparity in the law. The offence of dangerous driving is worth a maximum of two years’ imprisonment on conviction. The courts have the responsibility of discounting that sentence for an early guilty plea, and I agree that they should have that discretion. I am told that the average sentence is about 11 to 13 months. Sometimes, the injury caused to the victim is truly horrendous.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I put in a petition on this subject regarding a young constituent of mine, Danny Evans, who was tragically killed. In the end, the driver pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving, which I understand the police go for in many cases because it is easier to get a conviction. Danny lost his life and the driver got only 100 hours’ community service. The Government responded by telling me that they had no plans to change the law.
Karl Turner
I am very grateful for that intervention, and I am sure that the Minister has taken note of my hon. Friend’s comments. I hope that today’s debate will help the Government to rethink the policy that relates to this offence.
As I was saying, there is a large disparity in the law. Most of the time the victims suffer horrendous injuries, and the experience of being a victim is truly tragic in every conceivable way. The offence of death by dangerous driving carries, I think, a maximum 14-year sentence.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on securing this debate but on the other work that he is doing in this place to push this issue. Does he recognise the association between the unwillingness of people who commit this type of offence to secure insurance for their vehicles and the impact on the victims?
Karl Turner
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is true that people who tend to commit this type of offence are often not insured, and that says something about the standard of their driving. I am keen to explain that my proposal is not to lock up everyone for poor driving—careless driving is very different from dangerous driving. In my experience, dangerous drivers have very little regard for themselves and other road users, and often do not bother to take out insurance.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I want to refer him to the case of a constituent of mine who came into my constituency office last Friday to show me some absolutely horrendous photographs of a car that had gone straight out at a junction and into somebody’s wall, before demolishing my constituent’s car and sending bricks flying into their living room. Fortunately, it happened at an hour when the people in the house had retired to bed, so nobody was harmed. The driver was found to be driving under the influence of excess alcohol. The community order that was given to him was for 18 months for driving under the influence of excess alcohol, and he was disqualified from driving. However, for dangerous driving he received a community order for 18 months with costs of £80, and again he was disqualified from driving. My constituent’s mother wrote to me. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with her, when she asks:
“What kind of message are we giving to deliberately drunken drivers if we let them get away with such piffling sentences?”
Karl Turner
I agree entirely with those remarks, which are absolutely right.
For me, this issue is about redressing the balance for victims of these horrendous offences. The standard of driving required for dangerous driving is that the driver needs to drive far below the standard of an ordinary competent driver. I am not talking about pulling out of a driveway, failing to look right and having an accident. I am talking about getting into a car and driving like an absolute lunatic—very often, that is the case—including driving around roundabouts the wrong way or even over roundabouts. We have seen the CCTV footage of such driving on numerous occasions. The standard of driving is absolutely horrendous in every possible way.
I suggest that the maximum sentence for dangerous driving should be seven years, rather than what was suggested in the previous Government by a colleague of mine—I think that there was talk of increasing the maximum sentence from two years to five years. The offence of causing death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of five years. I am sure that the families of the victims of that offence would feel dreadful about that sentence. I am sure that the families of victims are absolutely outraged at what has been described to me as such a “paltry” sentence. But the culpability for that offence, in my view, is much less than for dangerous driving per se. I want to emphasise that point.
Members of all parties in the House will have constituents who have raised this issue with them; I suspect that the issue has been raised with them on more than one occasion. I have a constituent, Katie Harper. She was the victim of dangerous driving. Unfortunately, for whatever reason—I make no criticism of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—the offender was not brought to justice. He was charged with dangerous driving but the case was dropped. When I spoke to Katie’s father, he said that that was an absolute travesty and that that driver should have gone to prison for a long, long time. So I put the question to him, “How long do people think he would have got if he had been convicted?” He said, “Nine years?” I said, “No.” He said, “Ten years?” I said, “No.” He said, “Twelve years?” I said, “Absolutely not.” His daughter had been studying English at the university of Hull, but she is no longer studying English and she has been told that she may never walk properly again. Her father was absolutely horrified to learn that, in my opinion, the sentence for the driver—if he had gone to prison at all—would have been something like nine months, if he had no previous convictions.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on identifying this anomaly. I used to specialise in road traffic law, and this is not the only anomaly that exists within current road traffic legislation. I wonder whether he is aware that if, for example, a new driver gets more than six penalty points, they have to retake their test, but if they are disqualified from driving they do not have to retake their test. Also, if someone commits the offence of failing to stop after an accident in which they have killed someone, the maximum sentence available at the moment is six months’ imprisonment. Is he aware of those anomalies, in addition to the one he has so creditably identified?
Karl Turner
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I mitigated a case before a magistrate when I was representing a defendant, who was effectively a probationary driver, for a driving offence. I suggested to the bench that, instead of throwing the book at him, he should be banned for a short period, so that he did not have to start from scratch, taking his test and so on.
I am assisted to some extent by some recent publicity. The Sun ran a story last Saturday about the victim of a driving offence, who was tragically paralysed. I have had the opportunity to speak with her father, Dr Robert Carver. The offence was different—careless driving—but the victim’s injuries were dreadful. I am sure that the family feel outraged, but her father has asked me to make it clear that he makes no criticism of the district judge, Judge Stobart, who passed sentence in that case, saying that the judge was working within the constraints of the law.
I mention that case for two reasons. It is tragic for the victim—absolutely dreadful—but, for whatever reason, the offender was charged with careless driving, not dangerous driving. The sentence of 150 days in such circumstances was appropriate. However, an offence of dangerous driving, which is much worse in my view, must require a much harsher sentence.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his efforts to reform the law. He clearly has considerable support from all parties, and we wish him absolute success.
The two-year sentence means that judges cannot reflect the serious consequences that often flow from someone who has committed the offence of dangerous driving, notably if causing injury. For what it is worth, I remember prosecuting a similar case in Derbyshire. Someone had suffered permanent damage to the legs, but the judge’s hands were tied in the sentence he passed. We really need reform in this area, do we not?
Karl Turner
Absolutely. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, and welcome her remarks, which are right.
Before the election, I was defending a case of dangerous driving before the Crown Court—I was a pupil barrister in my local chambers, the Wilberforce chambers, which I mention because I hope for extra support from my head of chambers. I was enthusiastic, preparing the mitigation the night before, because I was excited to be appearing before a Crown Court judge—I had spent some years before that working for a firm of solicitors. I remember standing up with all that enthusiasm, beginning the mitigation and then seeing the expression on the judge’s face. I had seen the CCTV, because it was played in court, but the judge was looking at me and saying, “Stop there, please, because the maximum sentence is two years. He pleaded, with good advice, in the magistrates court, so I must reduce the sentence to 16 months as a starting point. I then have to reduce it further because it is not the worst case of dangerous driving that I have judged.”
I decided to stand up and have another go but, with the clear expression on the judge’s face, I gave in pretty swiftly. The maximum sentence was indeed 16 months in such circumstances, and the offender received 11 months. When I went down to see him in the cell, I did the usual thing and told him how absolutely brilliant I was, but then I began thinking about the seriousness of the case. His driving had been truly horrendous. The offender had smashed into police cars to evade detection by the police. He was risking not only his own life but the lives of everyone on that road. This incident happened in broad daylight. He drove past a school at 70 miles per hour. The serious nature of that made me understand why the judge was looking at me as though I was the lunatic rather than the defendant.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am concerned about the driving that causes death but is not classified as dangerous. Does my hon. Friend agree that the law needs serious revision? There was a case in my constituency in March 2009 when nine-year-old Robert Gaunt died of multiple injuries after being hit by a car while crossing the road in Overton. The driver of that car was unlicensed, uninsured and failed to stop. He did not report the incident, and he even tried to cover up the crime by having his car repainted and re-sprayed. He was handed a sentence right at the top of what was legally possible—a grand total of 22 months. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that was wrong?
Karl Turner
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s points. All Members will be able to raise similar cases. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) was right in his comments. I know that he was an expert in road traffic cases before his election to this House, and perhaps he still is.
The offence of aggravated vehicle taking is another area that needs to be addressed. It currently carries a maximum sentence of two years. However, I should not digress, because it will cause some confusion not only to hon. Members in the Chamber but to my constituents.
My argument for increasing the sentence is to provide judges with discretion. I have spoken to senior judges and to my own Crown court judge, his honour Judge Mettyear, who said that an increase would be welcomed by every judge in the land. I trust judges. Sometimes I am not very happy with them, especially if I have had a bad result for a client, or if I have been prosecuting and I disagree with their judgment. None the less, I trust them, and they should have the discretion to redress the balance in these cases. The victims are truly shocked. They and their family have had the trauma of this horrendous incident, and then they see that justice has not been done. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made. I tabled early-day motion 1969 today, which I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to sign.
In closing, let me make it clear that I am not looking to lock up people for poor driving. Sometimes people drive badly. My wife tells me that occasionally my driving is not very good. I hope that people do not think that I want to send people to prison. There are 30 million drivers out there, some of whom drive poorly, but this is not about that. This is about dangerous driving, which is an horrendous offence. I hope that the Government have listened carefully to the arguments that I have submitted today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
It is extremely pleasurable to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, particularly as it means that you are in the Chair and not behind me on the Back Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing the debate and on his tenacity in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament. I congratulate him on whipping in, if I may put it that way, other hon. Members’ support with the notice he gave of his debate and on the generous way in which he gave them some time and some of my time. It is entirely his debate and it is all his time to give up to interventions. The hon. Gentleman made it clear in that message that he was going to end before 15 minutes of the debate was left, so I may be slightly over-prepared. However, I will attempt to get through the key messages I want to get across in responding to the debate.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the subject of dangerous driving is extremely serious, with potentially very grave consequences for innocent victims and their families. The Government are currently considering recent representations on the subject made by His Honour Judge Everett of Bolton Crown court following a particularly serious local case. They are also considering representations made by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East not only in this debate, but in the speech he gave to his ten-minute rule Bill.
Road traffic cases present particular difficulties for the courts because it is not always the worst transgression by a driver that has the most tragic consequences. Sometimes the consequences of a collision may be entirely disproportionate to the culpability of the offender. A relatively minor misdemeanour by a driver may have very tragic consequences, whereas thoroughly reckless behaviour on the road may fortuitously result in little, if any, harm. The law therefore seeks to punish those who cause death or injury on the road in a way that is appropriate to the degree of blameworthiness of the driver.
Hon. Members will be aware that a range of offences relate to bad driving. Ultimately, it is for the prosecuting authorities to decide upon the appropriate charge in each individual case. The charges brought against an individual following a road traffic incident are dependent upon the Crown Prosecution Service’s assessment of the quality of the defendant’s driving both preceding and at the time of the impact. When considering the appropriate charge, it is the driving behaviour that is the deciding factor. There are charging standards agreed with the police for prosecuting road traffic offences.
Our current law provides a framework of offences to deal with bad driving at every level. Fatality holds a special place in that framework, which is why, where a death is caused by bad driving, particularly robust penalties are available. Where drivers cause death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, judges are able to sentence them to a maximum of 14 years in prison. Other measures include an unlimited fine and a minimum two-year driving disqualification. Where death is caused and there is sufficient evidence of gross negligence, drivers can be charged with the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Following the 2005 review of road traffic offences, since 2008 two new offences have been available to prosecutors: causing death by careless driving and causing death where a driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalties for those are five years and two years respectively. Those offences attract a minimum disqualification period of one year, and can be punished by an unlimited fine. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of two years custody. Careless driving, by comparison, has a maximum penalty of a fine.
As regards dangerous driving, within the maximum penalty set out in legislation, judges and magistrates have discretion to sentence based on the details of the individual case and the circumstances of the offender, taking into account sentencing guidelines. Moreover, the courts are obliged to endorse a driver’s licence and impose at least a 12-month driving disqualification, together with an extended re-test. Of course, if deemed necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, there is no limit to the length of driving ban that a court can impose. The court may also impose a fine.
The magistrates courts’ sentencing guidelines provide some guidance on dangerous driving. The most serious examples of the offence—such as prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for the safety of others; incidents involving excessive speed or showing off, especially in built up areas, by a disqualified driver; and driving in such a fashion while being pursued by police—would be referred to the Crown court. Serious injuries are taken into account within the dangerous driving offence and, at the most severe end of that scale, we would expect judges to sentence close to or at the maximum penalty of two years custody.
I now want to set out some of the wider context for the debate. Generally, Britain has a good road safety record, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Deaths and serious injuries on the roads are a tragedy for all those who are affected. It is of course to be welcomed that road fatalities and casualties have continued to fall, but every such case is one too many. I will give the background with figures.
Since 1994, road casualties have been falling against a backdrop of increasing traffic and population. In 2009, there were a total of 222,146 reported casualties of all severities, 4% lower than in 2008; there were 2,222 deaths, 12% lower than in 2008; 24,690 were seriously injured, down 5%; and 195,234 were slightly injured, down 4%. The number of fatalities fell for almost all types of road user, with a fall of 16% for car occupants, 13% for pedestrians, 10% for pedal cyclists and 4% for motorcyclists.
If we compare not just one year, but the average trend over 15 years between 1994-98 and 2009, the number killed was 38% lower, and the number of those killed or seriously injured was 44% lower. Welcomingly, the number of children killed or seriously injured was 61%. Car occupants, pedestrians and motorcyclists accounted for the vast majority of deaths at 48%, 23% and 21% respectively in 2009, when pedestrian fatalities were 50% below the 1994-98 average and car occupant fatalities were 40% below the average.
We want to ensure that Britain remains a world leader in road safety, and to continue the downward trend in road casualties. We are determined to crack down on the antisocial and dangerous driving that still leads to far too many fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. It is with that aim that last month colleagues in the Department for Transport published a new strategic framework for road safety. Its focus is on supporting road users who have weak driving skills or display a lapse of judgment to improve their driving through a greater range of educational courses to help to deliver safer skills and attitudes, while focusing enforcement resources on those who deliberately decide to undertake antisocial and dangerous driving behaviour, and that covers all careless and dangerous driving offences. This is the Government’s twin approach to improving road safety.
The new strategic framework for road safety sets out the Government’s plans. Among other measures, they are: to require offenders to pass a test before they regain their licence after a serious disqualification; to make greater use of powers to seize vehicles to keep the most dangerous drivers off the road; to improve enforcement against drink and drug driving as announced in the response to the North report in March; to increase the use of police-approved educational courses that can be offered in place of fixed penalty notices to encourage safer driving behaviour; to launch a new post-test qualification for new drivers, including an assessment process, and to continue to improve the driving and motorcycling training processes. The framework, in harmony with the coalition’s commitment to localism, also aims to give greater clarity to local authorities and road safety professionals, and to free up local authorities to assess and to act on their own priorities to improve road safety.
Returning to sentencing, I want to make it clear that the courts take dangerous driving seriously. The 2010 figures show that around 3,200 offenders were sentenced, of whom about 1,100 were given immediate custodial sentences. The average custodial sentence length has increased consistently over recent years from 7.7 months in 2000 to 9.7 months in 2010. In his speech on his ten-minute rule Bill, the hon. Gentleman argued that the courts could not sufficiently punish instances of dangerous driving when very serious harm is caused. He then argued, as he did today, that the maximum penalty of two years for this offence does not give the courts enough scope, and that it should be raised to seven years. He will recall that I was on the Front Bench and that I sat and listened to his speech. I have, of course, given thought to the issues that he raised.
Maximum penalties are not necessarily the only way of addressing issues of appropriate punishment within the criminal justice system. As will be clear from what I have said, there is a complex legacy of maximum penalties relating to traffic offences, and we should not regard making changes to them as the answer to every issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said that there are other penalties that are apparently logically inconsistent. The challenge of ensuring a completely consistent range of offences and penalties against a backdrop of ever-changing social problems and priorities will be well understood by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, who knows that the Law Commission has given that some thought. The alternative legislative answer to a major one-off overhaul of our criminal law to deliver the coherence that he seeks would be to legislate on a case-by-case basis to address identifiable gaps. That approach would not necessarily improve the overall coherence of our system
The Government have said that they do not want to pursue a pattern of constantly tinkering with legislation if we can possibly avoid it, so we must consider other possible solutions if they are available.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Regional Development Agencies
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I am pleased to announce that I have decided to extend terms of appointment for 24 existing RDA board members listed below until RDA closure.
RDA | Board member |
|---|---|
Advantage West Midlands | John Crabtree OBE, Cllr Ken Taylor, Dr David Brown, Cllr Mike Whitby |
East of England Development Agency | Shona Johnstone, Madeleine Russell, Robert Swann |
Northwest Regional Development Agency | Vanda Murray, Dr John Stageman, Lord Smith of Leigh, Mrs Anne Selby |
One Northeast | Kate Welch, Lord Shipley, Peter Jackson |
South East England Development Agency | Pamela Charlwood, Leslie Dawson, Keith Mitchell |
South West Regional Development Agency | Kelvyn Derrick, Ian Ducat |
Yorkshire Forward | Barry Dodd OBE, Cllr Kath Pinnock, Mr Bill Adams, Mr Ajaz Ahmed, Mr John Vincent |
I have agreed to these appointment extensions, 23 starting on the 14 December 2011 and one starting on 5 March 2012 for a period of no more than one year in order that the RDA boards can remain quorate until the expected closure of RDAs in March 2012.
I have placed further details of these appointment extensions, including biographies, in the Libraries of both Houses. I can confirm that the appointments were made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice.
UK Equity Markets (Competitiveness)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
My Department published a call for evidence in October 2010 entitled “A long-term focus for corporate Britain”. The call for evidence responded to concerns that capital markets may be increasingly focused on the short-term to the detriment of long-term sustainable growth in the UK. The response to the call for evidence made it clear that, while the UK has strong equity markets, there is scope for improvement.
I have therefore invited Professor John Kay to carry out an independent review, which will examine investment in UK equity markets and its impact on the long-term performance and governance of UK quoted companies. This includes the actions of boards, shareholders and their agents; the impact of rules and practices; and the level of transparency and engagement in the investment chain. The review will also consider the impact of increasing fragmentation and internationalisation of UK share ownership. Professor Kay will be supported by an expert panel of investor and corporate practitioners.
I have placed copies of the terms of reference for the review in the Libraries of both Houses.
Afghanistan: Monthly Progress Report May 2011
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the seventh progress report on developments in Afghanistan.
The report focuses on key developments during the month of May.
Al-Qaeda founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed by US forces in Pakistan on 2 May. His death, while significant, does not change our strategy in Afghanistan and we remain committed to our military, diplomatic and development work.
On 17 May the Prime Minister confirmed to the House of Commons Liaison Committee that, by February 2012, approximately 400 UK military personnel will have withdrawn from Afghanistan, following the conclusion of specific planned tasks. Over 200 of these troops have already been withdrawn. He emphasised that the UK remains the second largest troop contributor, operating in the hardest part of the country.
Good progress in Afghan uniformed police training and development continued to be made. Nevertheless, leadership training is challenging, owing to inconsistent support from Afghan district level leadership. The increasing number of Afghans wishing to serve in the Afghan national police, as officers, has enabled the Ministry of Interior to apply higher selection standards.
The Taliban’s fighting season resumed in May. As expected, the number of violent incidents increased, as the insurgency attempted to regain lost momentum. Overall, levels of violence, although higher than those seen in April, are broadly in line with what we would expect for this time of year.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and the HMG UK and Afghanistan website (http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/).
BBC World Service
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In line with the Government’s response to events in the middle east and north Africa and following the debate on 19 May, the FCO will provide some additional funding for the BBC World Service beyond that provided for in the 2010 spending review (SR10).
The context for the spending review was the fiscal legacy left by the previous Administration. This meant that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in line with other Government Departments, had to make difficult decisions. I therefore agreed total funding levels for BBC World Service of £253 million, £242 million and £238 million over the first three years of the SR10 period. After this time funding of BBC World Service will be transferred to the licence fee.
The original settlement was both fair and proportionate. A 16% real cut in funding over the period, while challenging, is consistent with the settlements provided to other publicly funded bodies. It kept the BBC World Service’s share of the FCO family’s overall budget at or above its 2007-8 level: in 2007-08 the proportion was 13%, and by the time the funding for the World Service transfers to the licence fee it would have been slightly under 14.4%. The World Service settlement was also proportionate to the savings the BBC will make as a whole under the licence fee settlement.
The settlement did present difficult challenges for the BBC World Service. It meant that the World Service has faced some hard choices and decisions, as have the FCO and the British Council. The Government have been looking carefully at what we can do to help. In March 2011 I announced a one-off contribution of £3 million towards World Service restructuring costs.
The BBC itself has also underlined their long-term commitment to the future of the BBC World Service through contributing significant funds, totalling £20 million over three years, towards World Service restructuring costs. I also welcome the BBC’s recent agreement that the World Service will be able to reinvest the reduction in their planned contribution to the overall BBC pension deficit to mitigate the impact on services of the reduction in budget. I understand from the BBC that this should release an extra £9 million over three years for investment in services. One area they have identified as a priority for such funding is the continuation of the Hindi shortwave service. I was pleased that the BBC World Service had itself identified savings earlier in the year to enable a reduced Hindi shortwave service to continue, and I strongly welcome this additional support.
In line with the Government’s response to events in the middle east and north Africa and following the debate in the House of Commons on 19 May, I asked the FCO to look again at whether there were other options open to us to provide support. We recognise that the world has changed since the settlement was announced in October last year—indeed since the World Service announced the subsequent changes to services, including some closures, on 26 January. In the debate on 19 May, a number of Members of Parliament highlighted the impact of the reduction in World Service funding on the BBC Arabic Service. It is right that we should look at ways in which we can assist the BBC Arabic Service to continue their valuable work in the region. So I have agreed that we will provide additional funding of £2.2 million per annum to enable the World Service to maintain the current level of investment in the BBC Arabic Service. This will increase the World Service’s funding as a proportion of the FCO’s budget to just over 14.5%.
In addition, the FCO is discussing providing funding from the Arab partnership initiative for specific projects proposed by the BBC Arabic Service or World Service Trust. Discussions are continuing about a number of projects which are designed to support the development of the media and wider civic society in the middle east and north Africa region which taken together may mean an additional investment of up to £1.65 million over the next two years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has recently stated that his Department is discussing placing its relationship with the BBC World Service Trust on a longer-term and more strategic footing. Any support to the World Service Trust provided by the Department for International Development (DFID) will be classed as official development assistance (ODA) in line with the internationally agreed standard laid down by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). I believe that a proportion of the activities carried out by the World Service itself may also be eligible to be classified as ODA. The FCO is working with DFID to agree that any future ODA spend reported by the World Service is fully consistent with the OECD definition.
I have discussed this overall approach with the chairman of the BBC Trust and we have agreed that we will continue to work together to ensure that the World Service retains its global influence and reach in a rapidly changing world.
Deaths of Three British Citizens (Baghdad)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to update the House in the case of the five British hostages who were kidnapped from the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad in May 2007. The House will recall that one of the hostages, Peter Moore, was released alive in December 2009.
The bodies of Jason Creswell and Jason Swindlehurst were returned in June 2009 and that of Alec Maclachlan in September 2009. More tragically, the last remaining hostage, Alan McMenemy, whom we believe to be dead, has yet to be returned, though we continue our efforts to bring him home.
The House will note that HM coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon, who is responsible for determining the cause of death, has now completed his inquest into the deaths of Mr Creswell, Mr Swindlehurst and Mr Maclachlan. HM coroner has recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. The evidence placed before the inquest shows quite clearly that these men were deliberately and brutally murdered by their captors.
I am aware that for the family of Alan McMenemy their suffering goes on. Let me reassure Alan’s family, and the House, that we will continue our efforts to bring Alan home.
We understand that the Iraqis are investigating the circumstances of the kidnapping, which we hope will lead to justice for these men. I call upon those holding Alan to show compassion to his wife and children and to return him immediately.
I am sure the House joins me in extending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of these men, and our hope that Alan McMenemy will be returned soon.
Maritime Training Scheme
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The Government’s principal objective in supporting merchant navy training is to facilitate an adequate supply of UK maritime expertise to meet the nation’s economic and strategic requirements, by assisting organisations providing merchant navy training. In this difficult economic period, the Government have decided that it is right to review the continuing requirement for Government support for training and skills development in this sector and how best to spend any continuing Government funding.
In my written ministerial statement of 8 December 2010, Official Report, columns 24-26WS, I announced my intention to commission a review and I can confirm that today I have launched an invitation to tender. The successful bidder will present its findings to an independent panel, which will report to me by the end of the year and make practical recommendations on how the economic requirement for trained seafarers in the UK can be best met, having regard to current financial constraints.
The terms of reference for the review are as follows:
To review the UK requirement for trained seafarers at sea over the next decade;
To review the UK requirement for trained seafarers ashore over the next decade;
To examine the extent to which the above requirements have to be met by UK seafarers;
To review the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing funding arrangements and the future need for Government intervention to ensure the supply of trained seafarers;
To identify options for supporting the training of seafarers and make recommendations which address the issue of value for money and are reflective of future UK requirements for trained seafarers;
To examine whether previous training targets are reflective of future needs.
Roadside Facilities (England)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
This statement is to inform the House that following closure of the roadside facilities policy consultation on 2 July last year, I have reviewed the responses and I am introducing a change to the policy to permit the development of truckstops on the motorway network.
The consultation identified strong support from the haulage industry for the development of truckstops. Proposals for dedicated truckstop facilities will now be considered in the context of existing and/or proposed rest facilities on the strategic road network, and will be determined on their individual merit. This will include truckstop facilities that can be accessed direct from motorways—motorway truckstops—which are a type of facility not permitted until now. Where there is evidence to demonstrate that demand for lorry parking exceeds supply, the development of truckstop facilities at existing service areas would be viewed favourably. Proposals for motorway truckstops are unlikely to be supported if they would prevent a potential motorway service area (MSA) being built.
Detailed advice on the mandatory and permitted features of all categories of truckstop is set out in the table that is attached at appendix 1 to the written copy of my statement.
These changes supplement DfT Circular 01/2008 (April 2008). Aspects of policy not touched on in this statement will continue to apply.
I am currently considering ways to reduce regulation, increase competition and improve still further the quality of motorway service areas. To this end, I have instructed officials in my Department to identify those elements of the policy that might instead be better determined at a local level through the current planning system.
I have also instructed my officials to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider how best to take these issues forward in the context of the national planning policy framework. Separately, we will produce an associated DfT technical note, setting out requirements in respect of road safety and operational issues.
This approach accords with the Government’s twin aims of decentralisation and localism, reducing the burden of bureaucracy and strengthening local accountability. It will encourage competition and, through this, improve service for users.
Appendix 1
Truckstops serving the strategic road network—features and levels of provision.
Features and levels of provision | Truck stops on Motorways | Truckstops signed from Motorways | Truckstops on All- Purpose Trunk Roads |
|---|---|---|---|
Opening times | 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. | 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. | Minimum 12 hours per day, every day except Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day. |
Provision of fuel. | Permitted | Permitted | Permitted |
Provision of facilities to enable electric powered vehicle transfer (i.e. on-route exchange of un-charged vehicles for charged vehicles) or the exchange of used and charged battery cells. Parking bays may be designated with recharging facilities for use by electric powered vehicles, for which a payment may be levied. | Permitted for HGVs | Permitted for HGVs | Permitted for HGVs |
Parking and provision at the levels laid down in Policy Annex B of DfT Circular 01/2008: - HGVs (3,500kg or above) (including self- propelled horse boxes) - Abnormal loads | Mandatory Mandatory | Mandatory Mandatory | Mandatory Mandatory |
Free parking for up to two hours Subsequent payment for parking must be possible as an on-site cash transaction. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Provision of high security parking for which an additional charge can be levied after an initial two-hour period. | Permitted | Permitted | Permitted |
Free toilets and hand-washing facilities for all roadside facility users (at the levels laid down in DfT Circular 01/2008) with no obligation to make a purchase. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Shower and washing facilities for HGV drivers, including secure lockers in the shower/washing area. To be located near to HGV parking, at the levels laid down in DfT Circular 01/2008. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Maximum retail floor space (net internal area for both online and junction sites). Additional areas may be used for retail storage, but there shall be no public access and sales shall not be permitted from these areas. The allowance for retail space excludes restaurant facilities preparing food and drink for consumption on the premises. | Permitted maximum 500m2 | Permitted maximum 500m2 | Permitted maximum 500m2 |
Trading on bridges connecting two sites across motorway. | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited |
Traffic information points to help the public make informed travel decisions and plan their onward journeys. | Permitted | Permitted | Permitted |
Games and/or exercise area floor space (games, gaming machines, or exercise machines) for use by lorry drivers only. Uses that specifically generate traffic will not be permitted. | Permitted maximum 100m2 | Permitted maximum 100m2 | Permitted maximum 100m2 |
Facilities for waste recycling in the amenity building and picnic areas. | Permitted | Permitted | Permitted |
Access to a cash-operated telephone (card phones alone will not suffice). | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Advertisements situated within roadside facilities that are visible from the strategic road network (including advertisements mounted internally or externally on footbridges or connecting road bridges). | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited |
Sale or consumption of alcohol on the premises. | Prohibited | Subject to licensing procedures | Subject to licensing procedures |
Hot substantial food, snacks and hot drinks available between 05:00-10:00 and 17:00-22:00. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Access for up to two hours for those carrying out emergency repairs to broken-down vehicles. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Access for parties carrying out duties for and on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Site must also comply with all applicable equality legislation. | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
Bridge or underpass connecting facilities on opposite sides of a motorway. | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited |
Use as an “operating centre” for the purposes of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 or the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. | Prohibited | Prohibited | Subject to impact assessment |
Hotels offering overnight accommodation for lorry drivers without generating additional new journeys, additional traffic or a net increase in vehicle mileage. | Permitted | Permitted | Permitted |
All other development. | Prohibited | Prohibited | Subject to impact assessment |
Grand Committee
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU: Justice and Home Affairs
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
That the Grand Committee do consider the report to Parliament on the application of Protocols 19 and 21 to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to EU justice and home affairs matters (Cm 8000).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, you will be aware that the previous Administration made a commitment to this House to table an annual report on the application of the protocols to the treaties relating to EU justice and home affairs matters. This Government have maintained that pledge and duly presented the first such report to Parliament in January 2011, covering the period from 1 December 2009, when the Lisbon treaty came into force, to 30 November 2010. The Committee will be aware that the report covers some opt-in decisions undertaken by the previous Administration as well as those taken by the coalition. I propose to focus on the latter.
Under the current Government, 13 decisions were taken during the period of the report. Two of these were Schengen-building measures subject to the Schengen protocol. This means that we had the right to opt out rather than opt in. Of the 11 remaining measures subject to the opt-in protocol, this Government opted in to six and chose not to opt in to five. The Government have since that period requested a post-adoption opt-in to the directive on trafficking in human beings.
Since coming to office, this Government have considered all opt-in decisions concerning justice and home affairs measures on a case-by-case basis. When making an opt-in decision, we consider factors such as the impact of the measure on our internal security, civil liberties, preserving the integrity of our criminal justice and common law systems and the security of our borders. At the heart of it all is a commitment to keep the national interest at the forefront of our thinking. We will opt in only where we believe it is in the UK’s interests to do so. For this reason we have decided not to participate in legal migration measures on seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees, which would have impacted on our right to decide who enters the country from outside the EU.
As I mentioned, this report forms part of the package of measures to scrutinise the JHA opt-in brought in by the previous Administration. This Government are committed to those measures and to finding ways to enhance them. On 20 January, the Minister for Europe made a Written Statement to Parliament setting out how we intend to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the same Statement to your Lordships’ House on 21 January. Under these new arrangements the Government have committed to set aside government time for a debate on opt-in decisions where there is a strong parliamentary interest. There will be a vote in both Houses on a government Motion on such issues.
The Government must also now report each opt-in decision that we make by a Written, or where appropriate Oral, Ministerial Statement. As with any new process, the key is in finding practical ways to make these arrangements work. The Government have been consulting business managers and EU committees to discuss the detail of these new arrangements. We hope that they will be embedded in a code of practice in the coming months. As I said, these arrangements build on and strengthen the rigorous procedures already in place known as the Ashton commitments.
This and future annual reports are an important part of how we engage with Parliament. The Government are aware that there are debates to be had not just about individual opt-in measures but about the applicability of the opt-in more generally. Accordingly, the report considers some of these issues. I do not plan to dwell on the opt-in decisions taken after this report was tabled as we will present an end-of-year report for December 2010 to November 2011 early next year, but I wish to note briefly that since 1 December 2010 the Government have opted in to a further five measures and chosen not to opt in to two measures.
I commend the report to the Committee and look forward to engaging in a debate on its content.
Lord Rowlands
My Lords, I welcome this first report of the application of the protocols. In doing so, it might be helpful to remind ourselves how these procedures and processes came about in the first place.
I had the good fortune to be a member of the Constitution Committee that considered and scrutinised the last European Union Bill in which the Government proposed these protocols. We heard a great deal from the Government about the strength of these protocols, how cast-iron these opt-outs were, and that they represented—as many Members will remember—the famous red lines that had been drawn around them. The committee kept asking one simple question: what if future Governments, of any side or character, decide to accept the opt-ins and therefore remove some of the red lines that have been drawn around the protocols? We asked what the procedure would be if the Government made this decision, what the form of scrutiny would be, and what sort of approval would be required. The Government of the day had rested their case on the strength of these protocols, which was partly why they claimed there was no any need for a referendum at the time.
The Constitution Committee, of which I was a proud member, felt so strongly about these matters that it took the rather unusual step of producing almost a committee amendment to the European Union Bill to try to establish processes for the approval and scrutiny of opt-ins. I recall that debate very well, because it raised considerable interest in a number of areas of the House and led to negotiations and discussions with the European Union Committee, the Constitution Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and to the procedures we are now partly using.
In fairness, I remember the noble Baroness telling us that we would be surprised by the sheer number of opt-in proposals. Many of us thought that there would be just a handful dealing with fundamental issues. She frequently reminded us that there would be more than we thought and that they would be diverse and often of a technical nature. As a member now of Sub-Committee E, my experience—and I am sure the experience of other members of that committee—shows that her case was valid. We have had something like 20 opt-ins in the last 12 months and are faced with another large collection in the next 12 months. I have found it rather difficult, and I do not know whether other members of those committees also feel this, because of the diversity and sometimes technical nature of the opt-in proposals and directives to establish some common criteria to decide whether or not there should be an opt-in. As the Minister has said, one ends up taking a case-by-case approach, applying common sense and asking whether co-operating, by opting-in, would help to enforce the better administration of certain aspects of justice.
I have come to the conclusion at various times in the last 12 months that it was right to opt in on issues such as human trafficking, combating sexual abuse, the exploitation of children and child pornography, because there is an advantage to having a European approach here. I have been less keen on the road safety directive, which has not proved its cost-benefit potential. I have certainly found in the case of succession that the idea of a succession certificate goes far too far. Our whole notion of succession is very different from that of most of the rest of the continent. There is a gulf larger than the Channel in respect of succession, and I suspect that that gulf will also arise in issues of matrimonial property. Therefore, like everyone else, one takes this case-by-case approach. We are going to be faced in sub-committee with at least another dozen within the next 12 months.
That raises a more general point, which the Minister herself touched on: when one uses a case-by-case approach, one tries to apply the simple common-sense test to the decision or directive that has been proposed, but one should be vigilant and mindful of the cumulative effect of opting in. If we opt in on an increasing number of cases, where will those red lines be that the previous Government drew such attention to? We might see, without necessarily recognising it, an erasing of those red lines. The House and its committees should seriously consider the cumulative effect over a period of the opt-in issues that arise.
I have also been increasingly concerned that many of these opt-in issues raise problems of centralising data on a much wider basis. As someone who, when on the constitutional committees, helped to write a report on the surveillance society, I think that one should be conscious and vigilant that many of these opt-in proposals are associated with the collection of data in increasingly centralised circumstances. I therefore hope that on these issues our House and committees will remain vigilant on the vital issue of opt-ins.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the report. I note that it was published in January 2011 and wonder why it has taken so long, since it covers the period until November 2010, for it to be considered in Grand Committee. Some six months have elapsed.
I noticed that there were significant opt-ins that did not attract the parliamentary scrutiny that might have been desirable. I refer to two that are mentioned in the report: the EU/US terrorism finance tracking programme and the draft proposal for the European investigation order. I am also aware of the Attorney-General’s concern, which I think he articulated in a speech to the Institute of European and International Affairs on 13 June. He is concerned about the brevity of the three-month period in which we sometimes need to take these decisions and the operation of the Recess, particularly the long Summer Recess, should these decisions need to be taken around periods in which parliamentary scrutiny becomes more difficult. Apropos the operation of Article 19 of the protocol to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, have we sought to opt out but failed to do so due to the timing of these proposals?
The report is clearly designed for a deeply expert audience. As someone who is not quite as well initiated as other noble Lords, as well as keeping in mind the interests of transparency and to improve scrutiny I suggest keeping in mind the criteria that the Minister herself has touched upon today but that were also articulated clearly in the Attorney-General’s speech of only a few days ago when he said that the Government believe that their justice and home affairs policy is,
“pragmatic, measured and proportionate, having proper regard to Britain's wider interests. We want to ensure that we participate in measures that are in the best interest of our businesses and citizens and that our decisions are informed by the views of Parliament and on rigorous assessments of each measure against a set of criteria. These criteria include: potential impact on the integrity of the UK's justice systems; national security; effects on civil liberties and rights; and the potential regulatory impact of the measure and wider impacts”.
Keeping in mind those four criteria identified by the Attorney-General, as well as page 5 of the report, on which we discuss forthcoming dossiers over the next 12 months, and the report on proposals looking back, perhaps we can consider whether in future reports we might have a narrative explanation alongside each decision that was taken, set against the criteria so that we can see how, given the Government’s declared criteria, those decisions were taken. A narrative explaining what the decisions encompassed would obviously need to be considered if that rather expanded narrative form were taken on board.
Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned the code of practice, and I understand that various government departments are working on this code, which will improve the effective scrutiny of opt-in decisions. I wonder whether she could tell the Grand Committee when she expects this code to be approved and to be ready for implementation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I should preface my remarks by saying that I will concentrate mainly on the matters relevant to the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, which I chair. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will be covering the Justice and Institutions Sub-Committee, because we are in a kind of Siamese-twin situation where opt-in issues sometimes fall on his side and sometimes on mine. We do not have any disagreements about which side they fall on, but it sometimes leads to confusion in the audience as to why we have two sub-committees dealing with rather similar material.
I am most grateful to the Home Office for providing the report we are debating today and to the Minister for having introduced the report and the Motion so clearly and comprehensively at a very early date after her assumption of ministerial responsibilities. Both the report and this debate are firsts in the new post-Lisbon process of strengthening transparency and accountability of the Executive to Parliament in a complex area of EU policy-making. As such, they are welcome and will need to be repeated on an annual basis if we are to make a useful reality of these strengthened scrutiny procedures.
As is so often the case with the European Union, it is only too easy to be repelled by the complicated lexicon of acronyms and cross-references to treaty provisions. To assume that this is all about process and not about substance would be a mistake. Many of the measures covered by the report have an important impact on the daily lives and on the security of ordinary citizens. It really does matter, therefore, that the Government get their opt-in and opt-out decisions right and that both Houses of Parliament actively participate in the shaping of those decisions. We must try not to lose sight of the wood as we take a closer look at the individual trees of which it is composed.
We are debating a report which covers the period between 1 December 2009, when the Lisbon treaty entered into force, and 30 November 2010; that is to say that we are already six months out of date, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I hope that next year we will hold this debate sooner after the tabling of the Home Office’s annual report, ideally within two months of its publication. It will be useful too—perhaps the Minister could say something about this—if the report’s annexe, not the report itself, could be issued in an up-to-date form every six months. That would help the committees to follow the process and to see the wood rather than the trees, if that were possible. I do not think it would put an unreasonable burden on the department; I hope not.
As to the categorisation of the views of this House in the present report, this does leave something to be desired. It said that the House of Lords agreed with the IT management agency opt-in, No. 13. That is only part of the story. We agreed with the decision but not with the way it was done—by relying on an existing opt-in to a different proposal under a different treaty in 2009. I would not ask the Minister to respond to this point; it has been the subject of an enormous amount of correspondence between my sub-committee and the Home Office, at which point we rather decided to accept that we were not going to agree about it. However, we have a serious point which is not reflected in the report. Perhaps a little more care could be taken on that.
As to decision No. 22—on intra-corporate transfers, to which the Minister referred—the note in the report states: “HoL: N/A”. I am not sure what that is intended to signify. In fact, my sub-committee registered our disagreement with the Government’s decision not to opt in to the proposal—I shall not go into all the reasons for it because they are set out in correspondence—and we remain unconvinced by the justifications for opting out provided by the Minister’s colleague responsible for immigration. We believe that the Government should have opted in, but the rather narrower point that I am making here is that the Minister did slightly less than justice to the heroic struggle between us when the report was written. Perhaps in future something slightly more transparent might emerge.
On the process of debating opt-in or opt-out decisions, we are grateful that time was made by the Government in this House to debate the asylum directive in January 2010 and the PNR directive in March 2011, and we welcome the Government’s decision to opt in to the latter. We trust that the Government will maintain that unblemished record for timely debates in the future. We are glad that the Minister for Europe has confirmed to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee that where the Government are considering a post-adoption opt-in—to which the Minister referred—under Article 4 of the protocol, this will be subject to enhanced scrutiny arrangements. Perhaps she will confirm that our committee will be given the time it needs to give its views and, if necessary, to hold a debate on this category of opt-in given that no three-month time limit applies in the case of these decisions—that is to say, they can happen just like that. If the Home Office were to provide a little time for the committees to look at these decisions and if necessary to call for a debate, which is likely to be very seldom, it would be a great help.
As to the draft code of practice, which has been referred to and which is designed to govern the parliamentary and executive handling of these matters, can the Minister confirm that the Council’s secretariat in Brussels has now agreed to a single invariable system for dating the beginning of the three-month opt-in period; namely, that this runs from the date on which the last language translation is published by the Council’s secretariat? Does the Minister agree that there are now no outstanding code-of-practice issues between this House and departments? Therefore the code could surely now be formally agreed between us. The sooner that is the case, the better, because everyone will then know—both the Government and the House—what rules govern this rather complex area.
I have two additional points relating to agreements with third countries. How can it be consistent with the need for legal certainty for the Government to assert, as they do, that the relevant measure does not apply to the UK, when there is nothing in it to suggest that it does not apply equally to all 27 member states? Issues relating to this are, we understand, still being considered with the Commons scrutiny committee. I hope that the Minister will have another look at this. It seems potentially a little unsatisfactory and fragile.
The second point is on the Government’s decision not to participate in the negotiation of a readmission agreement with Belarus. In view of the unsatisfactory state of politics in that country, and of the economic pressure on its citizens to migrate, it was a mistake by us not to participate in the negotiations. We expressed that view in correspondence, and we still hope that a late-stage opt-in will be considered seriously when the agreement is being negotiated—without our influencing it in any way, unfortunately. That does not mean, as was the case with the human trafficking directive, that it would not necessarily be in our national interest to opt in.
I apologise for speaking at some length and in such detail, but the strengthened scrutiny process in which we are participating has no sense or usefulness if it is not taken seriously. I am struck by how closely we now work with our EU partners in this field despite being outside Schengen, and by how many measures we decide to opt into. The figures already given in this debate demonstrate that. The coalition Government are to be congratulated on their pragmatism and open-mindedness. It is surely clearer than ever that, in this highly sensitive area, considerations of interdependence and shared vulnerability are drawing all member states closer together.
Lord Bowness
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I welcome the publication of this first annual report. I am pleased that the Government have maintained the commitment of their predecessor to continue the practice of publishing such a report.
An interesting aspect of the annual report is in a paragraph on page 2, which bears reading out:
“This Government recognises that cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs can deliver key benefits, helping us to tackle cross border crime and to make it easier for British citizens to do business across borders. Such cooperation can also help enhance the UK’s security”.
I read that out because it is as well that we remind ourselves of that fact, particularly having sat through a number of hours of debate on the European Union Bill when you would have thought, from listening to some contributions, that nothing was further from the truth than that paragraph.
I am pleased to say that Sub-Committee E on Justice and Institutions has agreed on the whole with the Government’s approach to many of the proposals that have come before us; as the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has indicated, we see a great number. With regard to the investigation order, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that while that decision was taken to opt in, as reported, it is still a live item of scrutiny before my sub-committee.
On balance, we consider the Government’s and indeed the Commission’s case-by-case approach in the field of criminal justice to be the right one. We have seen the road map, the list of measures set out in that document to safeguard the rights of suspects and defendants involved in criminal proceedings. If those are all enacted, there will undoubtedly be common standards throughout the European Union, which will benefit any British citizen unfortunate enough to be caught up in criminal proceedings elsewhere.
It is worth noting that the approach on criminal justice has been quite different from the approach on civil justice. While the sub-committee has welcomed the vast majority of proposals in connection with criminal justice, we have had severe reservations about the proposals in the area of civil justice. Proposals to try to bring common approaches to matters such as succession and the division of matrimonial properties after divorce and the contract law proposals currently being discussed raise huge issues, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has indicated, bring us into conflict not with our partners, the principles or the objectives—many of the objectives are indisputable and worth while—but with different systems and principles of law, particularly in connection with property. Therefore, we have not been able to be as positive about the proposals that have come forward.
I am pleased to say that the sub-committee has generally found itself in agreement with the coalition Government’s approach. I think that there was only one major item of disagreement, where in the first instance the Government did not wish to opt in to the new legislation on human trafficking. We found that logic very difficult to follow. It is at odds with lots of other decisions to opt in that the Government took quickly. However, I suppose that one must always rejoice in those who repenteth, because eventually the decision to opt in was indeed taken.
Perhaps I may raise two other issues, as they are relevant to this report. I am extremely concerned about the provisions in the EU Bill. One matter is stated in this report, so I consider myself to be in order in mentioning it. I refer to the statement that in no circumstances will the Government consider an opt-in to any proposal for a European prosecutor’s office. I believe that that is a mistake because we do not know what the circumstances will be should the need for a European prosecutor’s office arise. I have no doubt that, were we to find that there had been huge fraud in respect of European Union funds and that some member states were unwilling—whatever the reason—or unable to take action, there would be great demands from the public to know why something was not being done. This is all hypothetical but if it were ruled out altogether and then, in the Bill, made subject not only to an Act of Parliament but to a referendum, that referendum would, I am the first to admit, be almost impossible to win because of the climate of public opinion. It is a pity to have such a statement because, as I said, we do not know where we will be in the future.
Lastly, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the decision that has to be taken by May 2014 in respect of the pre-Lisbon treaty police and criminal justice instruments. At the moment they remain unamended and, unless we opt out, they will become subject to the Commission’s infringement proceedings and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I am advised that that will be not an item-by-item decision but an all-or-nothing decision. In two Written Questions I have asked how many such instruments there are. In the last Answer I was told that there are somewhere between 80 and 90. The estimate is not mine, because I cannot remember; it is the Government’s estimate given in the reply. The whole thing is subject to consultation with the Commission. I say to the Minister that it is very odd that we as a Government of the United Kingdom cannot say how many instruments are applicable and form part of the law of this land on a given day. I accept that if they are amended between now and the relevant date the number will change, but I think that, first, we should know and produce as quickly as possible a list of the instruments that are effective and in force on a given date so that those who are going to have to consider the ramifications of the decision—it has to be made by May, whatever it may be—know precisely what the topics are. I think that some of them will be of considerable importance.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Written Statement in the other place by the Minister, Mr Lidington, on 20 January, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I should like to press the Minister on what Mr Lidington, said in debate on 26 January, which comes somewhat later and is very precise. He said:
“The decision on whether to exercise the bloc opt-out is important and sensitive for the United Kingdom”.
He agreed with Mr Jenkin on that point. He went on:
“Its implications for the whole range of complex, technical and often interrelated measures concerned will need to be carefully considered, and they ought to be carefully considered by Government and Parliament”.
He then said—and this is the point that I want the Minister to clarify:
“I agree completely that Parliament should give its view on … a formal decision on whether we wish to opt in or out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/11; col. 399.]
That is not just a debate that follows any lifting of the scrutiny reserve—as your Lordships know I regard that as pretty well completely useless because it has been overridden hundreds of times in the past few years and Brussels never takes any notice of it anyway—or this commitment from the Government; as the Minister and other noble Lords have mentioned, we have been opting in to some of this stuff along the road. I understand that if we agree to an amendment of it, it becomes cast in European law. The question for the Minister is: what is to be the enduring value of Protocols 19 and 21? Upon what will both Houses of Parliament be able to vote when the time comes? I put this in an Oral Question to the Government six weeks or so ago. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, answering for the Government, said that the subject was really too delicate to discuss in public and that he would give it some thought and come back to us. Have the Government given it that thought and what is the answer?
Where do this Government stand on this matter with their EU Bill? Do they envisage any of the JHA opt-ins being subject to a referendum of the British people? Where do we stand on a vote, not just a debate, in both Houses of Parliament, which was promised on 26 January? Where do we stand on the EU Bill, assuming that the Government have the sense to put back into it all the parts that were foolishly excluded by your Lordships' House?
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Minister has set out the background to the report that we are considering. As she said, Protocols 19 and 21 to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union govern our participation in European Union measures on justice and home affairs. Under Protocol 21, we can, within a laid down three-month period of a proposal or initiative being presented, decide whether we wish to be covered by such measures on justice and home affairs. If we do, we cannot then opt out at a later date. Under Protocol 19, we can also request to take part in some or all provisions of the Schengen acquis.
As the Minister has said, the report that we are considering today follows a commitment given by the then Government in 2008 to make an annual report to Parliament on the application of the opt-in protocol over the period covered by the report and on the Government’s approach over the coming period to EU justice and home affairs policy, including the application or otherwise of the opt-in.
The report before us covers the 12-month period since the Lisbon treaty came into effect at the beginning of December 2009. As other noble Lords have done, we welcome the report and the fact that the Government have decided to adhere to the commitment to produce such a report, which was given by the then Leader of your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. The commitments made by the then Leader of the House also included arrangements to ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee of this House and the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place have sufficient time to undertake their valued and valuable role of expressing a view to the Government on whether the United Kingdom should opt in to a proposal or not.
A commitment was also given, as has been said, by my noble friend Lady Ashton to produce a code of practice on the scrutiny of opt-in decisions. Will the Minister indicate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, did, when the code of practice is likely to be finalised?
I believe an undertaking was also given that, in order to ensure that the enhanced security measures were working effectively, there would be a review of the arrangements three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether it is the Government’s intention to undertake that review at the appropriate time.
The report we are discussing sets out the 23 justice and home affairs decisions taken under the JHA opt-in protocol and the Schengen opt-out protocol during the 12-month period covered by the report. Inevitably, the report does not give an up-to-date picture, since we are discussing a report that was presented to Parliament last January and the situation has changed in respect of at least some of the matters mentioned, for example on human trafficking. I join other noble Lords in expressing the hope that it may prove possible to have this debate rather nearer the date of publication of the report in future years. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether this can be achieved.
I do not wish to repeat the thrust of debates that have already taken place on individual measures and proposals referred to in the report. However, there is a section in the report on legislative proposals that it is expected will be brought forward in 2011 but which are likely to require a decision on UK participation under the JHA opt-in protocol. Bearing in mind that the report is dated January 2011, is the Minister able to say whether the list in the report of expected legislative proposals for this year is still accurate?
In the paragraphs on their approach to European justice and home affairs, the Government state that they recognise that co-operation on justice and home affairs can deliver key benefits, helping us to tackle cross-border crime and to enhance the UK’s security, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed out. The paragraphs also refer to the Government’s belief in the importance of practical co-operation on asylum policy within the EU.
As I understand it—I may be wrong and if I am I am sure I will be corrected—in around three or four years’ time the Government can decide to accept European Court jurisdiction over justice and home affairs. If we did, it would mean that we kept the opt-in on matters such as the European arrest warrant and returning asylum seekers back to the country from which they came. Alternatively, the Government can refuse European Court jurisdiction over justice and home affairs, which would mean that we would have to opt out of the kinds of matters, such as the European arrest warrant, that have helped lead to the arrest of people involved in bombings, and we would also have to opt out of the provisions on returning asylum seekers to the country from which they came.
Will the Minister say whether the Government are now considering this issue and what the decision should be, and whether, if we did refuse European Court jurisdiction on justice and home affairs, or indeed if we accepted European Court jurisdiction, the Government would deem that either one or both of those alternatives was a change in the treaty necessitating a referendum?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, this has been a constructive debate and I am grateful as this is the first time I have taken these measures in front of your Lordships’ House and this Committee. The Government have committed to increasing our engagement with Parliament on European issues and on the opt-in in particular. This and subsequent annual reports, as well as this debate, are certainly going to help to inform the way in which they are structured in the future. I have been very interested to hear many views across the Chamber today, which will be very helpful in informing and shaping the way in which we continue to report to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, mentioned the very important factor of the accumulative effect. He also raised the question of how the red lines might be affected in light of that. It is an important issue that I will take back to the department to look at the implications for accumulation and whether that affects the way in which red lines have been established. I hope he will accept that I think it is a very good point that we should consider. He also raised the question of the vigilance of committees. I quite accept that, and I will come later to other points that have been made about the work of committees, in which noble Lords in this Room play a significant and important part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the time taken to bring this report. We would like to have had this debate much earlier, but debates are in the hands of the business managers and this was the first time this slot was available. I will report to business managers noble Lords’ concern that the lead time between the report being published and holding the debate needs to be narrowed if the debate is to have more meaning and relevance. Noble Lords have made that point well and I apologise that there has been a long lead time in debating this first report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the code of practice. A draft code of practice is at an advanced stage, but we want the code to take account of the new scrutiny arrangements announced by the Minister for Europe. Settling the detail of this has meant it has taken longer than we hoped but we expect to finalise it in the early autumn. It is on its way—it is not here yet—but the work is well progressed.
The noble Baroness also said that we failed to opt out under Protocol 19 due to the timing of these proposals. Protocol 19 gives us three months to opt out of measures to build on the part of Schengen in which we participate. During the time of the report, there have been two such measures by which we consciously decided to remain bound. We have therefore not failed to opt out but, in line with the coalition position, we have taken each decision on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Baroness and others—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, touched on this—also raised the need for more narrative and explanation in future reports and the need to explain each decision more. Those are very well made points, and in the interests of transparency I see no reason why future reports should not take account of those views. It would certainly be very helpful, particularly for accuracy, if those narratives were put in place, so I am very happy to put that forward. We set out our reasons for each opt-in decision when we report them to Parliament by Written Ministerial or Oral Statement. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that I had not spotted that it said “House of Lords N/A”. That is extremely discourteous and I apologise to him unreservedly. I will ensure that there is a proper explanation and that no comment such as that, which is quite derisory, will appear in future reports and I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention.
Perhaps I may move on to some of the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He mentioned the agreement with Belarus. We decided not to opt in, because we did not believe that the agreement would deliver clear benefits for the UK. The number of illegal immigrants removed or deported to Belarus is very low, and the UK Border Agency already has good co-operation with the Belarus authorities. The decision was taken for that reason. Also raised was the question of dates—when the last language version is finalised. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made a good point about that. We have agreed that that is the appropriate approach, and will ensure that it is reflected in the code of practice when it comes.
The question of Committee time for debate, when there is no three-month period, is a difficulty. However, we will always seek to accommodate a request for a debate on an EU measure. Given that we have only the three months to take opt-in decisions at the start, we need to work closely with the business managers. In the same way that we will discuss with them the lead time for the debate to come forward, we will ensure that they are fully aware of the three-month timeframe required. There is an opportunity for more flexibility in this. For a post-adoption opt-in, of course we have a little more time. Particularly for parliamentary time, three months is very narrow, but we will ensure that the business managers are aware of the need for proper and timely scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also suggested that the annexe issued could be kept up to date for everyone in the form of a six-monthly submission. It should be possible to send that to both committees. It is a good suggestion. We will write, setting out our analysis of the priorities for the next six months, and then hope to make that a routine part of the way in which we keep committees informed, particularly of the upcoming business.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, raised the subject of the European public prosecutor. I was rather uplifted by his initial remark that there was only one thing on which his committee had disagreed; I shall now disappoint him tremendously. The Government have made clear that we will not opt in to a European public prosecutor. We understand that the Commission proposes to create such an office in the next two to three years, but the UK does not support it and will not participate. Having said that, I am sure that the noble Lord will want to engage in further debate with us about it, which we would welcome; but that has been the Government’s position and it still stands.
The noble Lord and others also referred to the right to opt out of all existing police and criminal justice measures from 1 December 2014. That is when the European Court of Justice jurisdiction will take effect. We have to make the decision no later than May 2014, of course. I do not wish to dodge the question. I say that particularly to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, because I understand from his remarks that he has had some unsatisfactory answers to it. The fact is that the Government will use the intervening time—we have that time—to consider carefully the many different factors and implications of the decision, including proper analysis of its cost and particularly the legal implications. We have no intention of making a premature decision on the matter, which I know will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, but I hope will give some crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I am most grateful to my erstwhile noble friend, but could she be precise as to whether the Government intend to fulfil the commitment given by Mr Lidington that,
“the Government have committed publicly to having a vote in both Houses before making a formal decision on whether we wish to opt in or out”?—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/11; col. 399.]
That was really my main question. Everything since then refers to Parliament being kept informed and to debates and scrutiny, none of which is worth anything compared with a vote in both Houses.
While I am on my feet, I may as well repeat my two questions. What will be the enduring value of Protocols 19 and 21, and upon what are both Houses going to be able to vote? Those matters are central to this debate and, if the noble Baroness does not know now, perhaps we should come back to them fairly soon.
Baroness Browning
I am very grateful. I was about to move on to that. I reassure the noble Lord that, as my right honourable friend David Lidington said, we will have a vote in both Houses if the Government decide to opt in under Protocol 21 or opt out under Protocol 19. That commitment was made by the Minister in the other place. It still very much holds good and is the Government’s declared policy. I hope that that reassures him on that point.
I think that the noble Lord also raised the question of a referendum—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness and am grateful to her for giving way. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has repeated his view several times in an attempt to get the Minister to state positions prematurely, I want to record that my committee thinks that the Government should take the fullest amount of time necessary to weigh up what will be an extremely important set of decisions. We do not think that the noble Baroness should be rushed into making premature statements of what that decision will be. These are very complex matters that will not be easy to decide, and I do not think that my committee would in any way wish the Minister to be moved towards premature clarification.
Lord Bowness
I do not wish to make a habit of interrupting the Minister but perhaps I may repeat the question that I asked earlier. I understand that it takes time for this consideration, but is there any reason why we cannot have a definitive list of the instruments that are in force? I appreciate that the number may vary if they are amended between now and then, but can we have the definitive list of measures? It seems very strange that we are unable to give a positive answer to a Parliamentary Question.
Baroness Browning
That is not an unreasonable request and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that I shall write to him with the definitive list as soon as I am able to do so.
I want to finish with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Hannay. We are going to consider this matter very carefully, so there will be no rushed decision. However, the commitment to a vote in both Houses remains very firm.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trying to seduce me into setting out the wording of a decision that has yet to be made, and I am not in a position to do that. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint him but, as I understood it, his initial concern was about whether the important commitment to both Houses remains good. It certainly does.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about forthcoming decisions. I am going to read out a very short list and I assure the Committee that I shall not take up too much time in doing so. Forthcoming decisions—ones that are about to be published and will require an opt-in decision—include: the directive on the rights and support of victims of crime; the European protection order civil measure; the recast asylum procedures directive; the recast asylum qualification directive; the EU/Australia PNR arrangements; the EU/US PNR arrangements; the EU/Canada PNR arrangements; the proposed regulation on the freezing of bank accounts in the European Union; and the proposal for a directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. I hope that he will also find helpful the commitment I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the six-monthly updates. That information will be extremely helpful to the Scrutiny Committee and across the wider House. The noble Lord asked about the 2014 opt-out decision. I hope he feels that I have given a comprehensive answer to that point, which was raised by several other noble Lords.
Lord Rosser
I suspect that I may not get an answer to that, but I asked whether it was felt that either alternative would constitute a change in the treaty and would require a referendum: that is, whether the decision either to opt in or not to opt in to ECJ jurisdiction would be regarded as a change in the treaty and would require a referendum.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I will need to write to the noble Lord on that important point. Our refusal or acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction does not constitute a change that requires a referendum. However, I will write to him explaining why that is the case. The noble Lord also asked about the need to renew the provision after three years following the entry into force of the security measures in the Lisbon treaty. I will also need to write to him on that matter.
I am most grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. In closing, I would like to take a quick look to the future. We cannot say with complete certainty exactly what proposals over the next year will require an opt-in decision. In the report, we have indicated what we expect to happen, based on work programmes and discussions with our European partners. We will try to update that with a six-monthly paper.
The Government have been very clear that they will take these decisions on a case-by-case basis, so I hope noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point on whether we will opt in to any particular new proposal that might be brought forward in the next few months. However, I can reiterate our commitment, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his Written Ministerial Statement of 21 January, to give Parliament as much opportunity as possible to comment on and influence future opt-in decisions. The Government take very seriously the commitments contained in that Statement to give Parliament more say in opt-in decisions. It is very important that we make these new arrangements work. I am grateful for the suggestions made in today’s debate, which we will take forward.
Between now and the Summer Recess we have decisions to make on recast proposals on asylum reception conditions and asylum procedures, on a directive on access to a lawyer and on a proposal regarding the rights of victims in criminal proceedings. Those issues are included in the list that I recited to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. We await the views of the European Union Committee on those proposals and will report our decisions to both Houses. The next annual report, covering the period 1 December 2010 to 30 November 2011, will be laid before the House in due course. I will use every endeavour to ensure that there is not such a long gap between that report being laid and the opportunity for the House to debate it.
EUC Report: EU Afghan Police Mission
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Teverson
That the Grand Committee do consider the report of the European Union Committee, The EU’s Afghan Police Mission (8th Report, HL Paper 87).
Lord Teverson
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this very important report, which concerns lessons that have been learnt and lessons that need to be learnt by civil missions of the European Union, including EUPOL in Afghanistan. It is an appropriate day for us to discuss the report, given today’s announcement by the United States of significant withdrawals of its troops from Afghanistan. That marks the start of the winding down of the involvement of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan, which no doubt will continue for many years. In fact EUPOL was set up only in 2007, some six years after the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States, NATO and the allies at that time following the Twin Towers incident in 2001, the American involvement in the chasing of al-Qaeda and the consequent defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. So the mission was indeed very late in trying to set up its task and put a civil infrastructure into that country.
Throughout our deliberations we understood how difficult conditions were on the ground in Afghanistan. Setting up a civilian police force in that part of the world is not the same as doing it somewhere even like the western Balkans, let alone a European member state. The conditions are utterly different; at the time we still had extreme violence there, the writ of government did not extend across the whole of Afghanistan and there were many other issues that noble Lords will be well aware of. EUPOL’s mission was quite simple in concept, although maybe complicated in delivery; it was to try to produce what we would understand as a civilian police force in Afghanistan, one to which Afghan citizens could report crimes that would then be investigated and prosecuted—something that we in Europe would expect and find quite normal. Indeed, there was such a tradition back in Afghan history in the 20th century, but not since the number of wars that have afflicted that country.
That is a difficult task, but it is only one of a number of objectives of the Afghan national police force itself. It is perhaps important to recognise that the vast majority of the ANP deals primarily with security. Many of the 96,000 members of the ANP are involved in simple guarding as part of the security structure—they are more like a gendarmerie or a paramilitary than what we would understand as civilian police—and there is a local auxiliary element that we felt was probably strongly influenced by local barons and strongmen rather than by the rule of law. There is a whole mix within what we are trying to achieve.
The fundamental fact was that to produce a social infrastructure that would work and create stability for Afghanistan into the longer-term future, a civilian policing force that had the confidence of the citizens of Afghanistan and eventually had a writ across the whole country would be essential for stability in that nation and for Afghanistan to be a successful state in the future.
The issues and challenges that we came across generally for the Afghan national police force were quite astounding, and the barriers and difficulties were very great. There is the fundamental matter of literacy. There were short training programmes—I will come on to these later—that did not address literacy particularly effectively. We had figures quoted to us of something like 70 per cent of recruits to the ANP being unable to read or write. That might be quite sufficient for guarding; it might even be sufficient, though less likely so, for a number of paramilitary activities. However, collecting evidence, talking to victims of crime and taking an evidence-based system through to prosecution are clearly impossible if those officers are unable to read and write.
One of the other problem areas is the attrition of the ANP. We are assured that this has improved, but we were told with great authority that at one point the fallout rate of recruits was some 70 per cent. This level of wasted investment has a number of effects. It shows that morale is low and it means that you never reach the target that you need to in order for the police force to be effective to the degree that it is meant to be. Indeed, the police force stood at 96,000 when we did this report; it was expected to be somewhere around 110,000, but was unable to meet that.
The other, even more serious area is that of mortality, which is, sadly, one of the reasons for that attrition rate. It is probably not realised that the levels of mortality in the national police force are significantly higher than in the Afghan armed forces. Understandably, that acts as another reason why Afghan citizens are not necessarily keen to join the ANP or remain within it. We also found that because pay was distributed down a supply chain to those ANP officers who were out in the provinces, with 10 per cent or whatever being taken at various levels, staff themselves were often not paid.
An area that was also of great concern was that of numbers. I will come back to the question of numbers in specific issues around the EUPOL mission. On the requirement by NATO and Europe to reach sufficient numbers for the police force, though, we felt strongly that there was too much of a production-line numbers-driven objective that meant that the quality was not high enough. Although the numbers were there, that meant that the quality of their work was not high and that the police force could not fulfil the functions that it was meant to.
Not surprisingly, the other area was corruption. While corruption eats at all societies, it is particularly corrosive when it comes to police forces and becomes impossible when it comes to the EUPOL mission that is attempting to join up policing with successful trials and convictions through the prosecution service. Even if you manage to bring a proper case through the police system, it is of no use whatever if the prosecuting authorities are subject to corruption that results in the case never reaching court—or, if it reaches court after all, you cannot be sure that the judgment will be made in line with justice or law as citizens understand that.
If that were not enough, we came across specific issues about EUPOL itself. The first was one that we had some disagreement with the Government about— the liaison between EUPOL, the European Union and NATO. NATO was clearly the major force within Afghanistan. Even in the area of police and armed forces training, in fact, it had some 5,000 people in comparison with EUPOL’s 300. It was not that we found little co-operation between NATO and the EU but, because this is not a Berlin Plus operation, co-operation was not formal and did not always work the way it should. There were instances where that was prejudicial to the safety of EUPOL staff and officers. We heard that from Brussels, we felt that it was true and there was strong evidence behind it. We still feel that that needs to be pursued, not just in Afghanistan but in other operations as well. We know all the reasons why that is difficult because of the Turkey/Cyprus situation but, when we have people on the front line, it is of the greatest importance that we make that work.
We have dedicated staff in Brussels as much as in Afghanistan, but the mission itself was slow to get going because it went through a hugely bureaucratic procurement process for equipment. I think members of the committee all imagined what would have happened if during the Falklands crisis in 1982 we had put out for competitive tender operations with potential European purchasing rules and the threat of judicial review. Perhaps only now would we be sending our task force—I do not know. There was a similar situation there, which was partly resolved by the United States stepping in and providing this force with equipment so that it could start on time.
We also felt that EUPOL staff and decision-makers in Afghanistan were not given sufficient delegated authority for the very quick-changing circumstances on the ground; everything had to be referred back to Brussels. Political decisions had to be made at that level, a procedure that we understand for major decisions, but tactically that situation tied the hands of commanders on the ground and locally. Again, we understand that this has improved, but it should not happen again.
Although the EUPOL mission itself originally grew out of a German mission and was therefore meant to be a combined European force, we found to our amazement that other European bilateral and multilateral forces were still operating in police training in Afghanistan. We felt strongly that if Europe was to maintain its reputation for effectiveness on these missions, it should concentrate its work on one area—in this case, in EUPOL itself—and make that successful, rather than having a wide range of unsuccessful missions.
A major issue for EUPOL itself is that, although its intended number of 400 staff in Afghanistan was already minute for the size of the problem, it has never even managed to meet that number. The number out there on the whole has been around the 200s and more recently has moved towards 300. That means that for a major initiative and a civilian mission, the European Union has not even been able to deliver the resources that it said it would, despite the mission’s small size in comparison with NATO efforts. We believe that that severely damages the reputation of the EU and its mission.
Timescale is the other area of concern. We have a major challenge. The current mandate goes to 2013 but there is no chance that the mission will have fulfilled its objectives by that time, yet NATO will start to withdraw its military resources significantly in 2014-15. There is a major mismatch there, making it hard to take decisions.
I conclude this introduction to the debate by saying that we felt that there was a major reputational risk to the European Union through its failure to deliver this project, with all its difficulties, sufficiently on the ground and to meet its promises. There are some successes. The city policing initiative was successful, and there is a European initiative for a women’s police training centre in Bamyan that we believe is necessary and will be successful. We welcome the fact that non-EU states—New Zealand, Canada and Norway—have contributed to EUPOL. We were slightly concerned that the United Kingdom had offered only 14 staff when we looked at this, although we recognise that in the military area in Afghanistan the UK has more than played its role in comparison with other European countries in that area.
There are dedicated people in Afghanistan as part of the EUPOL operation. They literally put their lives on the line and work in a very difficult position. We feel that this mission was important because civil policing is the glue and the infrastructure for a successful Afghan state for the future. We are very disappointed in the way in which this operation has been delivered, and we feel that there is a great risk that it will not meet its objectives by 2013 and may be classed as a failure. We sincerely hope that this is not the case. I beg to move.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said, and a great deal of evidence was presented to us to support his conclusions. The EU’s Afghan police mission report highlights a number of pressing problems which I hope Ministers and their European allies are now urgently addressing. Otherwise, as has been said and the report makes clear, the mission runs a real risk of failure. Everyone knows that military withdrawals can lead to heavy casualties being inflicted. We are in the business of effecting an orderly transition, but it is quite clear from the extensive evidence given to the committee that the job of training the Afghan police will stretch well beyond the deadline set for our troops to leave the country in 2014-15. If we want our troops to leave with a job really well done, we have to have a clear appreciation of the transitional arrangements required. I need hardly remind the Grand Committee that, when the British withdrew from India at the time of independence, more than 1 million casualties as individuals tried to move from one country to another.
Obviously we want to make certain that we ensure a successful handover. We therefore need to have a very clear appreciation of the challenges confronting the EUPOL mission which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has so ably presented. The first of these is that members of the Afghan police are a top target for the Taliban. In answer to my question in committee, chief superintendent Nigel Thomas, former interim head of the EU’s Afghan police mission, referred to casualties. He said that there might, in extreme cases, be 15 a day. He asserted that seven a day might be killed and numerous police personnel injured to quite a significant extent—and, importantly, at a much higher rate than the Afghan army casualty rate.
The second challenge is that at the same time as being very much in the front line the situation is exacerbated by a lack of close co-operation between the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police. We heard from Fatima Ayub of the Open Society Foundation that the rationale behind building up the police was not to improve the rule of law but was—
“as the US forces put it, about putting boots on the ground, such that you have someone in the line of fire against the insurgents”.
Chief Superintendent Thomas stated bluntly:
“The ANA need to take on a more proactive role and relieve the ANP from some of the more militaristic duties that they are performing”.
At the same time there is a need for much more emphasis to be put on the quality of training, and the mere six weeks given at present is insufficient for a police service that ultimately should have a civilian role. I note that last month NATO agreed to extend the length of its training course by two extra weeks, and perhaps when he replies the Minister can tell us whether EUPOL is doing the same.
The third challenge which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has touched upon is the fact that so many police are illiterate. At least half are, according to Fatima Ayub, and our sub-committee concluded that there was currently no coherent strategy for dealing with this problem. She said in response to a question from me:
“You can train policemen in Afghanistan … but the question is whether you are first going to invest time in teaching them to read and then actually to do the work of policing rather than acting as cannon fodder for the insurgency”.
Fourthly, there is, as has been mentioned, the widespread issue of corruption, bribery and drug dealing within police ranks. Chief Superintendent Thomas gave me examples, which I could cite, of police chiefs who have links to local criminality because that is the way they are able to keep the peace in that particular location. That will undoubtedly have to change over time, but for the communities there that sort of relationship works for them and the police chief would not intervene against certain individuals because they know what the consequences are going to be. Those things will simply have to change, he stressed—and undoubtedly they will—but, again, it is going to be a slow and in certain cases painful process.
All this has a knock-on effect on the Afghan judicial system, and the corruption within it must be attacked. If this is not done, Chief Superintendent Thomas said, EUPOL cannot effectively train Afghan police officers to carry out relevant and important investigations that will lead to successful prosecution, as they could be blocked as the result of corrupt practices.
There are other challenges, including infiltration and desertion, but I will restrict myself to mentioning only one more: whether there have been cases involving the use of torture. Chief Superintendent Thomas was clear in his response. There are pockets of things that happen around the country, and interrogation techniques are used that would be abhorrent anywhere else. These sorts of things are part of the ongoing cultural and organisational change that is required, but it takes time.
Despite the challenges facing the EUPOL training mission, which are formidable to the Afghan police, they are not insurmountable. In his evidence, the Chief Superintendent told my noble friend Lord Jopling that it was not mission impossible. In his view, what was required was a defined role for the military and the police, with an understanding of those timescales and agreement at the top strategic level. He believed that the people on the ground had a real desire to deliver and, given support, they would do so.
Anyone who has read the history of Afghanistan knows that the British have not always found campaigns there to be straightforward. Rudyard Kipling wrote in Barrack-Room Ballads, published in 1892, in the last verse of his poem entitled “The Young British Soldier”, these words:
“When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier”.
I am glad to say that we have come a very long way since then, and at least we have the presence of mind to know when a great deal more has to be done. The EUPOL mission is currently extended to May 2013, but the evidence submitted to us indicates that, to achieve the required success, the task will take at least five or 10 years longer. The mission, with an allocation of only 400 staff, is clearly too small for such a formidable task, and the fact that it has never come close to the numbers specified for it has weakened its stature. This issue now needs to be addressed with urgency and given a much higher priority by Governments of the European Union, including our own.
There have been mass jail breakouts on many occasions. In 2003, in southern Afghanistan, 45 Taliban escaped from a tunnel. In 2008, suicide bombers attacked the prison gates in Kandahar and 900 prisoners escaped. On 23 April this year, 541 prisoners escaped down an ingenious tunnel. With such a resourceful enemy, it is essential that the police are given the best training possible.
Having been to Helmand province in Afghanistan, with among others the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, I believe we have a strong obligation to support our service men and women to the hilt and to see this matter through to a successful conclusion. Our report is frank, direct and relevant, and I hope and believe that the British and European Union Governments will give it the support that it so justly deserves. Most importantly of all, I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us today that the British and EU Governments are already acting swiftly on its conclusions.
Lord Radice
I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Selkirk of Douglas and Lord Teverson, on their very able speeches. We are debating a good, although by any standards extremely depressing, report. It is probably one of the most depressing reports with which I have been associated in a long career as a Select Committee member in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is a tribute to the chairman, and it is a tribute to the staff for their back-up. It is a tribute to my colleagues for their extremely sharp questioning and the fact that they have always been well briefed, and it is a tribute to the people who gave evidence before us. I particularly remember Chief Superintendent Nigel Thomas, who was the former interim head of the EU’s Afghan police mission.
I do not want to go into the detail of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has given us a very good summary of it. However, we are really talking about a mission that was,
“too late, too slow to get off the ground once the decision was made, and too small to achieve its aim; or perhaps, worst, too small to receive respect from other actors”.
Therefore, it had a very bad start and those involved are having to work under very difficult conditions.
The conflicting timescales clearly make the background almost impossible. By any standards, it is going to take at least five to 10 years to create a decent police force; yet, as we know and as has been confirmed today, the deadlines for military withdrawal are growing ever closer. Therefore, those two things are in direct conflict. You have only to look at the map at the back of our report to see the weakness of the police force. In large parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan the police force has no presence at all. Even in the areas where there is a relatively strong police effort, we hear that there are considerable problems with security issues and so on. The fact is that the impact of the insurgency and the civil war between the north and south in Afghanistan is making the job extremely difficult.
We completed our report in February and I think that it is legitimate to add to it. Last night, I read the book written by Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former ambassador and special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He recently retired and produced the most devastating account of the background effort. It is not that he did not support the mission strongly or that he does not pay tremendous tribute to all those who have taken part—particularly our Armed Forces—but there is one question and it underlines our report: how long will any policing effort last once western forces have left, and what will happen in the many areas where there is no western presence at all and will not be one? He quotes, rather devastatingly, David Miliband, one of whose visits to Afghanistan occurred in 2009. He reports two Afghan Ministers coming to the residence for dinner:
“David Miliband asked our guests, innocently enough, how long they expected the Afghan central government authorities, civilian and military, to stay on in Lashkar Gah”—
which of course is in Helmand—“after Western forces left”. Cowper-Coles continues:
“I don’t know precisely what response David was expecting, but I imagine it was somewhere between decades and infinity. So the answer we did get, delivered with an insouciant grin, was all the more shocking. ‘Twenty-four hours’, came the reply. In three words, the whole object and purpose of our presence in Helmand were being called into question”.
We can say that about our whole effort in Afghanistan. It was a devastating book.
In a review of the book in last Sunday’s Observer, William Dalrymple points out that,
“the Taliban controls more than 75% of the country and Karzai’s government holds just 29 out of 121 key strategic districts”.
That is a fairly depressing background against which the effort to set up an effective police force has to operate.
If there is a withdrawal, what is likely to happen? I have given the Committee the quote from Cowper-Coles’s book. Dalrymple says that it is,
“anyone’s guess. Karzai could hold on after western withdrawal, like Najibullah after the Russian retreat. The Taliban could roll over the country as the Vietcong did in Vietnam. There may be a return to the civil war that destroyed Afghanistan prior to the rise of the Taliban”.
The only chance of creating an effective police force is some kind of political settlement, but how does one get that if one is at the same time withdrawing one’s forces? That is a question for Britain and, particularly, the United States, which is running the operation.
I asked Nigel Thomas:
“Is it possible to carry out significant improvements in building up the police force without some kind of peace settlement in Afghanistan?”.
He said:
“Of course, the overriding security situation is going to be instrumental in whether a civilian policing system could operate out there. If everything fell apart in terms of the security, then you are not going to be able to have that traditional police force, so the development of a civilian policing structure out there is absolutely reliant on a certain level of permissiveness to operate within the country”.
That is absolutely basic.
If there was a negotiated settlement, there might be a chance of creating an effective police force on the lines of the EU’s Afghan mission. However, we need to realise that we would have to go on paying for it pretty well ad infinitum. Afghanistan has basically been a kept state for nearly 100 years. Money has come in from Britain, Russia and the United States, but we need to realise that we would have to go on doing it.
My own conclusion is that the prospects for the EU’s Afghan police mission, and indeed for our whole effort in Afghanistan, at the moment look extremely problematic.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I am afraid that there will inevitably be a certain amount of repetition in this debate, which demonstrates how ably the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has chaired our committee. I, too, extend my thanks to the staff.
A few years ago, I went on a trip to Afghanistan—not with any member of the Committee here—and was generally impressed by what our Army was attempting to do. It was at the time of that incredible, hugely successful derring-do involving the transport of the second turbine to the Kajaki dam in Helmand through Taliban controlled-country.
What was less impressive was our introduction to a ragtag group of very sad-looking men who were the local Afghan police force. Three years later, taking evidence for this report, their sorry state has kept flashing in front of me, and nothing that I have heard has made me feel that they would be looking any the less sorry.
Afghanistan, as we know, is a conservative country and a complex one. Despite being the centre of an imperialist tussle during the 19th century between Tsarist Russia and Victorian Britain, famously called the Great Game, Afghanistan and its people beat them both at that game. As someone else mentioned earlier on, the Soviet Union had another try between 1979 and 1989, propping up a puppet Government with the help of an estimated 100,000 troops, and now we are back there, discovering yet again how difficult it is to control, to help and to help govern.
The country is hugely lacking in infrastructure. It is unused to centralised government. These difficulties are compounded by the topography of the country, with corruption, illiteracy and drug abuse, the tradition of tribal hostilities and self-governance and, of course, the Taliban. All these problems have had a direct impact on successfully achieving a civilian police force, which did not exist when the West invaded the country in 2001—indeed, it is one of the reasons for the rise in popularity of the Taliban and for its ascendancy after the departure of the Soviets. While the Taliban’s form of justice is harsh, it did not involve bribery and corruption. My noble friend Lord Lamont had a conversation only recently with an Afghan taxi driver who was saying the same thing about today.
As we say in our report, it is not the fault of the EU that its police training mission was so late in being set up, but it seems from the evidence we have taken that the mission itself has not been well planned or thought through. The things that have struck me during this inquiry are the ignoring of the blindingly obvious—the size of the EU mission for one, as noble Lords have mentioned. Why, when it was meant to consist of 400 people, has this target never been met? It was an unambitious level of staffing in the first place. Not to have achieved it has had a negative effect on the mission itself—meaning among other things that it has had to reduce its presence from 17 to 13 locations—and on the perception of the mission as a whole. In particular, it appears to have harmed the relationship between EUPOL and the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, only adding to the problems caused by the lack of formal agreement between NATO and the EU, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Teverson. Indeed, the head of the EU civil missions, Mr Klompenhouwer, told us that the lack of a security agreement with NATO creates some risks for the people on the ground, yet the work being undertaken by these people on the ground for EUPOL is so important for the future of a viable Afghanistan.
Then there is the length of the police training course, which was, in the words of Chief Superintendent Nigel Thomas,
“shrunk from eight weeks to six weeks, and basically the eight weeks was deemed to be too long because it was taking too long to get people out on the ground. There is this big drive to get numbers and feet out on the ground”.
In other words, it was quantity over quality.
I am normally a glass-half-full person, but the chances of a functioning Afghan police force surviving a departure of troops in 2014-15 seem to be as likely as rats dancing on the moon. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, has already mentioned, some recent stories include 450 prisoners tunnelling out of the main jail in Kandahar city on 24 April, in something reminiscent of the Great Escape. On 12 May, the New York Times reported that Taliban commander turned police officer, Ghulam Hazrat, was raising funds by imposing an Islamic tax on the people in his district, typically demanding around 10 per cent of their income. On 20 May, inquests into the killing of five British soldiers by a rogue Afghan police officer showed that the officer had been a habitual drug user. Although drug users are not allowed to join the police, random drug tests have shown that around 10 per cent of Afghan police officers use cannabis or opium. On 13 June, the NATO International Security Assistance Force reported that not a single police unit is able to maintain order without the assistance of coalition forces. Moreover, there is a shortfall of around 740 police trainers, posing a significant barrier to growth of the police force. Only last week, a new police training centre in Wardak was mortared during its opening ceremony. The new police training centre has the capacity to train 3,000 new recruits at a time, but currently it has only 720 recruits.
Against this, our most recent briefing, a week ago, was full of optimism about how various fundamental problems like attrition rates, training, forms of payment, the recruitment process and so on had seen,
“a rate of change that is phenomenal”,
in the past six months. However, when I suggested that this was perhaps a bit late in the day, the response was yes, of course it was. So I ask the Minister: why, when the mission is so important both to Afghanistan and, I suggest, to the standing and the reputation of the EU, was best practice not introduced at the beginning rather than bringing it in at the tail-end?
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I start by expressing my regrets at the tragic loss of more British soldiers last week. It will soon be a decade since 9/11, a reminder that no one expected our commitment to Afghanistan to last this long, let alone to cause so many casualties among the Marines as well as the Army. I would also like to mention, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has on this occasion, the much higher number of fatalities among the Afghan police—up to seven a day, as we have heard, including those in Kabul during the past week. It is rare that the sacrifice of Afghans themselves is recognised outside that country. We all look forward to a time when the fighting will end, but even if it ends for NATO in three years or so it will continue for much longer for men and women in uniform in Afghanistan.
I sincerely congratulate Sub-Committee C on its report. It is exactly the kind of subject that that committee should tackle—a specific and topical aspect of foreign affairs that might otherwise be ignored by Parliament. The Sudan report, published today, is another good and timely example that I hope we will be debating soon because of South Sudan’s independence in two and a half weeks. That is another country divided in two. This does not detract from my view that we should one day have a committee in this House with a much wider remit on foreign affairs, a view shared by many colleagues but not by the Liaison Committee, which still believes that we would be poaching on another place. Nevertheless, I notice that another place has decided to investigate piracy off Somalia, so soon after Sub-Committee C had done its own excellent report. If that is not poaching or duplicating, it seems at the very least to be a waste of resources.
The report, among other things, demonstrates failure by the EU, including this country and other members of ISAF, to bring western standards of policing into a country with its own traditions and methods of security. We should not be surprised that “policing” in Afghanistan means something quite different from policing here at home, yet we expect someone of the calibre of Chief Superintendent Nigel Thomas to make a lasting impact on the operations of the police in Kabul and many other places, and to do so at the double before we leave the country altogether at the end of three years.
Noble Lords can see that I am sceptical, perhaps too sceptical, of the value of what amounts to imposing our own standards on another country and culture. I recognise that there are universal rights and values and I supported our early intervention in Afghanistan, but implementing those rights across the board in central Asia is much more than a challenge, as the euphemism goes—it is an impossibility unless the mission is very narrowly defined. I am certain from what he said in evidence that the chief super and his colleagues personally did a lot of good and certainly had some influence on planning and behaviour. Some valuable training, even in only a six-week crash course, may have rubbed off on the Afghan police. However, when you know the scale of the problem, the poverty and illiteracy in the country, the relatively small numbers of European police officers involved and the degree of insecurity, you soon realise that we are not going to make a lot of difference. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly referred to the loss of quality, which can be even more important. Surprisingly, the Government respond in a similar vein. They state:
“The Government recognises that, whilst EUPOL has had some successes, it is not yet delivering to its full potential. Its capabilities have been stretched by the challenges of operating in such a complex conflict environment. … The reality is that many parts of Afghanistan are not yet ready for civilian policing, so EUPOL’s ability to demonstrate impact is limited”.
In that case, why are we doing it, especially when NATO is already carrying out the lead training role for both the army and the police? Does the Minister agree that one explanation for this is that, not for the first time, there is a muddle between NATO and the EU about their respective roles?
In line with the devastating written evidence from Dr Ronja Kempin in appendix 3, the committee concludes that the lack of a formal agreement between the EU and NATO is quite “unacceptable” and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said, puts British lives among others in danger. Her Majesty’s Government in their response go so far as to deny this and mention hospital access via ISAF, but I am unconvinced by that.
There are numerous incidents of the less trained elements of the Afghan police doing or being forced to do the work of soldiers in less secure areas and either getting shot or shooting at the wrong side, or turning out to be Taliban in disguise. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, referred to this very convincingly. Civilian police training is not going to improve that situation, but NATO training of police alongside soldiers will, because during conflict it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between the two. The issue of attrition is related to this because any police, especially local police, required to leave their home area are bound to have their first loyalty to that area, from what has become a purely defence point of view, and they see training as being directly related to conflict.
Having said all that, I acknowledge what Karen Pierce, our special representative, said in her evidence in question 106 on page 29—that EUPOL has an enabling and not an executive role. It could hardly have anything else. It may well be true that it has had some success in Kabul using the “ring of steel” technique borrowed from the Met but it is also true, as I know from several recent visitors to Kabul, that the city is a much less safe place than it was when I was last there only three or four years ago. Because of the unique character of Kabul and the substantial foreign presence there, other centres are unlikely to respond to the same concentration of external training and influence, yet for the same reason Kabul may attract more suicide attacks on the police, as occurred only last week.
Karen Pierce also mentioned the much bigger issue that Afghanistan,
“does not have very effective rule of law institutions”.
I remember that in Mazar-i-Sharif on my last visit a young boy ran under our 4x4 and bounced off on the pavement, stunned but unharmed. About 50 people gathered quickly and surrounded us. There was no sign of the police or indeed any question of justice. If we had not gone with the family to the hospital and given them money, our driver would certainly have gone to prison for quite a time. Bribery is too grand a word for what in a developing country is simply payment and is often the only way to escape punishment or pass through a road block. It is petty corruption, not a culture which will be cured in a few years by the expertise of foreign police.
Of course, there are many activities which over time will help to change the culture of bribery and corruption, and whatever the outcome of this war I hope that, one way or another, we will continue to encourage good governance and the rule of law. Making people more aware of their rights is also a necessary task, already carried out in south Asia and all over the world by our own DfID and many non-governmental organisations.
Finally, what is the United Kingdom doing now to encourage neighbouring countries to take over this work in the future? The noble Lord, Lord Radice, has helpfully quoted the new book by Sherard Cowper-Coles, and I notice that India has just announced another half a billion dollars in aid to Afghanistan. Surely that country, with all its resources and experience, is the natural partner through which EUPOL, or perhaps another institution, can further this work in the years to come. This report, apart from highlighting that valuable work, also makes us more aware of our own limitations in the West.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his contribution, not only in terms of the content but for the fact that he acquits us of the charge of incest by his very presence, otherwise it would have been a matter of the committee talking to itself.
It is refreshing to agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said, because I have spent the past two days sitting in the Chamber disagreeing with everything that his Front Bench has said on House of Lords reform. There is also the fact that we have reached the stage in the debate when everything that I had wanted to say has been said and I should therefore sit down. However, that is not in the tradition of our great House, so I shall continue.
The task of the EU Afghan police training mission is, I believe, absolutely vital for the future of Afghanistan. The existence of a fully trained and effective civilian police force, capable of enjoying the confidence of the Afghan people, is a fundamental requirement in underpinning the rule of law and stabilising Afghan society. We should recognise that. We should explain that that is why the mission is there and why it is a high priority. In terms of the type of society that Afghanistan is likely to become, the work of the EU police training mission is absolutely fundamental and of the highest priority.
On the other hand, the challenges that the mission faces are formidable. As other members of the committee have mentioned, we were told that up to 70 per cent of the recruits to the Afghan police force were illiterate. An inability to read and write at a very basic level severely limits the operational effectiveness of the police force. Reports cannot be written; number plates cannot be read. That is almost the level of the operation.
In addition, we were told that at times there is an attrition rate of up to 75 per cent, which means having to run desperately fast to keep still. With an attrition rate at that level, progress will inevitably be very slow. Let us have a look at that attrition rate. It is undoubtedly accounted for to some extent by the enormous pressure that recruits are suffering from members of the insurgency.
There are also things that are within the control of either the Afghan Government or the EU. One is the lack of welfare support to those recruits, and the policy of sometimes moving recruits to serve in distant areas, outwith their home environment. I do not think that we understand the importance of that factor, because Afghanistan is an enormously localised country and society. Perhaps most important is the fact that money allocated for police pay has a habit of getting “lost” on its way from disbursement to supposedly arriving into the pockets and wallets of the police. The build-up of those various pressures must undermine the commitments of police recruits to the task that they are asked to perform.
Good policing is a vital part of the rule of law but little can be achieved if corruption exists in the judiciary, and I am afraid that there is significant evidence of that. The reform of the two—the Afghan police force and the Afghan judiciary—must go hand in hand, because otherwise there will ultimately be failure.
As has been mentioned, an underlying challenge to the success of the mission is the apparent mismatch between the length of time that it is anticipated will be needed to complete the mission and the timetable for military withdrawal. Our witnesses told us that the task would not be completed until somewhere between 2018 and 2023, yet the deadline for military withdrawal is 2015. That raises a problem. Of course, policy falls back on the hope—it must be only a hope—that by then the Afghan army will be capable of providing a stable security environment in which the training mission can continue to operate. Quite honestly, that must be something of a tall order.
A further challenge lies in the continuing lack of a proper relationship between NATO and the EU; that has already been mentioned. We were told that the lack of a formal agreement between NATO and the EU was putting lives at risk. It is totally unacceptable that a European political dispute has such potentially dangerous implications for those serving on the front line. That needs to be sorted out, and quickly.
How can we judge the EU’s response? Frankly, all the evidence that we received pointed to the conclusion that the planned size of the mission, at 400 people, was always inadequate to the task. Worse, although signing up to 400, member states have failed to deliver, with actual numbers tending to run in the high 200s. How can you really expect to train the civilian police force of an entire country on the basis of 200 or so trainers? We had a sad and worrying example of the EU signing up for an objective and the member states failing to deliver the necessary resource. That is the underlying cause for concern of the whole mission. If you are sitting in Brussels, it is relatively easy to say, “Oh yes, this is a good thing. Let’s get on with it”, and sign up for it but, at the end of the day, all member states have some reason or excuse why they cannot provide the specific numbers required. That is a total failure of planning and approach. In itself, it runs the risk of calling into question the effectiveness of the mission and its ultimate success. It undermines confidence, which is a great mistake.
I go back to the specifics of the evidence to deal with the relationship between Brussels and the people who are doing the job on the ground. I asked Chief Superintendent Nigel Thomas—he was, quite honestly, an outstanding witness, and I think that other people have borne testimony to that today—if he had the opportunity to make three recommendations to the EU to improve the effectiveness of EUPOL, what they would be. He said: allow the head of mission the freedom and the autonomy to deliver on the ground. It is vital that the head of mission is not stifled by the bureaucracy of the system. That has been problematic and I believe that it still is. Those of us who know anything about the way that Brussels operates know that that has the ring of authenticity. It is barely tolerable in the normal decision-making and management responsibilities that the EU gets involved in; it is totally unacceptable when that sort of bureaucracy and reluctance to trust the people on the ground exposes our people to greater unnecessary risk.
The EU mission is not alone; there are a number of bilateral European missions in Afghanistan. It would be better to have a single, integrated, well resourced and managed mission rather than the lack of co-ordination and coherence that you get with a range of bilateral and multilateral missions.
Let us face it, the view of the report and the contributions has been more than somewhat critical of the mission. However, I am sure that all members of the committee would want to say that that does not reflect at all upon the commitment, skills and courage of those who are doing the work on the ground. Indeed, what shone through in the evidence that we took was the highest level of commitment of those involved in doing the job itself. Lurking in the back of my mind, though, although I try to suppress it, is a question: are we kidding ourselves?
Lord Liddle
My Lords, this wonderful report shows once again the extremely valuable work of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the European Union. To be quite honest, I found it gripping bedtime reading.
Lord Liddle
It really is. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, said, the report is frank, direct and relevant. It has real punch. My only regret is that it was published on 16 February and we are debating it on 22 June. If we want the hard work of the staff of our Select Committee and of its Members who have contributed to this discussion to be effective, somehow or other the usual channels in this House have to find a way of bringing these committee reports to debate in a more timely way.
Since the members of the committee drafted this report, there have been fundamental changes in the situation in Afghanistan and we have to look forward. I would like to address this question of the future and the future lessons as a whole from this Afghanistan experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, spoke extraordinarily well about the background to this mission and all the problems that it had encountered. My noble friend Lord Sewel talked again about the structural problems of corruption and lack of literacy and all those difficulties that lie in its way. My noble friend Lord Radice talked about the incompatibility between what is inevitably a long-term objective for this mission and others’ political timetables, which are often determined by electoral politics in the United States.
It is a very difficult situation and, since the committee published its report, we now know that the timetable for troop withdrawals has been firmed up. We also know that informal talks have started with elements of the Taliban and we have had that extraordinarily frank memoir from Sherard Cowper-Coles, a former ambassador, which I am looking forward to reading on my holidays.
Lord Radice
My noble friend should read it before his holidays. If he is really interested in gripping bedtime reading—no, I am not his agent—I suggest Cowper-Coles.
Lord Liddle
That is a very high recommendation and I will follow it. What will be the role of this mission in this new situation? Has this been considered by the Government and by the European Union? Is it envisaged that the mission might play some role in trying to integrate those elements of the Taliban that want to come into a relationship with the Kabul regime? Is it envisaged that this police mission could play a role there? What is being done about the fact that we have not achieved the 400 target on numbers? Are we still trying to achieve it or are we accepting that this mission will not achieve its original goals? What do we think its function is in the changed situation and how are we going to ensure the safety of our people, to the extent that we can ensure the safety of our people in what is going to be an increasingly fragile situation? For instance, one could well envisage in the years ahead a split among the insurgents; between those who want to do a deal and those who are rejectionists. This has happened in similar situations before.
It will be interesting to hear from the Government what kind of deliberations are now taking place, taking into account the lessons of this wonderful report and how these are being put in the context of the new situation facing us in Afghanistan. Whatever the outcome of this particular mission, there are general policy lessons for us in this and for the European Union.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, spoke about problems in the way that the mission had originally been set up. Page 31 of the report refers to problems of bureaucracy and procurement. This is a really sorry tale of high EU aspirations not being met in a timely and satisfactory manner.
I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Sewel that it is quite intolerable that bureaucratic disputes between NATO and the EU should put people on the ground at risk in a very difficult situation such as we have in Afghanistan. This fundamental point has to be resolved; Afghanistan, I am sure, is not the only failing state in which we will have to try to build up institutions in the coming years. I am a strong believer in the role of the EU in peacekeeping and peace enforcement in the Petersberg tasks. Those tasks are challenging, but just because we are western—perhaps I am distorting what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, thinks—it does not mean that we cannot succeed in these environments. We will face similar problems in many other parts of the world and we must become more effective at tasks where a mix of civilian and military capabilities is needed. That is the basis of the little experience of these matters that I had when I was an adviser in No. 10 Downing Street. The Chiefs of Staff always used to say that the big problem in the places with which we were then dealing, such as Bosnia, was not the effectiveness of the military but the fact that we had not been able to marshal the necessary civilian resources in a timely way, because one could not expect troops to do these things on their own.
That means that we as a country have to look at how we better organise joint civilian and military capabilities and whether we support the idea—as I do—of a joint command centre for them. It is clear from the evidence of this report that there is great deficiency in the planning of these types of operations and their command and control arrangements. These need to be sorted.
I would be interested to know what view the Government take of these issues. I thought that they were rather muted on the big, long-term conclusions in their response to Recommendation 12 of the report. There was talk of working to progress relations between the EU and NATO at operational level, encouraging further information-sharing and increasing co-ordination on the ground. Of course, we want all those things, and anyone with any sense would, but are there wider, bigger lessons that the Government will draw from this excellent case study in the problems of civilian and military co-operation? Will the Government use this excellent report to formulate a new and bolder policy? We have here an excellent opportunity for British leadership in the European Union and NATO in future.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank all those who have contributed to this valuable debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his very constructive speech.
I welcome this valuable and critical report. We all recognise that it contains a number of lessons to be taken on board by the British Government and all those other Governments within the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has rightly said, the report raises questions in case after case with which we will have to grapple in the coming years. After all, this is one of several civilian missions taking place under CSDP. It is the second largest after Kosovo but there are a number of other missions dealing with conflict prevention, state reconstruction and the promotion of law and order—and there will be more. There will have to be bilateral and multinational efforts for the foreseeable future. Her Majesty’s Government are working on a new building security overseas strategy that will expand the conflict pool funds, and will do their best to provide the resources and experience to be able to play a wider role in this effort of rebuilding good governance and the rule of law in weak and failed states. We all understand that that will constitute a lot of what British, European and other foreign policies are going to have to be about.
One of my colleagues said to me yesterday that the one thing he did not accept in Robert Gates’s speech criticising the Europeans in NATO was its assumption that in future what we need most of all is greater military capacity. Actually what we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, remarked, is an increased mixture of civilian and military capacities. Moving from the military to the civilian, which is what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, is part of how one begins to rebuild state capacity and, even more importantly, civilian confidence in state capacity and in the fairness and equity of the state. However, a number of contributors to this debate have recognised that this is a very long-term process and that timescales of state building and building the whole concept of civilian police—that took a long time to develop in this country—do not fit very easily with timescales of military withdrawal after an intervention. We hope that we have done enough to build the basic framework for a civilian police force and to establish links with a half-decent judicial system—that also takes a great deal of time to build—as the military withdrawal takes place. We will be able to provide continuing support for those institutions over the coming years. I am very grateful for the critical comment. I accept that the report points to a number of things that are wrong in the way in which Europeans have reacted to this set of enormous problems. However, lessons have been learnt and there are more lessons to learn.
One of the things that are not indicated in the report, which I should at least admit since I cover the Home Office as well as the Foreign Office, is that Britain has particular difficulties in seconding people to foreign countries on this sort of service because we do not have our own gendarmerie. We have a local structure of police and police expect to serve in Britain within their county, region or community. They do not move very much. Looking at the figures, the French, for example—
Lord Sewel
That is a very interesting point, but would that provision not be facilitated if that sort of service outwith the UK acted as a plus mark, as it were, in the promotion of police in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Indeed. I should remark, incidentally, that when we first engaged in this provision in the western Balkans, a very high proportion of the UK police who were seconded were from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was a different sort of force used to serving in a slightly different capacity. Certainly it is a question that we have to continue to work with, but again I remark that it would be easier for the French or Italians to second larger numbers of personnel to the NATO police training mission, which is much more concerned with training a gendarmerie, so to speak, than it has been for all of us to find local civilian police, who come from a different culture and background. The emphasis has been much more difficult—that of building the concept of a local and civilian police force.
A number of criticisms have been made of the enterprise so far, and I shall try to answer a few of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and others have pointed out, we know that we have real problems in striking a balance between quantity and quality. The aim is to build an Afghan national police force of 130,000. We are not there yet, and the question of how much time you spend on training and how much on providing basic literacy skills is very much part of the trade-off. As noble Lords will know from the report, the NATO mission has done much more for basic literacy and training of that sort, while EUPOL has become much more specialised in providing leadership training for senior police officers and the intermediate ranks. Part of the improving informal relationship between NATO operations in Afghanistan and EUPOL has been a recognition that there are useful differences between the functions of each mission.
That also answers some of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about whether the police are actually playing a paramilitary role. The answer unavoidably has to be that to some extent the gendarmerie forces are playing such a role, but EUPOL is trying to provide the local police who will work with the local judiciary, as we also helped to develop that. That will provide the community policing which it has taken us a long time to develop in this country and which, I remember from the many stories that my father told me, was not entirely free of local corruption and patronage even 50 years ago. It will of course take a long time to build up to what we here regard as modern standards, and it will take a great deal of time to build a literate police force. As I read the report, I wondered how high a proportion of the Pakistani police force was literate. There are some severe problems that are not just especial to Afghanistan.
On the question of attrition, noble Lords know that matters have improved a great deal. They were appalling but they are now better. I note this honest comment in the government response to the committee:
“The reality is that many parts of Afghanistan are not yet ready for civilian policing”.
We have to do our best to help to make it ready for civilian policing, but there is always this problem.
Lord Radice
What is that sentence actually saying? Is it a euphemism for Afghanistan being so ignorant and barbaric that it is not ready for civilian policing, or is it saying that these areas are actually under Taliban control?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is partly saying that these areas are still extremely insecure and are so much in the hands of what one has to call tribal or clan societies that patronage systems get in the way of what we regard as modern policing. There are parts of southern Italy where this is also not entirely absent, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, will know.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Like me, the noble Lord goes on holiday there. My wife and I spent a week in the heel of southern Italy some time ago, and it was quite interesting to read about some of the local ways in which policing is provided and order is maintained. We all understand that there is a continuum between our idea of perfect civilian policing and perfect law and order, which we have not quite achieved in this country but have gone a long way towards. The Afghan situation is starting very much at the other end; indeed, noble Lords remarked that the situation there has gone backwards over the past 30 or 40 years. With our different contributions—our bilateral mission in Helmand and our contribution to EUPOL—we are helping to rebuild the beginnings of a civilian police and judicial structure, recognising that what we are putting in is only beginning to build and cannot reach what we would regard as modern standards in a short period.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Is the Minister aware that NATO has lengthened its training period for the police from six weeks to eight? Will that happen with EUPOL, has it happened or is it currently under consideration? It would be a great help if he could give some indication.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I do not have the information on that; I will write to the noble Lord.
I turn to the problem of decisions in Brussels. The report was rightly critical of the Brussels bureaucracy. I happen to have former students working in this area in what was the Council Secretariat and is now becoming the EU External Action Service, and I am struck by how much they have all had to learn in creating a new structure and in developing this new concept of civilian operations jointly. I think we all recognise that doing anything like this in the context of an international organisation is not entirely easy; the levels of trust are not too high so the levels of accountability, as with the initial problems over procurement, are low. I have the impression—this is certainly what I have been briefed—that lessons have been learnt, and questions of how future and continuing missions and relations between the Brussels institutions and mission leaders in the field will be managed in future are now improving.
I do not have the figures to show where secondees are coming from, how easily different groups work together or whether one should point a particular finger at some member states for not pulling their weight as much as others. That is an area that the committee or others might like to look at in future. I was impressed by the written memorandum from the researcher from Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik who is clearly doing some very valuable work on this. We all know that we have a great deal to learn, but we also know that the Americans are envious of the EU’s ability to apply this mix of civilian and military resources and feel that that is not something that the US is yet able to do—it tends to put the military first and not provide the full mix that we would like to have.
Many other points were raised in this debate, and I shall deal with one or two. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, remarked on regional co-operation. We all understand that we cannot resolve the problem of Afghanistan on its own. I remind him, though, that although India is very active there and in many ways is a natural partner, the reaction in Pakistan to India playing a larger and more visible role, particularly with Afghanistan’s security forces of all sorts, would be such as to make that an extremely delicate area. It is almost like saying, “We recognise that Iran has legitimate interests in Afghanistan”—which of course it does. These are very difficult areas. Pulling in Afghanistan’s neighbours to help them is not entirely easy, given the delicacy and difficulty of the region as a whole.
The EU mission is on an upswing at present. It has a first-class Finnish leader and it has more people on the ground than previously. The figure is not yet up to 400, but it is well into the 300s. The sense in Brussels and London is that the situation has improved and is continuing to improve. That is not to say that things are going very well. As those who have read Sherard Cowper-Coles’ book are extremely well aware, Afghanistan presents a very difficult situation. Giving ordinary people in the provinces outside Kabul confidence in the state and in its governance is extraordinarily difficult. EUPOL has therefore begun with city policing and is working in particular in Kabul and a number of other areas to try to build civilian city policing as a constructive way forward.
We recognise that what we are doing in training leaders of the police force is a long-term investment, but we hope that it is improving and providing the leadership for the much larger number of police recruits who are being trained through the NATO mission. We also feel that EU/NATO co-operation has improved and is continuing to improve on an informal basis without us stubbing our toes on the underlying problems of formal EU/NATO relations. However, that is something of which the Government are acutely aware.
To come back to where I started, it is an active concern of the British Government, as it was of our predecessors, to continue to improve our capabilities in this very large area, in which weak and failed states need to make the transition to stronger governance, a more effective rule of law and, as far as possible, the building of civil society and democratic institutions. That is what the conflict pool has been about. It is the area on which we continue to work, and it is something that the Government are talking about with civilian police providers and others, as well as with our partners in Brussels.
I thank the committee very much for this report. I look forward to continuing reports on this area, and I hope that other Governments, as well as many people in Brussels, have read it as well.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I genuinely thank all those who have contributed today. The debate has been quite clear about the challenges and issues facing the mission and Afghanistan more broadly. I thank the Committee Members and also the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I want to comment on one thing that the noble Earl mentioned which touched a nerve to a degree. I refer to how much we try to impose western standards or means of working on those on other continents with different cultural backgrounds, although there are certain universal values. I know that that is not exactly what the noble Earl said but I specifically asked one of our witnesses whether Afghanistan had a tradition of policing before the civil war and the Russian invasion, and the answer was as follows:
“Yes, there were what are effectively today being called the civil order police, in the tradition of a gendarme. There was a tradition of having that. Again, mostly that began in the mid-20th century. So there was not a historical tradition of policing, but certainly people understood police; what they did and what their purpose was”.
I know that this is not what the noble Earl is saying but we are also capable of thinking that traditional societies such as that in Afghanistan do not understand things such as policing. However, they understand law, justice and all those concepts just as we do and as we demand for our stable and fair society.
I thank the Minister for his responses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that the report’s lesson for the future is that if missions are going to be put into the field under the European defence and security policy—whether those missions are military or civilian—the policy needs to deliver what it says it is going to deliver. If it does not, it will lose the respect of the international community, and those missions will inevitably put people’s lives on the line without being able to be effective in what they are trying to do.
That leads on to the bigger question about Afghanistan. If the outstanding improvements are not made and this mission is not made to be effective, the committee would, I think, question strongly our right to put on the line the security of European citizens who are committed and volunteer for something that we are saying cannot necessarily succeed.
I thank very much the committee’s staff, Kathryn Colvin, Oliver Fox and Bina Sudra, for their work in delivering this report. I commend the report to the Committee.
House of Lords
House of Lords: Reform
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That this House takes note of the Government’s proposals for reform of the House of Lords set out in Cm 8077.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, as my name is one of those being put forward to serve on the Joint Committee, I shall not address the detail of the Bill; instead, I shall address the wider context. The Joint Committee will look in detail at the specific contents, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester provided us yesterday with an excellent template for assessing the Bill.
It might be helpful for my noble friend to clarify a number of points relating primarily to the demand, purpose and consequences of the Government’s proposals. I begin with demand. I detected yesterday a whiff of the cod liver oil approach; it is good for you whether you like it or not. I distinguish between demand and support. I also distinguish between support for a principle and support for the means to deliver on that principle.
I have a specific question: what clear empirical evidence is there of demand for the Bill? I hear the argument that we should not let the views of the public determine the issue, but if we are to do things in the interests of voters in this particular form, it would at least be appropriate to consider their views. The last in-depth survey I saw was the Ipsos MORI poll of 2007. Do the Government have more contemporary data?
Could my noble friend also tell us what the identifiable problem is that the Bill is intended to address? Various justifications are offered. One is clearly that the election of the second Chamber is the democratic option. That is advanced as if it is self-evidently true. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised a fundamental question yesterday; democracy is a contested concept—a point that was developed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. If we take the definition of representative democracy offered by Schmitter and Karl—that it is,
“a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and co-operation of their representatives”—
the draft Bill before us is not the democratic option, because there is election but no accountability.
In any event, in a situation of asymmetrical bicameralism, in which the elected Chamber enjoys primacy, it does not follow that Members of the second Chamber necessarily have to be elected for the system to be judged to be democratic. Indeed, if the accountability of government is the basis of the definition, it is possible to argue that an elected second Chamber undermines the core accountability at the heart of our existing system. Of course there is a counterargument, but that merely serves to make my point: that we are dealing with a contested concept. We cannot proceed on the basis of an assumed agreement as to its meaning.
The same could be said about the concept of legitimacy. It would be helpful to know how the Government define the concept and then relate that to how they believe the legitimacy, once defined, of the elected 80 per cent will embrace the unelected 20 per cent—or will the 20 per cent be somehow illegitimate?
On definition, it would also be helpful to know how the Government define primacy in the context of the relationship between the two Houses. Despite the general saving clause, Clause 2, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the Deputy Prime Minister have both conceded that the relationship between the two Chambers will change over time. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, told us that one can have an elected second Chamber but maintain the primacy, if not the supremacy, of the Commons. He also told us that an elected second Chamber may have prevented an unwise war. I am not sure how one can reconcile those two statements. Where does primacy begin and end?
The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, also introduced a comparative element. Only a minority of second Chambers are wholly elected. Elected second Chambers are to be found predominantly in federal nations. It is not clear what purpose would be served by an elected second Chamber in a unitary state, where electors would be voting for members of that Chamber in exactly the same capacity as they would be voting for members of the first. It injects an element of redundancy into the system. I thus invite my noble friend to tell us precisely what problem is being addressed by the Bill.
I turn from the perceived problem to the proposed solution. There is a profound difference between situations where a second Chamber is crafted as part of a new constitution and where a change is made within the context of an established polity. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter raised this yesterday. Very few studies have been undertaken of second Chambers as second Chambers, let alone of changes to them in established democracies. In drawing together the findings of one study of changes to second Chambers in leading western nations, Meg Russell and Mark Sandford concluded, in an article in the Journal of Legislative Studies—I declare an interest as editor of the journal—
“These examples suggest that the design of second Chambers is very difficult to get right. They may be criticised for having too little power, or on the other hand of having too much; for being too democratic, or not democratic enough; for being sidelined and irrelevant or for being a carbon-copy of the lower house. When considering why upper house reform has not happened, one of the first answers has to be lack of clarity over the purpose of the upper house … As Mughan and Patterson have put it, second Chambers remain ‘essentially contested institutions’”.
In essence, it is very difficult to get right. This points to the crucial importance of ensuring that change is well grounded in an understanding not only of what is required—that is a clear and accepted goal—but of a clear recognition of the means for achieving it. Could my noble friend therefore tell us what studies have been undertaken or utilised by the Government of practice elsewhere, in terms of moving from one second Chamber to another, in order to determine that this measure is the best means for achieving the Government’s goals? In short, I think it would be of value to the House, and to the Joint Committee, to know what studies have been undertaken or commissioned by the Government as to the demand for, and consequences of, the Bill. That will provide a solid basis for the detailed work that is now to be undertaken, and to which I for one, will devote myself on behalf of the House.
Lord Peston
Could I ask the noble Lord why he did not include, in an excellent speech, one other question that we need to ask the government Front Bench—whether it has any intention of taking any notice of what the overwhelming majority of their Lordships are saying?
Lord Norton of Louth
I am grateful for that additional, very pertinent question. Given the time limit, I had to condense my speech from about 20 questions.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I am tempted to utter a loud “hear, hear” and resume my seat.
Lord Grenfell
I know that those who do not share my views would wish that that was so. I think I would have been similarly tempted if I had followed the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in the debate yesterday—she said it all. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, follows me and he might take a two-word speech as a sign of infirmity, or maybe even a lack of stamina, and encourage him in his view, expressed here in this Chamber just a couple of years ago, that,
“your Lordships’ House is the best geriatric day care centre in the country”.—[Official Report, 27/2/09; col. 451.]
Just a week short of a year ago, on 29 June 2010, the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, initiated a debate on Lords reform. In that debate I expressed my irritation at being invited to take note of the case for reforming this House as though it was on the coalition’s agenda. I pointed out that it was not. What was on the agenda, I said, was the abolition of the House and its replacement with something entirely different. I recall this not to claim that I was the first to articulate a growing awareness that the coalition was cloaking its intentions in the garb of a reform not even worthy of a referendum—I may well not have been the first—but because I find it significant that a year later on all sides of the House there is now wide recognition that abolition, not reform, is what lies at the heart of this miserable draft Bill.
General de Gaulle once remarked that since politicians rarely believe what they are saying, they are always surprised when other people believe them—a cynical observation maybe, but one that is not without a grain of truth. I wonder how many of the professed abolitionists in this House really believe in the claims that they are making in defence of their case. I would understand their surprise at finding many to share their beliefs; believers in these reforms appear to be in quite short supply in this debate. That is no surprise. How can anyone rationally claim that the purpose of this legislation is to reform the House, not abolish it, that the supremacy and authority of the other place will not be challenged by an elected second Chamber, and that senators elected by PR for a single 15-year term will not claim greater legitimacy than MPs and equal accountability to the electorate? Are the Bill’s supporters telling us that these wholly irrational claims are in fact rational?
One is tempted to equate coalition policy on the future of this House with the doctrine of intentional irrationality that the Dadaists and Surrealists embraced in both art and literature as a means to reject logic and reason, which some insisted were the causes of many contemporary social problems. Perhaps the coalition sees this House as a contemporary social problem. I do not think that either the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or the noble Lord, Lord McNally, cut particularly Surrealist figures—well, not always—but looking for reason and logic in their arguments in favour of abolition is as fruitless as searching for rationality in Salvador Dali’s limp, melting watches.
Time permits me to take but one example: the charge that this House lacks democratic legitimacy. What do we mean by legitimacy? Recently, during Report on the European Union Bill, my noble friend Lord Liddle, who I am pleased to see is in his place, spoke wisely from our Front Bench when he said, in relation to the European Union, that,
“there are two ways of looking at legitimacy. One is to think about it in terms of how decisions are approved, but the other is to think about whether the institution is effective at doing the job that it is supposed to do”.—[Official Report, 13/6/11; col. 583.]
He could have been speaking of this Chamber. This draft legislation reflects the monistic view held by its framers that you need to look only at the composition and decision-making methods of a political institution and no further to determine whether it has democratic legitimacy. I emphatically reject this. The nature of a political institution is a cardinal factor in assessing its legitimacy, but it is the quality of the outcomes that weighs heavier in the balance. If that quality is found wanting, if outcomes fall far short of what is agreed by the people to be for the common good, the claim to democratic legitimacy is of course undermined. To fail to deliver is, after all, to fail the people. It is wrong, however, to determine that as a matter of ideological principle a political institution cannot claim legitimacy, whether or not its outcomes approximate the perceived optimum, simply on the basis of its composition.
In last June’s debate I spoke of my belief in the fundamentally important constitutional role played by your Lordships’ House, the House that we are now invited to abolish. My belief in that role has only strengthened since then. We seek to meet the electorate’s requirement that the legislation proposed by the party that wins office is fashioned to the highest possible standards, consistent with the will of the elected Chamber, whose primacy we unquestionably acknowledge. With few powers to exercise, and rightly so, we draw on our experience and apply our expertise to help ensure that Parliament delivers to the people what they have the right to expect: high quality, implementable Acts of Parliament. Perversely, though, we are told that an appointed House is disqualified from performing that crucial democratic function and so must be pulled down. Where is the coalition Government’s sense of proportion in all this?
I make this plea to the coalition: away with irrationality, embrace logic and reason, and invite all sides to work together on a programme of incremental reforms that will enhance this House’s ability to perform its role as a revising Chamber that is already the envy of Parliaments across the world. That is the path to pursue if we are to ensure the high quality legislation to which the people have a democratic right.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, when she was speaking yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said approximately 20 times that the draft Bill that we are considering today was a bad Bill. I believe it is a very good Bill.
This Bill proposes that a Committee of the House of Lords should, as now, appoint Cross-Benchers. I strongly support that and I am strongly opposed to the idea of having 100 per cent elected. The series of other important changes, however, is necessary. There are four matters in particular that need substantial change. All four will be improved by this Bill.
The first of these changes is that we should end the special rights of hereditary Peers. Existing elected hereditary Peers should be treated as ordinary appointed Peers and there should be no further elections of hereditary Peers. The rights of the 92 hereditary Peers were introduced by the House of Lords Act 1999 as a short-term compromise, pending a further stage in reform that was expected in the next Session. That, as we all know, did not happen. We are now a decade overdue for removing the special treatment of hereditary Peers.
The second change is that life membership of your Lordships’ House for Members is wrong. There should be a time limit for both appointed and elected Members. Cross-Bench Members are generally appointed for their expertise. Expertise has a sell-by date. All Members should get a substantial but not lifelong period of membership. The period suggested in the Bill is a non-renewable membership for 15 years. I agree with this. Existing life Members should be entitled to remain until they have completed 15 years but not necessarily longer. My own 15 years, if anyone wants to know, will end in November next year.
The third change is that the number of Members in your Lordships’ House, as everyone knows, is too large and needs to be reduced. This Bill proposes 300 Members as a target, although I think that is rather too few. A better target might be to have 300 elected Members, and 75 appointed Members—the Cross-Benchers.
The fourth change is the change to the present system of appointment for future political Members. It is by far the most controversial of these four changes. The present system is that the Prime Minister allocates numbers of new appointments to his own party and to other parties. The leaders of each of the parties to which the allocations have been made then appoint individuals up to the allocated number. That is what happened to me. In July 1997 Tony Blair told my noble friend Lord Ashdown that he could nominate 11 new Members and I was chosen as one of them. Something like that has happened to most of us in your Lordships’ House.
The present system gives an immense power to the Prime Minister. That power can be abused. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was notorious for giving very few peerages to anyone other than Conservatives. This power has not been abused in recent years, but there are no rules as to how these allocations are calculated and the system could be abused again. If political Members of your Lordships’ House are elected by PR, this problem disappears. Having an election would mean that the choice of the new party Members of your Lordships’ House would be both simple and fair. Continuing to have allocations, a number of which are within the power of the Prime Minister, would be neither. If things are left as they are, there are real dangers to any political party that finds itself in opposition. I do not believe that that is acceptable. It is absolutely right that we should have elections not only for that reason but because I think they give people what they would prefer.
Those are the four main changes that are needed for your Lordships’ House, and they are all within the scope of the draft Bill. I should add that only one feature of the Bill is, in my view, wrong—the retention in your Lordships’ House of the Bishops. In an age when in the United Kingdom there are several different religions, many different faiths within those religions and many people, including me, with no religion, I can see no justification for retaining the right of Bishops, and only English Bishops, to speak and vote in your Lordships’ House. Of course, there would be no objection to daily Prayers being conducted by Anglican clergy.
I understand why many Members of your Lordships’ House feel strongly that membership should be permanent and should continue to be by appointment under the present system in all cases. However, that is not the answer. Changes are needed and it is no good saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. It is broke and, if we do nothing, that will become all too obvious all too soon.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I was gratified and flattered to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House, speaking on the radio recently, put first among the categories of experts whose contribution to the House he would like to retain the former Cabinet Secretaries. I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, “Flattery will get you nowhere, my Lord, but please go on trying”.
We argue endlessly about the composition of the House and the way in which its Members are chosen, but we ought first to discuss the powers and functions of the House. How can we come to a good decision about who we should be and how we should be chosen without first deciding what we should be doing? As it is, we seem just generally to assume without much question or debate that the powers and functions of the House should remain just as they are. Perhaps that assumption flows from our tradition and our assumption of subordination to the House of Commons.
Then we are told that an assembly that makes laws for the governance of the people ought to be elected by the democratic suffrage of the people. In this country we have an assembly that makes laws for the governance of the people and which is elected by the democratic suffrage of the people. It is the House of Commons. The House of Lords can and does suggest revisions of draft legislation, but it cannot in the end enforce those revisions against the will of the House of Commons. We are a revising Chamber and a debating Chamber, and valuable in both functions, but we cannot prevail against the House of Commons if it wishes to insist. The House of Commons is sovereign in the matter of law-making. Therefore, we do not need to make the second Chamber electable by popular suffrage to give it representative legitimacy.
I shall not dwell, because many others have done so, on the dangers of elected Members of the second Chamber competing with Members of the House of Commons in their constituencies as well as at Westminster. I pass over, as Cicero might have said, the probability that an elected House of Lords would not for long be content to accept its subordination to the House of Commons. Under the Government’s proposals, as far as I can see, the Government of the day would find getting their business through a good deal more difficult and tiresome. We have seen recently how trying Ministers find our well meant attempts to improve their legislative proposals. That would be like a vicarage tea party in comparison with the frustrations that the Government of the day would undergo if the House of Lords were to be reformed—perhaps “destroyed” is a better word—as Ministers are now proposing. I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords, and the River Thames running under Westminster Bridge with much blood.
Where is the pretence of democratic legitimacy in a Chamber whose Members would have security of tenure for 15 years and no risk of being regularly called to account by their electorate? Does it make sense for both Houses of Parliament to spend endless days, weeks, months and perhaps even years discussing what has been stigmatised in this debate as a bad—and, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell said, miserable—Bill?
I suppose that no one starting with a blank sheet of paper would invent the House of Lords as it is today. It is as it has grown up to be as a result of successive piecemeal changes over the centuries. As it is, it functions reasonably well. If we are going to change it, we can afford to take the time needed to devise incremental or evolutionary changes that make sense and that provide constructive reform. We need a second Chamber that complements the House of Commons and enriches the work of Parliament, not something that competes with the House of Commons, in the constituencies as well as at Westminster, and that is a pale and ineffectual carbon copy of the House of Commons, unlikely to command respect in the country or to be attractive to the people of the quality and distinction whom we should want to have as Members.
Over the centuries, the role of the House of Lords has been to represent in Parliament the principal economic and social interests and activities of the country. As at present constituted, we have to admit that we do that rather haphazardly. In an earlier debate I suggested how we might create a House—or reform the House—to reflect and represent the economic, industrial, social and cultural interests and activities of the country in an up-to-date way, with Members chosen to represent the various strands of our contemporary society: industry, commerce, the trade unions, the health professions, the legal professions, the academic and educational professions, the cultural professions, the Church of England and other churches and faiths, and so on. Members to represent those interests could, where possible, be chosen by processes of indirect election. We need to have a system that ensures that the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and the political parties are represented in a balanced way. We could even gladden the heart of the noble Lord the Leader of the House by leaving room for the appointment of experts such as former Cabinet Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces. A House so constituted would have representative legitimacy, even without popular suffrage.
Having taken note this evening of the pipe dreams of the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues, let us give them a respectful and honourable quietus. Let us take a little time to work out a scheme of reform that will offer the prospect of a second Chamber that would represent the various strands that constitute the fabric of our society and complement rather than compete with the House of Commons, and whose contribution would enrich the work of Parliament and make a useful and significant contribution to the work of improving legislation and debating great issues.
We need to work up these ideas into specific and detailed recommendations. We need a body, not necessarily but possibly a royal commission, that should include, of course, representatives of the main political parties and people with a sense of history and an understanding of the strengths and subtleties of our constitutional system. With a good supporting staff, such a body would be able to produce within two years a blueprint for significant and constructive reform for an effective House of Lords that could command a wider extent of consensus than the proposals of which we are being invited to take note in this debate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, Lord Norton and Lord Grenfell. The analysis put forward this morning is really all that is required to support the argument for maintaining the appointed House. Like everyone who spoke yesterday in favour of an appointed Chamber, the noble Lords have far greater authority and experience than me. I therefore need expend no effort on repeating support for the principle.
However, I should like to say a word about yesterday’s discussion on democracy. Democracy is almost undefinable but, if you want to use the term, you must try to define it and that was not done. This Bill was drafted without a constitutional Bill, without new legislation and with deviant disregard for established conventional usage. That was so that it could be presented to Parliament by the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister. That is a very strange conception of democracy because it has the taste of a ministerial diktat.
It is right that what happened should be said. A committee was set up by the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister to report on implementation of an elected second Chamber. The report was served by way of an instruction to parliamentary counsel to draft the Bill. In those circumstances, the Deputy Prime Minister was enabled to do what he wished to do, which was to present the Bill. This was all very well but it was considered to be an abuse of due process, and not only by those noble Lords who took the point. Long before the Joint Committee was set up, a series of Oral Questions was taken and spoken to by Conservative, Labour and Cross-Bench Peers. This was to challenge this abuse of process, but it was in vain. The challenge was rejected out of hand on each occasion without discussion. Discussion and pre-legislative scrutiny were perhaps trashed by the twitter in the Rose Garden. There was to be no delay, and no delay there was.
The questions arise of whether it is in the interests of the people and Parliament for an unelected Government, without any consultation, to present a constitutional Bill, and whether the ethos and revised role of the appointed House could remain with an elected Chamber, as asserted by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who, I am afraid, is not in his place but who agreed that it should remain. I shall say no more about that. However, why should the challenge on the abuse of process have been made and why was it rejected? These are matters for consideration.
In conclusion, the Joint Committee will take note of this debate and of the questions on the Statement. In particular, it will take note of the truly remarkable, reasoned speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, which, in the interests of the people and Parliament, sought to safeguard the primacy of another place from elected authority in this House. Is it within the remit of the acknowledged function of your Lordships’ House to delay this Bill to seek to safeguard the constitution for further consideration in another place? The Bill should be withdrawn until the next general election.
Lord Desai
My Lords, over the weekend I completed 20 years in your Lordships’ House, so I am, by the Goodhart criterion, five years past redundancy and I shall await the chop falling on my head when the Bill is passed.
Over those 20 years I have never been persuaded of my own perfection as a legislator or of the perfection of your Lordships’ House as a Chamber. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, a weak second Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, reminded us, if we were democratically more legitimate, we could provide a stronger check on the Executive than we do at present. The British Executive do not receive a sufficient check from the House of Commons alone; we need the House of Lords.
I recall how the reputation of your Lordships’ House went up when, during the many years of Mrs Thatcher’s prime ministership, petitioners for halting some of the changes had to come to the House of Lords. I particularly remember the abolition of the ILEA and arriving here in those days to lobby Bishops to do something about that. I think that the reputation of this House has grown in more recent times because the Executive have become more powerful as the Whips at the other end have become more powerful. Therefore, we should see our strength more as a reflection of the imperfection in the system rather than as an example of its perfection.
I have always supported reform of your Lordships’ House. I believe in a 100 per cent-elected House. However, I quite agree with all the noble Lords who have said that this Bill is an abolition of the House of Lords as it is at present. I do not see why the Government or the Liberal Democrat party are being so shy about their radicalism. We are about to replace the House of Lords with a senate. If that is the programme, let us say so openly.
Such a replacement cannot be done piecemeal by saying, “We shall retain the primacy of the House of Commons”. It is obvious that we shall not. During the debates on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill we passed an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that said that since no Parliament can bind any future Parliament, each Parliament should reaffirm the fixed-term decision. Would we like each Parliament to reaffirm the primacy of the Commons in the future? That is what would be required once we had replaced the House of Lords. As a reformer, I do not want to soften the blow; doing so would get us not good reform but muddled reform. After all, we have been discussing this for 20 years, and I have been speaking about Lords reform for about 15 years non-stop. There is a great continuity of ideas in the royal commission’s report. The draft Bill and White Paper have not come out of nowhere; they come from the royal commission under Jack Straw and should not have surprised anyone.
If we want to retain the primacy of the Commons, we should follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said yesterday: there should be a statutory provision, in a separate Bill that is somehow in a form that future Parliaments cannot easily amend, affirming the primacy of the Commons, not just in Clause 2 of this Bill.
We are going to have elections but the various reports have been timid about the basis for them. I agree that if you make constituencies—whether large or small—the basis for electing a second Chamber, you are repeating what already exists in the Commons. Here is an opportunity to do something completely different and not rely on, for example, European Parliament constituencies. I would take up the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has suggested, but I would make electoral constituencies the basis. He has suggested—as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, in a previous debate—that we should have constituencies other than territorial constituencies as the basis for electing people to this House. It could be the Royal Society, the British Academy, the CBI or the TUC.
Over the 12 years since we passed the previous House of Lords reform Bill, British politics has become much less unitary than used to be the case; we now have three devolved Assemblies. This trend towards quasi-federalism ought to be given a further push. We ought to make Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales constituencies from which, senate-style, 20 Members can be elected to your Lordships’ House—directly or indirectly; it does not matter. We now have many elected mayors in English cities. Perhaps every city with an elected mayor should be asked to send a representative—again, it would not matter if they were directly elected by PR or not. Why do we not use some imagination and fancy, and create a different type of representation? It has already been remarked—I think that my noble friend Lady Quin said this yesterday—that the Midlands and the north of England are underrepresented here. We should look at how we can achieve regional representation indirectly by means of representatives from local authorities or cities. We should aim to have a much richer mix of representatives here who will be elected but will not be able to challenge the House of Commons on the basis of territorial representation. Members of the House of Commons will remain accountable to constituents as defined on a territorial basis whereas the new senate that is to replace your Lordships’ House could have another kind of representation based on regional, commercial, industrial or cultural factors. The Joint Committee, which will be chaired by my noble friend Lord Richard, will have plenty of time to think about these alternatives. There are ways of achieving an elected House of Lords which are not enshrined in stone in the draft Bill. We may yet be able to fashion a better bicameral system that is more accountable than the present one. I predict that that will not happen in this Parliament but it may happen in the next.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I am very confused. I am not being wicked about this, but I did not understand what the noble Lord was saying. Is he suggesting that we should abolish this House?
Lord Desai
I am saying that any proposal to have an elected House involves abolishing this House and replacing it with a senate. Whether or not you call that reform does not really matter; it is de facto abolition and we should say so.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, one of the charms of this place is that one can never tell what is going to happen next. Having listened to one remarkable speech after another yesterday, I found it difficult—indeed, impossible—to believe that any elected Chamber would have produced a debate of this quality.
The debate has been helpful in focusing the arguments on both sides. What has emerged clearly is that there is a very large number of arguments against the Bill but fundamentally only two in favour of it, although I have waited with anticipation to hear another. The first argument is that an elected Chamber would be more democratic. I believe that that is fundamentally untrue. We already have a democratic constitutional system which is 100 per cent democratic. Transferring responsibility from the House of Commons to this Chamber would undermine the fundamental democratic responsibility of the other place. The second argument is that a democratically elected second Chamber would be more legitimate. Yesterday, Member after Member pointed out that legitimacy takes many forms, be it representation from doctors, lawyers or whoever it may be. The reality is that the expertise and experience in this place makes us more legitimate as a revising Chamber than would be the case with an elected Chamber that lacked those fundamental attributes.
I say in passing that we keep on talking about this Chamber as a revising Chamber. However, it has been a lot more than that since 1998 because successive Governments—I regret to say that it is still true of this one—have undermined the situation in the other place through the imposition of programming. My own experience on the Front Bench for eight or nine years has been that time and again it is this Chamber, in clause after clause in a Bill, that actually fulfils that primary responsibility. If we are to reform anything, it is that aspect of the House of Commons that is in desperate need of reform.
I will put the matter into some political context. It is well known that time and again in opposition Mr Cameron said that House of Lords reform would be a matter for the third term. None the less, a proposal for reform turned up in the last manifesto, not the manifesto for three Parliaments’ time. It is very puzzling to know why that should be, because the idea that somehow putting that into a manifesto would give a real boost to the votes of the party putting it in—not least because all the parties put it in—is doubtful. None the less, that has been the position of the present leadership of the Conservative Party.
One of the features of the debate over the past 10 years has been the way in which the leadership of each party has become divorced from the views of the majority of the members. That was true for the so-called indicative vote, which Mr Straw introduced in the other place. We still have a difficulty in communicating our views to the leadership.
The other aspect of the debate relates to Mr Clegg. It seems quite clear that Mr Clegg sees his place in history as the great constitutional reformer. We started off with the referendum on the AV vote, and we all know where that got to. Moreover, the coalition agreement says:
“Lords appointments will be made with the object of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the votes secured by the political parties in the last election”—
another of Mr Clegg’s enthusiasms, no doubt, but quite disastrous. I am not clear whether it was a conspiracy by him to undermine the position of this House, but in all events that has been the effect; we find our membership enormously increased, with all the problems that that has created.
The third of Mr Clegg’s enthusiasms is of course the abolition of this House and its replacement by a totally different system. While, as I say, there are only two arguments for this, there are many arguments against, not least because of the defective aspect of the Bill, which was created after apparently seven closed sessions. We have not seen the minutes of what was evolved, but we now have a Bill that in many respects—these have been pointed out time and again yesterday and today—is extremely defective.
We have here a Bill that is to be considered by committee. One aspect that the committee must consider was not raised at all yesterday; there is no mention of costs in the proposals. I think the House would be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for having made calculations that show against a background of economic stringency that we are in danger of creating a Chamber that is vastly more expensive than the present arrangement. I very much hope that those in committee who will consider this will pay close attention to that.
Strangely enough, in almost all our affairs, the murky hand of the Treasury—I speak as one who has been involved in it—is pervasive. It seems to have been absolutely silent about the Bill, and I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon—or, at any rate, my noble friend who is to wind up the debate—perhaps spelling out exactly what the costs of this expensive, unnecessary and dangerous exercise are likely to be.
It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the settled view of the Commons has been expressed. That is not so; the whole matter is open, and anyway the House of Commons is a vastly differently place from what it was in the last Parliament. I hope that, as the realisation of what is involved grows in the Commons, and as the dangers to its Members at both constituency level and in the House itself become more apparent, they will join Parliament as a whole in rejecting this Bill, which is dangerous, unnecessary and fails to build on the progress we have made over the last 100 years. Before the election and the increase in numbers, this House was working better than it has probably ever worked before. The important thing now is to preserve it and improve it on the lines set out by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and others. To go the way this Bill proposes is fundamentally wrong.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My noble friend spoke with great clarity about the disgraceful continuation of this Government in ensuring that every piece of legislation in the House of Commons is automatically guillotined. How does he square that fact with a comment made in your Lordships’ House by my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he said that his main reason for wanting to reform the House of Lords was,
“a more assertive House with the authority of the people and an elected mandate”?—[Official Report, 17/5/11; col. 1279.]
They have an elected mandate at the other end; they have the authority but they are not assertive. Would it not be reasonable to expect my noble friend to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to end the ridiculous automatic guillotining of every piece of legislation that comes through this Parliament?
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I am conscious of time and I can only say I agree 1,000 per cent with what my noble friend has just said.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has given us perhaps the only argument in favour of this Bill—that those who make the laws should be answerable to the public and, in the public’s view, we do make laws in this House. That is why I have always spoken in favour of an elected House. I have also pointed out, however, that this is an ideal, an objective. It is an objective to be achieved not in one huge leap but by a series of steps. It is a series of steps because of the complex constitutional issues that have to be resolved and which we have been debating here.
In 1999, together with my noble friend Lord Stone, I wrote a submission along these lines to the royal commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. In our paper we spoke of stages of reform, of mixed composition with full and part-time Members, and of how the House would have to perform additional functions. The Labour Government took this route of incremental change. They removed 90 per cent of the hereditary Peers; they created the post of an elected Speaker; and they separated the judiciary and the House of Lords. I still think that we should continue in this careful way—dealing with the issues one at a time and, most importantly, carrying the public with us.
I agree with other noble Lords that the main issue is the primacy of the House of Commons. The Government say that this is secured because of its privilege over financial matters and because of the Parliament Act. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, sternly told us that this is the law. The reality is that the House of Commons has primacy because it is elected and we are not. We have conventions that respect this. If this House were to change, the conventions would change, and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.
I find the proposed method of election a big obstacle to reform because it presents a contradiction which other noble Lords have pointed out. The Government’s argument for reform is legitimacy, but election also means accountability. A 15-year single term destroys any accountability and, as other noble Lords have said, it encourages the opposite. I think that it rather demeans the electorate.
In addition, the proposed system of election will not produce people with the knowledge, the experience, the talents and the will to scrutinise the work of the Government—tasks that the Government say should be the main function of this House. I agree with others that the election system proposed would just produce a political clone of the other place.
There are further dilemmas, and in its paper, Eight Key Obstacles on the Road to Lords Reform, the Constitution Unit of University College London lists some of them. For instance, why are the Bishops here? Is it to add spirituality to our deliberations, as the right reverend Prelate suggested? The transition to 300 senators will be tricky, but is 300 the right number? Will they fill all the committee places and do all the other work on and off the Floor of the House, which the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, described as “outreach”? Like her, I do not think so.
The Government’s Bill does not come anywhere near to dealing with those issues; nor does it deal with the checks and balances necessary when there are two elected Chambers. This Bill is just another example of the coalition’s unthinking and reckless “big bang” approach to constitutional legislation. As my noble friend Lady Royall said, it is a bad Bill and we deserve better.
The Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, points the way forward. Indeed, for one moment I thought that the Government might withdraw their Bill after she effectively demolished it in eight minutes flat. As she said, part of this reform process is getting our own House in order. My noble friend Lord Grocott said that another part of the process is for the House of Commons to reform itself so that it, too, can work with an elected second Chamber. The Steel Bill deals with some of these issues, so the Government should accept the noble Lord’s offer and take over his Bill.
We have sensible proposals to improve our working practices, so let us get on with those. There are proposals to allow for retirement. Let us strengthen them and make them a bit more imaginative, using them as a way of starting to deal with reducing the number of Peers. There is polling to find out what we think, but what do the public think? Probably not much, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, suggested, but let us find out. Meanwhile, let us see whether the Joint Committee can produce a consensus on solving some of these dilemmas.
An elected House is an honourable and democratic objective. Let us work towards it issue by issue, but not by this bad and unworkable Bill.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
My Lords, if I upset many of my noble friends on these Liberal Democrat Benches, I am sorry, but I remain opposed to a wholly or partially elected House. That was my view when I joined this House nearly 20 years ago and, since then, it has remained broadly the same. As a former leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers, and to avoid any misunderstanding, I told the Deputy Prime Minister last summer where I stood. The publication of the draft Bill and the appointment of yet another committee have strengthened my conviction.
Many noble Lords will remember, and will have experienced in the House of Commons, the 1968 Bill on reform of the Lords, which was abandoned. I fear that this Bill, as it stands, will also run into the sand. With a coalition heavy legislative programme for this Parliament, Lords reform will inescapably block or delay more important issues. There will be no consensus, which there ought to be on a very major change in the nation’s constitution.
On the day when the Deputy Prime Minister made his Statement about the Bill on 17 May, I listened to the 10 o’clock BBC television news. The first item was the Queen in Ireland; the second, 4.5 per cent inflation; the third, a legal matter; the fourth, the Scottish First Minister wanting an early referendum; the fifth, the Greek economic crisis; the sixth, defence costs and international aid; and then, at 10.25 pm, reform of the Lords. That was the order of priority; Lords reform was at the bottom of the pile. On the best available evidence, that is the order of priority for the public at large. In the last election, I do not think we heard much about Lords reform on the doorsteps of Sheffield Hallam or the Forest of Dean, the constituency of Mark Harper, the Constitution Minister.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has reminded us, the Deputy Prime Minister drew attention in his Statement to what he called the “roots” of the coalition's proposals. He referred to the preamble of the Parliament Act 1911, by which Herbert Asquith's Government intended to substitute for the House of Lords,
“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”.
Nick Clegg continued:
“There has been progress in the intervening years … We should see ourselves as completing that work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 155.]
However, “completing that work” is not the right approach. If we are to have a better second Chamber, in whatever form, the starting point for legislation should be now—how things are—not 100 years ago, when the circumstances were very different.
In 1911, the choice was between a wholly hereditary House and an elected House. That was all. There was no suggestion of a peerage that could last only one generation. Today, and since 1958, we have very many life Peers.
Asquith never considered or imagined the option now available, and he would have been amazed by the range of professions and talents that we now have—the diversity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and others have put it—with a great deal of differing experience. We do not know what Asquith would think about reform in 2011, but we certainly cannot assume that he would have preferred an elected House.
As for a “popular” basis in 1911, “popular” meant only men. At that time, Asquith, was, in his own words,
“a strenuous opponent of the extension of the political franchise to women”.
He was certainly not a model for women today.
The Parliament Act was not a carefully considered proposal, a long prepared democratic measure, but a by-product of the 1909 Budget and a constitutional crisis. The economic, social, moral, cultural and political climate of those times was very different. History is history; Asquith was Asquith. Reform of the Lords should be judged on merit in the year 2011, not in the spirit of the Liberal high noon in the Edwardian twilight.
For many years, despite the 1958 life peerages legislation, reformers assumed, in one breath, that getting rid of the unacceptable hereditary principle meant an elected House, but that was never the choice. My own preference then, and now, was for ending the hereditary principle and for necessary reform built on a life-Peer House.
In yesterday’s debate, we were reminded of the events in 1999, when the House agreed to retain the hereditary principle through electing 90 “excepted” Peers. I shall not bother going further into the complications and course of the Weatherill amendment—there is a very good House of Lords Library Note on it—but it was nonsense from the start. The proceedings for by-election under Standing Order No. 10 have become a subject for ridicule. To repeal the Weatherill amendment and finally end the hereditary principle in the Lords should be the essence of reform.
It follows that I join in the widespread support in the House for my noble friend Lord Steel's Bill, and I would much prefer action now rather than a long examination of this coalition's draft document and, I am afraid, fruitless conclusions.
The House of Commons and the House of Lords are joined together in a single Parliament. The balance of powers, including the powers of the Executive, works very well despite some rough edges. After scrutiny, debate and negotiation in Committee, including the ping-pong, the elected House of Commons and overall democratic legitimacy eventually wins, and so it should be.
Lord Eames
My Lords, at this stage of any marathon, aching limbs are foremost. I regret to say at this stage of this marathon, my voice has given up. I apologise for the way in which I am speaking.
We have heard a great deal in this debate about what we as individuals believe to be the purpose of this assembly. When I look at the Bill and the White Paper before us, I find it very difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, reminded us a short time ago, to understand the precise reason for doing this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, reminded us yesterday, there is a sense that we are talking in a circle. Coming from the Cross-Bench position, I am confused as to the real purpose of this move by the Government. Anyone who heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester speak yesterday could not fail but be impressed by the tests that he put before us. Reflecting on what he said overnight, I find that it becomes plainer and plainer that there is vagueness and obscurity in the reason for being asked to look at this proposed Bill and White Paper. One cries out for clarity as to what the Government are asking us to do.
One of the privileges of being a Cross-Bencher is that you are part of a small community within a community, and the relationship of that smaller community to the rest of this House is, to say the least, enlightening. One is conscious of the need of the two main parties in this House to gain support from the Cross-Benchers when they debate and propose legislation. In that more apparent use of our position, it has become very clear to many of us that we possess something unique that is in danger of being lost in what is being proposed: that is, independence.
In an elected upper Chamber, I know that many of my colleagues on these Benches would never dream of seeking to be candidates in an election. We would simply feel that this goes totally against our reason for being here at present. If this is to be the way forward, I feel fairly certain in predicting that a lot of the present Cross-Benchers will not feature in any future upper House.
Secondly, there has been a great deal of talk in this debate about the relationship between two elected Houses. There was reference yesterday to the position in the United States between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Many years ago as an academic law lecturer, I took on the task of examining the relationship between the two Houses in the United States. Yes, on the surface, they had reached a formula that allowed democracy, in their terms, to be produced. Yes, they had found a relationship for working together. The more I delved into the situation, though, it became apparent to me that that was only part of the story. An enormous amount of time and energy was, and I believe continues to be, devoted by the representatives of both those Houses to achieve that end, and the time and energy expended on it far outweigh any purely party political discourse. At that stage, all those years ago, it struck me how much better it would be if that time could be allocated to the production of democracy, the preparation of legislation and preparation for debate, so it is not as easy as it seems for that great democracy to achieve what it does. My fear for two elected Houses in our Parliament would be that the tensions that soon surfaced between Members of the same political persuasion and in programming would be such that it would be a cause of regret if we went down that road.
I return to the position of the Cross-Benchers. As I say, I do not believe that many of us, if any, would wish to seek election to a new form of House. In the terms of the life of this smaller community within the larger community, we see that there is trust in each other’s independence, each other’s judgment and in what we hope we came here to achieve. My fear is that, in the wording of the proposed Bill and particularly the wording of the White Paper, that very uniqueness, that trust, could be lost. I would find that very regrettable, and I suggest that it would be detrimental to what this Parliament stands for in the eyes of the world.
It is a well known fact that if you are teaching in a theological college and you prepare a sermon, if the point that you wish to make to your congregation is not very plain, you raise your voice and surround that point with bland expressions. I am afraid that that is how I view much of what is before us at this moment. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and I hope that the Steel proposals will win the day.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
My Lords, I have two preliminary points. First, in eight minutes it is inevitable that one can touch only on certain issues, and after a long debate it is also inevitable that one will be repeating many of the comments made on the key issues. I make no apology for that because it indicates the strength of feeling on these issues. Secondly, when I was in the other place I consistently held and expressed the same views and support for an appointed House that I hold now—a House, of course, greatly enriched and changed by the reforms relating to life and hereditary Peers.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said yesterday:
“What on earth is this House doing spending two precious days debating an issue that has no interest outside the Westminster village and for which there is no demand in this country at a time when we are facing a domestic crisis of major proportions?”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1208.]
I take issue with that. I think that he was wrong; these two days have been very well spent. I agree, though, about the reaction that there will be in the country when we spend two years and much parliamentary time dealing with this issue when the country is still having to face the inevitable and continuing economic and other pressures in dealing with the fiscal deficit and many other things. This leads to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, made, when he said, in justification of the Bill:
“The public have made it very clear that they do not trust our electoral system in its present form”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1189.]
I was in the other place for 27 years. I go along with many others who say the same as me: I never had a single letter on House of Lords reform during the time when I was there and I get very few representations even now. Such reaction as one does get to the House of Lords, when people know that one is in it, is largely favourable. The adverse public reaction concerns the House of Commons. I regret that because I have a deep respect and affection for the House of Commons, which has been unfairly denigrated in many ways in recent years. However, there is no doubt that the Commons expenses issue and the kind of yah-boo politics that is inevitably conveyed in prime-time television coverage has greatly diminished the public’s respect for the House of Commons. Therefore, it is the House of Commons which gives cause for concern, not the House of Lords.
I am constantly told by many members of the public who talk to me about House of Lords reform that the last thing they want is a clone of the House of Commons. I say this as someone who, as I say, has deep respect for the House of Commons. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that if we had a referendum on reform of the House of Lords as proposed, I am fairly certain that the public would give the same response as they did in the AV referendum, and they would do so because so much of the media comment from serious newspapers and other commentators is against these proposals. Therefore, there would be heavy pressure against these proposals in any referendum.
There has been a subtle move in the language from democratic accountability to democratic legitimacy, and I can see why. Earlier proposals on House of Lords reform ran into considerable difficulties because they were based on regular elections to the House of Lords on the same basis as elections to the House of Commons. This caused great concern among Members of the House of Commons in relation to the challenge posed to their position in their respective constituencies and in the House, as this House would be elected on the same basis. There was also a concern that those who wanted to come to this place might well be those who had failed to get into the House of Commons and therefore might use this as a stepping point to getting into the House of Commons. Those two fears and criticisms were dealt with by proposing a 15-year term and no re-election. However, that immediately removed any question of democratic accountability. There is no democratic accountability if you are elected for a single term. I somewhat suspect that there is no democratic legitimacy either as many Members, knowing that they were here for 15 years with no possibility of re-election and no possibility of getting to the House of Commons, might not even attend very often because no one would demand that they did. That is very different from being a Member of the House of Commons and having to face re-election. I take very much the point that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made on this. The democratic legitimacy versus democratic accountability argument has lost a lot of its credibility because of these proposals.
The key weakness of the Bill is Clause 2, which relates to functions and powers. This part of the Bill has already been holed in the water, and I think is already dead in the water. It is simply unsustainable. Inevitably, there will be clashes as the Lords asserts its democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said yesterday in favour of House of Lords reform:
“I cannot imagine that the decision to introduce the poll tax and the decision to take this country to war would have got through a Chamber elected on a different mandate and in a different period”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1190.]
They would certainly not have been challenged by this Chamber on the basis of the proposals in this Bill because it would have no power or rights to do so. They could have been challenged only—this is the giveaway—if the House of Lords asserted the powers to do that, which it has not got but which it will have if it is democratically elected. I am constantly surprised that Members of the House of Commons have not understood this point in the past, but I think that they do now. There is a growing understanding in that regard. It was very significant that in response to Mr Clegg’s Statement in the House of Commons on 17 May, 16 of the 29 who were opposed to the proposals—rather more than those who simply asked questions or were in favour—referred to the clash between the two Houses and the challenge to the supremacy of the House of Commons. I suspect—this is also significant—that many Members here who are raising this issue have been Members of the House of Commons and understand the point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it may not be only in this House that a lot of challenges will arise to this part of the Bill.
I wish to make two other points in that regard. One concerns finance and supply. It seems to me inevitable that if this House were elected it would demand many more powers in relation to finance and supply. Already there are demands from outside Parliament that this House should play a much more substantial part in scrutinising Finance Bills. That would become inevitable if this House were elected.
A point that I do not think has been made already is about Ministers. I am a little perplexed by the paragraph on Ministers but it seems to me to be absolutely clear that there would be a need for a growing proportion of Ministers in this House if this House had democratic legitimacy. I pay great tribute to Members, on both sides, on the Front Bench for the roles that they play and have played as Ministers. They do a tremendous job under huge pressures but the job would become much bigger if this House was democratically elected. There would be a need for many more Ministers in this House from individual departments. We could not have one Minister responding for six departments. There would be many fewer Ministers in the other place and those who aspire to being Ministers in the other House should think about that point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, is that not an argument in favour of that?
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
It may be but not from the other House’s point of view. I recognise what the Leader of the House said on 17 May:
“I fully expect the conventions and agreements between the Houses to change, to evolve and to adapt to different circumstances”.—[Official Report, 17/5/11; col. 1279.]
He talked of a more assertive House here. I think that it would happen very quickly. I was much struck by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, speaking in favour of an elected House but making clear that the absolutely wrong part of this Bill is the lack of powers. That seems the most indefensible part of the Bill and will need to be fully addressed by the Joint Committee, taking into account the report by the Joint Committee on Conventions carried out under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham.
In conclusion, I agree that change is needed. I very much support the Steel Bill. One of the most vulnerable parts of this House, as we enter the debate about House of Lords reform, is the size of it. We will have to address that in the debate next week. I welcome the decision of the Government to publish the Bill and to set up the Joint Committee. Publicising the Bill has clearly indicated the defects in the proposals. There is immense detail in it, and much to be challenged. I wish the Joint Committee well in this huge task. If more time is required, I hope that the committee will take it. It is too important for its work to be rushed.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, who is my old boss from many years ago and for whom I have always had the highest regard. It is impossible to address this subject without taking note of the extraordinarily contradictory behaviour of the Government in relation to the fundamental principles of this Bill over the past few months. One of its main purposes is to reduce our size from 800 to 300 Peers. But the Government have been making unprecedented increases in the numbers in this place over the past year. I recognise that I am one of them, of course, but that does not change the argument. In other words, the Government have massively contributed to a problem, which they now say needs to be urgently redressed. There is something slightly peculiar about that.
The Government have brought forward the EU Bill, in which some of us have been taking part. It provides for at least 56 referenda on different matters relating to our membership of the European Union and including such esoteric questions as whether or not we have qualified majority voting to decide the future of the public prosecutor’s office in the EU. Is it not extraordinary that the Government, who say that they want up to 56 referenda on those sorts of subjects—although a lot of people do not take it very seriously—do not provide for referenda on major constitutional reforms of the kind now being proposed? The only logical explanation is that the Government think that the change that they propose in the House of Lords is less significant than the use of qualified majority voting on the public prosecutor’s office in the European Union. That does not seem very convincing.
There are some difficult issues here. They might be the result just of confusion, hastiness or lack of thought, or of something slightly more sinister. It has become a pervasive suspicion in the country as a whole, which is very regrettable in terms of people’s confidence in our system, that the only reason for bringing forward this very important and momentous constitutional measure is to give Mr Clegg a boost to his amour propre after the humiliations of the past few months. I hope that that is not true. I believe that I will carry the whole House with me when I say that constitutional legislation above all legislation needs to be considered extremely carefully. It must not be brought forward hastily or wantonly, let alone cynically. It must be brought forward reflectively and with an eye for the long term.
Although I do not agree with all aspects of the Bill, as I shall explain, I am not against an elected House of Lords. I have always been in principle in favour of an elected second Chamber and I have become more in favour of such a Chamber since I have served here for nearly a year. The reason for that is simple. I am not sure whether election would increase the legitimacy of this House with the public as a whole. As far as I can see, there does not seem to be much wrong with the legitimacy of this House in the eyes of the public as a whole. But I am convinced that it would increase the legitimacy of this House in our own eyes. It would give us the courage of our convictions. I have been very struck by the extent to which we do not have the courage of our convictions. When it comes to ping-pong with the other House, after one or two sessions we throw in the sponge and we say, “Oh, we have to give way to the elected House”. I do not quite know why we do that because we are observing conventions like the Salisbury convention, which were offered up at the end of the 19th century as a substitute for statutory parliamentary reform, or perhaps to head off statutory parliamentary reform.
When we had the reform, which the House of Commons wanted, imposing the rules that it decided—that is, the restrictions on financial discussions, the time limitation in which we could hold legislation and so on—we had a set of rules imposed on us with which the House of Commons was happy. There is no reason not to observe those rules, which we have to, and to give up the previous conventions. It is an anomaly that we observe those conventions as it is but I am convinced that that anomaly would disappear if we were an elected House.
When I asked why we were not being a bit tougher and a bit more robust about standing up to the Commons, I was told, “Oh, but it is an elected House. Therefore, we feel that we cannot”. That is a very important reason and on that basis I am very happy to have an elected House of Lords. But I have some conditions for that. The first is that it would be a fully elected House. I cannot conceive of anything more absurd than legislating on the principle that you require election for legitimacy and then having 20 per cent of the House that, by definition in terms of that governing principle for the Bill, are illegitimate. That seems to me to be an extraordinary anomaly, which could not be justified for a moment. The House must be 100 per cent elected.
Secondly, the House should not be elected by PR, which is the worst possible form of election if you want to maintain the independence of the House of Lords. Of course, it is vital that we do so. Thirdly, for the same reason, I am opposed to the idea of allowing Members of the House of Lords to be Ministers. The offer of the potential of ministerial jobs is far and away the most constraining factor limiting the independence of Members of the House of Commons. I had experience of it myself. I knew when I voted against John Major over the Scott report that I was completely removing any possibility of my joining that Government. I was very upset about that and it was a very difficult issue. I was much less worried about deselection or being defeated at the next general election. I was confident that I would be able to explain what I was doing to my constituents and to carry them with me. If we want to have an independent House, we should exclude the Ministers. The idea of having temporary Ministers here, as the Bill proposes, is appalling. They really would be the placeman of the 18th century writ large.
There is a fundamental contradiction in the Government’s mind about whether you can be elected and not have representational functions. Yesterday, I heard several statements from the Government which implied that they thought that it would be possible to have an election and then for the elected Members of the House of Lords not in any way to conflict with the House of Commons in their representational functions. That is unrealistic. Once you have been elected, you cannot possibly turn around to those who have elected you and say, “Thank you for electing me. I am now going to enjoy my salary for the next 15 years but I’m not interested in your problems at all because I am not standing again for re-election, so you can get lost”. If there was a contribution that we could make to ensuring that we really undermined confidence in our democracy in this country, it would be exactly that. It would be to say, “Here is a class of politicians who have no responsibility to the people who sent them there and take no interest in their problems or their representations”.
Of course, once you start taking an interest in people’s problems and representations, you are obviously conflicting with the House of Commons. I am not offended by that but we should face that fact. Just as in the United States you can talk to your Congressman and if you do not get any help there you can talk to your Senator, exactly that situation would prevail in this country. I am happy with it but we have to face up to the fact and be honest with the House of Commons and say that there would obviously be a conflict. There is no mileage at all in trying to pretend schizophrenically to those who want election, “Yes, that’s fine, we can provide you with election”, and to those who are worried about a conflict with the House of Commons say, “Don’t worry. There will be no conflict with the House of Commons”. We have to be honest about this. Clearly, representation follows election. That has always been the case and it would be the case in the future.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, I seem to have travelled a rather different road to the one travelled by many noble Lords, but at the end of the day I have arrived at precisely the same destination. We have had quite enough constitutional change in recent years. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord MacGregor that, with the country facing so many pressing problems, it will look quite extraordinary if we spend days and days of parliamentary time on legislation on the lines of the draft Bill.
Then there is the matter of the Parliament Act, already mentioned a few times in this debate, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. If this House were to reject this Bill, could the Parliament Act be used to force it through second time round? The question is simple: could an Act passed with the consent of both Houses to resolve disputes between an elected and an unelected House be used to change entirely the composition of the second Chamber so that it was no longer even based on the peerage whose wings the Parliament Act was passed to clip?
It would be very strange indeed if the Parliament Act could be used and I would like to hear the Government’s view on this. When the Deputy Leader of the House sums up, I hope that he does not just brush the matter aside and say that no one can know now whether or not a Bill will get through this House. It would be very difficult to find anyone in this place who thinks that the Bill would have much of a chance. If it really would not be possible to use the Parliament Act, should the Government not be considering whether they are justified in pressing ahead and wasting a lot of time on this matter?
Having said that, I am not in principle against an elected second Chamber. I can see the case for creating an elected House so that it can have powers that would not be proper to give to an unelected House. I am dead against creating an elected second Chamber and then requiring it to do no more than we can do perfectly well now. Let us look for one moment at the opportunity we are missing. Noble Lords have been very polite about the Commons in this debate—with the exception of my noble friend Lord Higgins. In truth, the other place, which is supposed to be a check on the Executive and whose primacy noble Lord after noble Lord has determinedly championed, has become pretty feeble in the role that it is supposed to perform.
Governments, particularly those with big majorities, are able to get almost any measure through the Commons. The Commons is often little more than a tool of the Executive—and things are getting worse, not better. It is not just a matter of the power of the Whips, and the power of patronage—which of course has grown much bigger as a result of the introduction of life peerages. Governments and Oppositions nowadays even busy themselves with trying to dictate who can stand for their respective parties, regardless of the wishes of local people. People have even been thrown out of Parliament for appearing to voice disagreement with party policy. That happened to my noble friend Lord Flight, when he was Howard Flight, back in 2005, and it was a disgraceful affair. Systems have recently been set up to prevent people who have fought good fights under the party banner from being able even to offer themselves for reselection. That has just happened to the person who fought, and fought well, in the constituency where I live. Of course, a more powerful second Chamber would not stop that sort of abuse of power, but it does show how great the power of the Executive is over the Commons.
There is a case for an elected second Chamber but it is not the case being put forward by the Government. There is a case for a second House which would not be just a revising chamber, still less one dedicated to no more than making the legislative sausage machine run nice and smoothly. There is a case for a Government having to win not just the support of the Commons but of another body composed and elected in a way that would make it far more independent of government than the Commons has become. There is a case for an elected House having new powers with regard to legislation; but also perhaps specific powers for the House to exercise on its own, like some of the powers given to the US Senate.
However, none of this is on offer. Out of fear that any hint of an increase in powers would scupper the Bill, those who have brought it forward have bolted the door against worthwhile reform. As a result they are trying to win an unwinnable argument. They have set themselves the task of trying to convince the public that it is good in itself to create more elected politicians even if they are not allowed to do anything that is not done perfectly well now. They are on a hiding to nothing.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, yesterday my noble friend Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon made arguments for legitimacy through democratic elections. I believe his arguments are unanswerable and I wish to echo the sentiment. A noble Lord commented afterwards that all Liberal Democrat candidates would write down his speech and deliver it in hustings over the next few years. There have also been comments that nobody outside this House is interested in possible reform.
When the coalition document was published last year, I had not just telephone calls but an irate voter in Watford, where I had stood for Parliament, knocking on the door to say that the coalition document was not strong enough on reform of the House of Lords. I hasten to point out that this was not a Liberal Democrat member but a member of the public who had heard me espousing the reasons that this Chamber should become fully elected at various hustings; it also came up during questions at those hustings. For some people—more than we suspect, I think—reform is an important issue.
I wish to make clear that my personal view is that I support 100 per cent elected, and I agree with the sentiments expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. However, I am more of a pragmatist than him and suspect that the draft Bill’s proposal of 80 per cent will move us in the right direction while retaining the expertise of the Cross-Benchers. I will come back to that in a minute.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, also referred to the issue of constituencies. It is important to recognise that with any list system on a regional basis, the constituency work of MEPs is very different from the constituency work of MPs in the other place. It is simply the nature of the geography: if you are a Member for a large region you will not have the close contact that you do with constituents in a smaller constituency.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, agree that the difference is that MEPs are elected to handle issues falling under the jurisdiction of the EU? In the case of the Lords and the Commons—or in the future, elected Lords and the Commons—the jurisdiction will be the same, and the issues will be the same. Therefore, there would be the conflict which I drew attention to.
Baroness Brinton
The point I am trying to make is that it is not purely about jurisdiction, it is about the practical application of having a constituency of 5 million people as opposed to 75,000.
I turn now to issues of diversity in a future House that is either partially or wholly elected. In an elected House, we need to ensure that recommendations from the Speaker’s Conference to improve the diversity of the other place are taken into account by the scrutiny committee over the next two years. In our present format we do not represent the country in all its diversity. Some of the appointments in recent years have attempted to deal with that, but, partly because there is no retirement, we still do not reflect the country that we represent.
There is also an issue about the geographical diversity that is needed. If we looked at where most Peers come from, I suspect that we would find a heavy southern bias. I was speaking with colleagues in the north-east the other day who feel that they do not have access to many Peers; they have some, but not the same as those who live among the large concentration in London and the south-east.
As for the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses, we all agree that those are not absolute. I do not take the view that they will stand still, and my noble friend the Leader of the House must have been right yesterday when he said that the conventions will evolve and that the relationships between the two Houses may change. However, that is nothing new. Conventions have evolved over the years and the relationship between the Houses changes with time.
This House is much more muscular than it was a few decades ago. For example, in the decade up to 2000 the Government were defeated 155 times; in the decade up to 2010 the Government were defeated 422 times—nearly a threefold increase. Granted, cause and effect cannot be proved. It may be that the change in government in 1997 was influential and the reforms which saw the departure of the majority of the hereditary Peers should be noted.
However, we have not seen this House attempting to depart from any of the conventions since then. Furthermore, Clause 2(3) of the draft Bill makes it clear that the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses are to remain unaffected, and there is no reason to suppose that that aim will not be achieved. However, if a future Parliament were of the view that the conventions needed to be explicitly codified to protect their efficacy, legislation could be brought forward to bring that about, as was proposed in the 2005 Labour manifesto.
I am concerned that a House of 300 could deal adequately with the workload of the House, particularly if there were to remain some who are not full-time politicians. I suspect that many in this House, and the public at large, regard the presence of some who are not full-time as one of the strengths of this House. The pride that is rightly taken in the House’s expertise derives largely from having here many who are active in other spheres, and I am not sure that it is intended that we should sit on many more days than we currently do.
Pride in the expertise of the Members of this House does not derive solely from the presence of Cross-Benchers, much as I respect their expertise. It is unfair to assert as a generality—and I have heard it said—that those who are unelected or without party affiliation hold a monopoly on expertise. A glance around this Chamber certainly proves that wrong.
As for the system of election, as a committed supporter of STV for parliamentary elections I nevertheless feel that—in the larger constituencies that will be appropriate for proportional elections to this House of, say, 80 to 120 new Members across the country at each election—an open list system has much to commend it. In particular, we would be far more likely to achieve a membership that is more diverse, as I mentioned earlier, and more representative of Britain as a whole with an open list system than we might with STV. That is why we should consider that system for elections. However, whatever the system of election, a democratically legitimate upper House, as part of a democratic Parliament of the United Kingdom, is a goal that we should pursue and achieve.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I did not participate in any of the earlier debates over the years on the reform of this House. I thought that I would wait until the traffic eased up a bit and the pressures died down, so that I would be able to dilate at leisure. Clearly I waited in vain. I am now being lapped by many noble Lords, in some cases for the third or fourth time. However, I at least have the comfort of knowing that, if I bore your Lordships on this subject, I shall be doing so for the first time.
My noble friend the Leader of the House proclaimed yesterday that this reform was promised in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. I say with the greatest respect to my noble friend, who is not in his place, that that does not necessarily make it right. Given what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said before the last election, I find myself surprised to discover how quickly we seem to have reached our third term.
On reading the draft Bill, so many thoughts crowded in on me as to what was wrong with it that I remained baffled. What, for example, is the point of a Bill that seeks to bring increased democratic legitimacy to this House through election but would deny the elected the right to exercise that legitimacy? Surely that is unsustainable. What is the point in bringing into this House, hot from the hustings, elected and politically motivated Members, as they would be, who had probably tried and failed to be selected for and elected to the other place, and forcing them to confine their energies here to the detailed scrutiny and revision of legislation that is at present done so well by existing Members—and to do that all in the name of the holy grail of democratic legitimacy? I shall return to that issue shortly.
By common consent, this House has a diverse range of expertise and experience that the House of Commons lacks. Every Member of this House has been appointed because he or she has something to offer. The electorate will not benefit if we destroy that, and nor will democracy. Incidentally, 300 Members would not be enough. There may be only 300 to 400 Members, on average, active in the House at the present time, but they are not always the same ones. To change this would inevitably lead to frustration among the new, elected Members and then to challenge. It could destroy the invaluable equilibrium between the two Houses that is afforded by the present arrangements.
There seems to be an aggressive antagonism towards this place, implicit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals. Surely that is entirely the wrong way to go about reform, which should be gradual and consensual. Consideration of reform should not be only about this House or that House, conducted in isolation with no thought for the constitutional ripples between and beyond the two. We have a bicameral system of government. We are two Houses of the same Parliament that have evolved together over centuries. I do not think that enough has been said about that bicamerality. Of course there has been passing reference, but, in this House, in our system, it has a particular and special quality. Our two Chambers interact in a unique way. They are like the two ventricles of a human heart; they share the same heartbeat. Cut into one and the other will suffer as well; complementarity and equilibrium will have been destroyed.
The bigger the change in the make-up of this House, the greater will be the need to re-examine the balance of powers and the conventions that operate between the two Houses. Together, these two Houses represent a parliamentary democracy—asymmetrical, certainly, but highly functional. It is not a textbook democracy of abstract, theoretical perfection, but a living, practising one. To those who would suggest that only elections can bring legitimacy, it is worth pointing out the obvious: this House has never been elected and yet its democratic legitimacy has over the years been deemed fit for purpose.
We acknowledge that the elected House has primacy and in any dispute must ultimately prevail. I want us to retain an appointed upper House precisely because I respect the primacy of the other place. That way we can continue to differ from it but defer to it. Democratic legitimacy is not bestowed simply by ticking the directly elected box; it is achieved by time, by custom and practice, by function, by performance and by popular acceptance. I believe that this House has popular acceptance. If it did not, it would not have endured. Those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the draft Bill seem to be saying that this House should become an elected one in order to make us as popular as the House of Commons. I believe that we can do better than that.
Still less is legitimacy achieved by the added twist of proportional representation. After all, was it not Lloyd George who described proportional representation as a “device for defeating democracy”? As to the 80 per cent elected option, quite apart from the difficulties of a hybrid and two-tier House, if an elected House is the Deputy Prime Minister’s guiding principle, then 80 per cent elected is four-fifths of a principle, which is rather like being four-fifths pregnant.
It is unprincipled to contemplate changing the membership of this House without first considering and agreeing what we want this House to do. If the powers and role are to remain the same, then so should the membership. If we change the membership, then the powers and role will assuredly change, irrevocably. I cannot believe that that is what the other place wants.
There is much need for reform within this House—reform of the way we are appointed, of our numbers, of some of our procedures and perhaps even of our length of tenure. One senses a clear consensus on that. We should press on with deciding on those and other reforms in our traditional, evolutionary way. This Bill, by abolishing the House as at present constituted and replacing it with something quite different, would enforce the unprovoked disruption of our constitution. It would cut into the very bone and marrow of our parliamentary democracy. I believe that it is an affront to our country’s constitutional integrity and we should have nothing to do with it.
Lord Elder
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Lang, feeling suitably put in my place, because I have form in these debates. I will try to temper that by at least being brief. I have four points to make. First—and I always say this with some nervousness in this House—I was and remain a unicameralist. However, if that is not to be the outcome of the constitutional changes ahead of us, I do not wish to see anything other than an unelected House, which is unable to challenge the elected House in the Commons. A well informed but unelected revising Chamber, with the power to ask the elected Chamber to think again, should be maintained. I say that because I believe in the primacy of the House of Commons. I do not for a moment believe that it is possible to safeguard that primacy against the wishes of another elected House, unless of course we have a written constitution or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said yesterday, some statutory limitation of the second Chamber’s powers, neither of which is on the agenda. That will be an inevitable consequence of a second elected Chamber.
We are deluding ourselves if we think that an elected Lords will not challenge the elected Commons—a point made yesterday by my noble friend Lord Grocott with his usual powerful candour. I suspect that, should the proposals in this White Paper come to fruition, the Liberal Democrats would not be able to restrain themselves from pointing out that a Second Chamber elected by STV rather than first past the post was, in their view, more legitimate than the other place. You cannot believe in proportional systems for as long as they have and then keep quiet when a highly proportional House is sitting beside one elected by first past the post. It would be seen as a more proportional and a better system, by them at least. They would see the House elected by that system as more legitimate. That is a recipe for disaster.
I also question the idea that the proposed House, with Members elected for one 15-year term, would somehow be more accountable than this House. Accountability comes not from election but from re-election, which is expressly ruled out in these proposals. Indeed, I fear that a 15-year term with no possibility of re-election begins to look like a sort of parliamentary version of a big lottery win. When one thinks of what some of the people who were elected did in terms of claims and expenses down the other end of the building, one wonders what the consequences might be if there was no possibility of re-election.
Secondly, I would like to say a few things about timing. I know that the coalition is for five years. However, am I alone in thinking that, with AV lost, this other most cherished part of Liberal Democrat thinking looks to be on a timetable that happily keeps reform just over the horizon for most of the rest of this Parliament? If at the end of that time it fails, well, that is not for one of the partners in the coalition so great a disaster. This is a very attractive carrot for the larger coalition partner to dangle before its less numerous friends.
Thirdly, I believe that it is absolutely fundamental to our constitutional settlement that such a fundamental change to that settlement should be the subject of a referendum. I know that all three parties suggested reform in their manifestos, but giving the British people no choice, which is effectively what that meant, does not seem a satisfactory way forward in a democracy. The mere fact that the British electorate had no choice but to vote for a political party that believed in reform does not necessarily mean that they agree with that reform. I absolutely believe that we should have a referendum on so fundamental a change.
Fourthly, and finally, when the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, were first put forward, I regarded them as a trifle thin. However, unusually for constitutional proposals, with the passing of time they have managed to look much more substantial, much more sensible and much more worth while. They can certainly be agreed and can be implemented quite quickly. I would wholeheartedly support that happening. They look increasingly good—and they will look better still when the current proposals, in due course, collapse under their own weight.
Lord Elton
My Lords, it concerns me that this debate is being conducted, and indeed reported, as though it were a battle in which the protagonists are the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It is not. We are standing too close to the canvas. It is part of the war between Parliament and government. Consider the origin of Parliament. It was invented to control the Crown in the days of absolute monarchy. Until George I came to the throne, no Minister of the Crown was allowed into Westminster without permission or an invitation. Now, we have—if you count PPSs—150 members of the body that Parliament is supposed to be controlling inside the controlling body and their power there accumulates. As the main protagonist, government is not just Ministers; it is the whole machine of government—thousands of people, all with their own views and programmes, tuned in a certain direction. As a Minister, I came across senior civil servants who regarded Parliament as a nuisance and a distraction. They of course are willing allies of government Ministers, who want to get programmes through against the will of the elected majority.
The first thing that the Government have to do in this war, which has continued since the 13th century, is to get rid of entrenched power. The opening line was of course the Parliament Act 1911 and the subsequent Parliament Act, which have definitively drawn the teeth of this House in the constitutional battle, although the question of the Parliament Acts remains open. The next thing was to control the elected power in the House of Commons. That has been done in a succession of ways. One that has been alluded to is the growing use of the guillotine—the Programme Motion, I think that it is called—in the House of Commons, which is now routine and which muzzles the elected representatives for a great deal of the time, with the result that we have to do their work.
Then again there has been the changing nature of the House of Commons. When I stood for Parliament 38 years ago, I was in a cohort of people all of whom had a profession, trade or something else in which they had been brought up and to which they could return. The rewards, when you got to Parliament—if you did, which I did not, twice—were insubstantial. Members were not paid any money at all until relatively recently. Therefore, if you were threatened with being thrown out, it did not matter; what mattered was that you were not going to get promotion. However, that has changed, because now Members of Parliament increasingly come in without a trade or profession, with nothing to go back to, and subsist on the substantial income that is given to them as Members, with increments when they take office or have special posts and with supplementary benefits, which have caused a good deal of public interest. To lose that in the middle of what should be a career, possibly with many young to pay for, is a disaster.
The result is that the Government, through the party system, have an enormous hold over the voting strength in the House of Commons. That was beautifully illustrated when Tony Blair got the 90-day clause through the House of Commons; he had a majority of, I think, 161 on paper, but he got the clause through by 14 votes. When the measure came to this House, we started discussing it on a Thursday at 3.05 and finished on the Friday at 7.31. We exerted the democratic force that the House of Commons was unable to do. We have to take a care with what we do about this House because what we do is part of the great campaign of the Government to try to swallow Parliament, while Parliament tries to remain at liberty to defend the British electorate.
The great threat of deselection is real. It attaches to any proposal to have a party system in this House in which Members could be deselected—hence the charm of the 15-year tenure of an elected Member of this House under the Bill. However, that immediately destroys its legitimacy. Other noble Lords have dealt extensively and successfully with the threat of the Bill to the procedure between the two Houses. I repeat that this discussion and its reporting have been represented as a battle, not a war. My appeal is not to all our colleagues in the Dining Room but to editors and producers around the country to wake up, to look at history, to see what is going on and to alert the country to it and to our role in preventing this ending in an anti-democratic calamity in which parties of all colours join. Every Government within 18 months become set on reducing the power of Parliament to interfere with their decisions. My noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley was swift to get to Margaret Thatcher and set up the departmental Select Committees, which were a step back on the ratchet of power going from Parliament to the Government. He got that through before she was tainted with the poison that overtakes all Governments, which I tasted briefly but which I survived.
Lord Judd
My Lords, it is a challenge to follow that learned contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
The first question is whether there is a need for a second Chamber. If we believe that there is, the second task is to define clearly what that need is and what its purpose is. What is deplorable about this legislation is that it tackles neither of those fundamental questions. The answers to the questions can be found only in the additionality in terms of quality that a second Chamber brings to strengthening democracy. We then come to the issue of what composition is necessary to fulfil that purpose and what are the most effective arrangements for enabling it to work well. One thing has come out very clearly from this debate. There seems to be total agreement—and I find myself 100 per cent with those who argue this—that the supremacy must lie with the elected Commons. There can be no question about that. The House of Commons must be free to accept or reject whatever is put to it by a second Chamber.
How does a second Chamber prove its worth? That must be by the quality of the advice that is offered. This, of course, covers scrutiny. Many of us have watched with distress over recent years just how real that challenge has become. The amount of legislation that arrives in this place totally unscrutinised is a constitutional and democratic disgrace. If ever there were a case for a second Chamber, it lies there, and that job must be well done.
One of the things that I reflect on is that any honest look at the society in which we live demonstrates that it is not just chunks of people living together in particular places together with a representative. The reality of our living community in the United Kingdom is the interplay of different interests and experiences. That is true professionally, socially and ethnically. It is also true in terms of the different traditions of faith and indeed of humanist activity. I will digress for a moment to say that, in this sphere of my concern, I find the proposition before us astounding. I am an Anglican but I simply cannot understand how a Bill can come before us entrenching just one denomination of one faith with a guaranteed representation in the democratic process. It just does not reflect Britain as it is. Of course I understand the history and the anxieties about the establishment of the church. I am an Anglican who comes from a Church of Scotland background and I should point out that the established church in Scotland has no direct representation in the parliamentary system of that country. There does not need to be this connection and, if there is, it must be more representative than just one denomination of one faith.
My point is that the job of the second Chamber is to be representative of that matrix in our society. I cannot see a better way than to have a genuinely independent statutory commission with the task of ensuring that there is a representative body of that kind in our deliberations. It is important to recognise that, if it is to be socially representative, it is right—and in this the draft Bill is correct—that it must be remunerated, because some people would simply not be able to contemplate participating in what would be demanded of them other than on a remunerated basis. It is also rather like the example of judges. The intention is to make sure that the members of that body will be free from the temptations that always go with political office, so that they can stand genuinely independently and be seen to be independent, with their integrity beyond question.
I now come to the issue of the title. I am disappointed at the mealy mouthed words in the proposed legislation. A great deal attaches to a title. “House of Lords” is part of our history. There has been too much confusion in public life about public service and the siren calls of social status. Surely any lasting, effective change should grapple with this. The satisfaction of us all should come from a sense of public service in the cause of a strong democracy. The status of the institution should lie not in the title but, as I have argued, in the quality of a job well done. Why not call it “Senate”, or just “Second Chamber”? These issues have not been grappled with at all.
My last point is simply to say that our democracy is in crisis and we know it. There is a widespread sense of public alienation from the democratic system. What is this about? Of course, expenses and all the other things that have happened are part of it, but it is not just that. It is a feeling among the public that somehow politics has become a closed profession and that it is mainly staffed by people who have done nothing but politics—student politics, a bit of political research and perhaps time on a local council. They become a candidate and then a Member of Parliament. Where is their experience of life? When have they ever touched the realities of life lived by most people in society?
It is from that standpoint that a great opportunity has been missed in this rather pathetic piece of legislation that we have before us. It was a chance to regenerate the democratic principle and reassert the primacy of the directly elected body of the Commons—not to go on confusing the issue. When we talk to the world about the indispensability of democracy, let us for God’s sake avoid the pitfall of tokenism. I see nothing more guilty of tokenism than the disastrous proposition that because a person has been elected they have a mandate for 15 years. That is nonsense. How on earth can you know, when you elect a person on day one, that they will be the right person 10 years hence, let alone 15 years hence? That is to demean the whole concept of democracy. I have been astounded again to hear Liberals whom I thought I respected coming forward and arguing that that is the case. If these elected people were not to get down to the job of really mixing with their constituency and representing it, in which of course they would be in direct conflict with Members of the other place, what on earth would the quality of this democracy be?
The greatest danger of what is before us is that it misses the whole nature of the crisis and the size of the challenge. It is just a bit of meddling, fixing and buying a little more time at God knows what future expense.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, a large number of Members, perhaps even 100 or so, in this longest day of the year debate, have commented—or will comment directly—on the merits of an appointed or a largely elected House. But as we have on the table a draft Bill that would abolish this House of Lords and, over a period of 15 years, replace it with a differently composed House, I would like to target my short speech on three points only.
First, an essential point that has been thoroughly referred to but is essential in our discussion of this draft proposal is the question of the primacy of the other House, as it is normally described. It may be better described as the balance of power between the two Houses. Of course, the primacy of the other House based on the control of the finance and the Parliament Act will continue, but the balance of power is quite another thing. The balance of power is what happens in practice between the two Houses. There is no reference to any change in the balance of power in the 194 pages with which we were presented before this debate and which some of us have read. The draft Bill, on the contrary, states in Clause 2:
“Nothing in the … Act … affects the powers, rights, privileges or jurisdiction of either House of Parliament, or the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses”.
In the summary of the proposals, the Government state specifically that there will be no change in the functions of the current House. But as others have said, and as I would like to emphasise, what is missing from these statements is a brief study of human nature.
It is inconceivable that Members elected to a new House of Lords on a longer and larger mandate from bigger constituencies than those of the House of Commons would refrain from seeking a higher profile role and responding strongly to the wishes of those who elected them. It would take time for the change in the balance of power between the two Houses to work through, but gradually the stage would be set for some interesting clashes between the two Houses. The House of Commons would have the greater power, but the new House of Lords would be more legitimate. The results of disagreements would probably depend more on which House received the greater backing of public opinion. In my view it is highly probable, if that ever happened, that it would be necessary to set up some more formal conciliation procedure between the two Houses. That is what would happen. Our references—oh so discreet references—to ping-pong would need to be changed to kung-fu, or all-in wrestling, or some other phrase that would better describe the relationship between the two Houses, at least on primary legislation.
I think that that would extend also to subsidiary, secondary legislation, which we hardly ever discuss. Perhaps we should do so, because there were 2,366 statutory instruments made in the last Session. Those are figures that I got from the Library. A small number, 94, directly implemented European Union law, but the remaining 2,272 were the usual avalanche of national legislation. What do we do? We pass Motions of regret, and I vote for them—but what do they have? They have the impact of a feather duster. If the new House of Lords were largely elected, some at least of those SIs would be challenged or, more probably, simply deleted.
Secondly, I have observed over the past 12 years that the most important people in the House are the ministerial Members. I have seen rather little comment on the provisions of the draft Bill about ministerial Members in any new House of Lords. Under the draft Bill, the number of elected, appointed, transitional and spiritual Members would be capped at each stage of the reduction in numbers and in the final House. The number of ministerial Members, however, is limitless. Clause 34 states:
“The Prime Minister may by order”—
here we come again with statutory instruments—
“make provision as to … the appointment of ministerial members”,
and their number. The prospect of ministerial office is just what we need to encourage good men and women to seek election to a new House of Lords, and I would certainly argue that at least in the final stage, if a new House of Lords were created, the Minister should be appointed solely from among the Members of the government party or coalition in the House of Lords and not be bussed in by the Prime Minister.
Thirdly, it is not surprising that as a former Convenor of the independent Cross-Bench Peers I welcome the recognition by the Government in the draft Bill of an independent appointed element in their proposals on composition. This is emphatically not a selfish point because under the Government’s proposal I and all the independent Cross-Bench Peers have been served with our redundancy notices, to be worked out over the transitional period. I note with satisfaction that Clause 24 states that the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which would be responsible for recommending new appointed Members,
“must take account of the principle that … the role of an appointed member is to make a contribution to the work of the House of Lords which is not a party political contribution”.
If, as many suggest, there ends up a referendum on the question of the abolition of this House and the creation of a new one, we could have a second question in the referendum to ask the British public whether they thought it would be a good idea to have at least some element that was not a party-political element. I think that it would be a shoo-in for a yes vote on that point.
I content myself in this long debate with those three points only.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in this debate and to pick up the point that he has just made on ministerial appointments. He is quite right that the proposals in the draft Bill provide for the Prime Minister to make an unlimited number of appointments to a largely elected House. Well, hang on a tick. If there is no legitimacy in being an appointed Member and you need to be elected, what is the logic of arguing that Ministers in this House can be appointed by the Prime Minister? This is to turn the constitution on its head. My understanding of the position of Ministers is that they remain Ministers so long as they command the confidence of Parliament. This is turning it the other way round so that in order to be a Minister you have to be a Member of Parliament, and while the Prime Minister can appoint you to be a Member of Parliament, you will cease to be a Member of Parliament as soon as the Prime Minister has lost confidence in you. This is a complete inversion of the constitutional principles and accountability that are the heart of our parliamentary system.
Lord Elton
Does that not exactly endorse my claim that this is part of a war of Government against Parliament? It is trying to seize control of this House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Indeed it is; I entirely agree with my noble friend, who I thought made an absolutely splendid speech. I see on the front page of the Telegraph today—if I can be a candid friend to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—that he is quoted as saying,
“You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking”.
If I can give him a bit of advice, a bit of listening might be in order here, otherwise some of us will start doing a bit of fighting. My noble friend, whom I have never really regarded as a great rebel, is absolutely right to say that this is about Parliament and its role.
My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, in his speech, described the draft Bill as a dog’s breakfast. I know that he breeds Labradors, and that Labradors will eat absolutely anything. However, I suspect that his dogs would find this pretty hard to digest, because it is a complete shambles from start to finish.
If the politics of this are, as I read in the newspapers, that this has been put forward as a consolation prize to the Deputy Prime Minister after the debacle of the AV referendum, I would have to say that it is more of a poisoned chalice than a consolation prize. Listening to and reading the speeches made so far, I would have to say that there is no way in which this legislation will get through this House and on to the statute book.
My noble friend the Deputy Prime Minister would do very well to listen to the proposals that have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. My noble friend’s proposals are about reform; the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals are about the abolition of this Chamber and the creation of a new House of 300 paid and pensioned Members. This Government have a curious sense of timing. At the very moment when they are telling people in the public sector that we cannot afford their pensions and we are short of money, they are proposing to create 300 new politicians, all with index-linked pensions. It beggars belief how we are expected to explain that to a public who are already sceptical about our political process.
I have been thinking, “What would it be like to be one of these elected Members of this House? What would I do if I were an elected Member of this House?”. The first problem I thought of is, “Which manifesto would I be bound by—the one that I was elected on, which would last for 15 years, or would it be a manifesto which changes?”. I shall give an example. My own party has had a series of positions on tuition fees: we have been for them and been against them, all within a 15-year period. If you were elected on a manifesto that said that you were in favour of tuition fees, what would you do if, at the next election, the party changed its policy? Which manifesto would prevail?
If there are going to be 300 Members of this House, presumably one of them will represent an area where there are three constituencies. A sacred part of our constitution is the ability of Members of Parliament to be elected for whatever party but to represent their whole constituency. You don’t say, “Don't come to my surgery if you didn't vote Tory”. We say that we represent them all. We have some experience in Scotland of what happens when you get that kind of effect. The list Members start playing politics in the constituency and try to undermine the Member of one party. That leads to a waste of public money, to officials getting letters from every corner of the geographical area and to utter cynicism on the part of the constituents.
I return to my question: how would I behave? I would think, “I am there for 15 years. The average tenure of a Member of Parliament is about eight years; perhaps it might be a little longer with fixed-term Parliaments. I am going to be the incumbent. I am going to be the person whom everybody knows. So what am I going to do? I am going to do everything I can to ensure that my party wins the constituencies in my areas—that is what I am going to do”. The idea that we will be like Members of the European Parliament, as the noble Baroness suggested a moment ago, is ridiculous. And, in behaving like that, we would undermine the whole nature of this place.
The Deputy Prime Minister says that he is bringing forward these proposals in order to restore trust in Parliament. They are based, he says, on a principle that they will not alter the way in which Members of Parliament behave. But of course they will. If I am elected, I will have constituents; and they are going to come to me with problems, and I am going to do everything that I can to advance their cause. Even if that means making life difficult for those down the corridor, of course I am going to do it.
By the way, the most ignorant part of the statements made in support of this legislation has come from those who have said that the conventions and powers will remain the same. The powers of this House are unlimited. Do those in the other place who support these proposals understand just what we are capable of doing if we have democratic legitimacy? That is the message for the House of Commons, which was made so powerfully and effectively by that champion of Parliament, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in her excellent speech yesterday.
No, we want no part of abolition. But we do want reform, and reform is there. I advise those members of the Joint Committee, who have been handed a hospital pass, that at their first meeting they should conclude that there is nothing to be done except to pass the Steel Bill. It would reform this House. It would let the hereditaries wither away by getting rid of the by-election system. It would allow retirement and remove on permanent leave of absence those who do not come here. It would provide for an independent Appointments Commission. That is a sensible piece of reform that we could pass tomorrow. It is ludicrous that Parliament should be treated as a kind of political football in a game which, at its roots, comes from the failure of the Liberal Party to retain the trust of the people because it did not keep the promises it made at a general election. There is no criticism of the work of this House. The implementation of a regular guillotine has undermined the work of the House of Commons and made it all the more important that we fulfil our constitutional duty.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Whether one agrees with him or not, he always speaks with conviction, elegance and a great deal of humour. I must begin my remarks with a confession: when I was in the other House, I voted for a fully elected House of Lords. We had a series of debates and votes, and a number of us on the Labour Benches thought that it would be a good tactic if we all voted that way because that would kick it into the long grass—fools that we were. When my right honourable friend Jack Straw came to the next meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party he entered like Caesar into Rome, triumphant and convinced that the power of the arguments had convinced so many of his colleagues to support an elected House. After a while, a number of us felt that we should not let him go on living in that illusion and started to tell him that we had only voted that way tactically. I remember telling him at the end, “Jack, you are more likely to witness the second coming than you are to get agreement on reform of the House of Lords”.
Looking at the draft Bill, I can think of no other set of proposals that has come before your Lordships’ House pretending to be one thing whereas, on examination, it is something completely different. This so-called House of Lords Reform draft Bill is definitely a case of mutton dressed as lamb. If we are honest, it is more about House of Lords abolition than House of Lords reform. We are told in the foreword written by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that replacing this House with an elected second Chamber is necessary because the present House lacks sufficient democratic authority. However, will these proposals make a real difference and correct this supposed lack of democratic authority? I do not believe that they will. This is why the document needs very careful reading.
I take us back a step or two—in fact, as far as 1832. The Deputy Prime Minister has been on record as saying that the Government’s constitutional change agenda builds on the Great Reform Act 1832. We do not go in for great constitutional change all that often in this country. When we do, we tend to exaggerate what we have achieved at the end of the day. The Great Reform Act is a point in question. True, it did increase the franchise. The electorate rose to a massive 813,000, with 335,000 more voters. However, the population was 24 million. In fact, only four of every 100 men— women were certainly not allowed to vote—had the vote. Despite the Act, the number of MPs in southern England was disproportionately high and 73 rotten boroughs remained in existence. There was no secret ballot, and MPs were still able to bribe the electorate. The right to vote—which we now take as a basic right—then depended on ownership of land. In truth, by today’s standards, the Great Reform Act was not that great and only scratched the surface of reform.
I give it as an example because I see similarities with the claims that the Government now make for their proposed changes. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister say that this House as constituted lacks democratic authority. Their solution to this lack of democratic authority is a senate in which members will be elected for 15 years. For the life of me, I cannot see that a senator elected for 15 years and not able to seek re-election enhances our democracy. Once elected, these senators need take account of no opinion or view other than their own. How are they to be held to account? How does that give them democratic authority? A senate where members sit for 15 years without the electorate being able to hold them to account will have no greater democratic authority than this appointed House of Lords has now.
Then we have the proposal for a part-elected, part-appointed House. It is already clear that a 15-year term denies the elected senator democratic authority. On the Government’s own definition, an appointed House of Lords also lacks democratic authority. Therefore, if the proposals in the draft Bill were to become law, both elements in the new House—the elected and appointed—would lack democratic authority. This begs the question: why are we making this change? If the House is partly elected and partly appointed, I am sure that the elected element will think that, as it has been sent to Parliament by the people, it has greater legitimacy than those who are appointed. Where will that lead us?
What if party A decides to elect as its leader a member of the senate? What if that leader leads the party to victory in a general election? The Prime Minister would sit in the senate and the Leader of the Official Opposition would sit in the Commons. This would put an end to the weekly gladiatorial combat between Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition. Many would say that that is a good thing. However, we have been used to the Prime Minister of the day being held to account by the alternative Prime Minister of the day because we think that that is a good thing. All that would disappear.
I ask the Minister who has the unenviable task of replying to this debate: why not save us all a lot of time and go back to the drawing board? If the Government do that, I urge them to think of strengthening the present Chamber by introducing an element of indirectly elected members—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.
In a previous incarnation I served on Gwent County Council. In those days the health service was delivered by a board, which was made up of members of the county and borough councils, who were indirectly elected. It was complemented by appointed members— medical professionals and the like. This way we delivered a very effective health service. However, there was an element of indirect election to the way that the board was constituted. If we had an indirectly elected element in this House, the representatives could come from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. At a time when there is much talk of an independent Scotland, and of English MPs—and possibly English Peers—alone being allowed to vote on matters affecting England—and we see the Welsh and the Northern Ireland assemblies vested with new powers, surely anything that strengthens our union is a good thing. A House that would have representatives from the nations and regions would benefit and strengthen the union.
The proposals before us are no great reform. They should be scrapped. With the best will in the world, the Government should think again and listen to us.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, yesterday’s debate—plus all the debates that we have had since I joined the House—confirms my view that some things never change, and highlighted the old adage, “If it is not necessary to change, it is not necessary to change”. As I am 63rd in the list and after some truly amazing speeches, it is difficult to say anything novel on this subject. It is particularly difficult if one goes back through the literature on previous attempts in the 20th century to reform the House of Lords. Not one of these attempts was put forward with the claim that it would in any way improve the House of Lords. Surely the purpose of reform—particularly political reform—is to improve something so as to benefit the community at large. Improvement must be well thought out and not just an exercise in change for change’s sake.
Many of the speeches yesterday and today, together with many of the speeches in previous debates, dealt with—or purported to deal with—the demand for greater legitimacy and/or repairing the democratic deficit of the House of Lords. We have been told that there is a demand for change. Where is the demand coming from? Where is the evidence of a great swell of concern? What is negative in our operational efficiency now? If we accept that scrutiny is our most important task, is this affected by the lack of legitimacy or by the democratic deficit?
Last weekend I tried to distance myself from the rather frenetic and fetid mood in the House as I prepared for the debate this week. I decided to try to ascertain what the political atmosphere was in which the arguments and processes of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in 1968-69 were undertaken.
There is a riveting description in the biography of Enoch Powell by Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. When the Bill was introduced, it was apparent that the Government had not made clear their detailed intentions because, according to the author, the Government “did not itself know”. According to Simon Heffer, the Bill was so poorly drafted and such a provocation to the Back-Benchers that even after three days in Committee hardly any progress had been made; and the Government, embarrassed and angered by this, and not least by the guerrilla tactics operating from their own side, began to show the first signs of cracking.
That is a relevant warning from the past to the Government as the similarities between the two Bills, 43 years apart, are striking, although one is in draft. Both are of similar length. Both are very badly drafted; and both were produced on the back of cross-party parliamentary discussions that were discontinued. It did not work then; does the Minister think it will work now?
The end of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was a devastating defeat for the Wilson Government. After 13 days in Committee, only five clauses had been dealt with. It was jamming up the legislative programme and was, finally, dumped. Not only was the other place disaffected, it was clear that there was neither demand nor desire from the public for House of Lords reform. I defy anyone to put up a good argument to defeat my assertion that there is no more public demand or desire now than there was then for House of Lords reform.
In the closing section of this contribution, I wish to move from an historical analysis to the issue of the experience and expertise available in this House, which is greatly appreciated by the selfsame public and, markedly so, by academics, EU member states and further afield. There is an office in this building—and I am sure it is not unique—which houses 10 noble Lords, 10 desks, each with a two-drawer integral filing cabinet and 15 stand-alone two-drawer filing cabinets. The office is a model of political correctness as it has an equal gender balance. Prior to entering the House of Lords, each of the 10 occupants had individual offices, secretaries, assistants et cetera. There has never been a complaint about our working conditions. Why is that? It is because each of us is so absorbed in the work of the House, particularly scrutiny, so busy in preparing for Committee sessions, so involved in attending various meetings and in working in the Chamber that we have no time to think about being caged up in a cramped office, 96 steps from the entrance with a dodgy lift. The lights are normally on at 8 o’clock in the morning—and they were on earlier this morning—and are never off before 10 pm. They went off at 11.15 pm last night. The occupants have never complained about the working hours. Why would they? They are honoured to have the opportunity to work very hard for this country in scrutinising legislation and ensuring that, using their experience and expertise, they can influence such legislation for the better.
In this case, the experience and expertise of the Peers is quite astonishing. Where would one get a group of 10 elected Members—call them what you will—who between them have: combined membership of the House of Commons totalling 85 years: held a position as a professor of government and acknowledged constitution expert and have well over 30 years of academic teaching: served as a Treasury Minister; served as a Health Minister; served as an Education Minister; served as Paymaster-General; served as a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons; served as local government leaders, as two have done; operated in the charity sector as administrators and fundraising experts, as four have done; and hands-on business experience of agriculture, food, retailing, air transport, communications and utilities? I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who unfortunately is not in her place, that that experience and expertise resides in a Conservative office, not a Cross-Bench office, and I suspect there are plenty of offices like that in all parts of the House.
Do the Government think that if this draft Bill succeeds in its present form those 10 Peers could, or would, be replaced by others with such varied experience and expertise, all of which is used in the important work of this House? Would they work as hard? Would they achieve as much? Those who would stand for election to this House, almost certainly as their second option, having been defeated in attempts to be elected to the House of primacy, are hardly likely to possess such a range of skills, or does the Minister think they might, and how much does he think it might cost?
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, it was on 17 May that the Government published their White Paper and draft Bill and, by happy coincidence, that was also my 75th birthday. I have always regarded this document as some sort of unintended, but none the less welcome, birthday present. I genuinely congratulate the Government on at least producing this Bill which, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will say tonight, Labour signally failed to do. Mind you, when I see the Government’s Bill, I am very glad that Labour did not produce one. I have no doubt that the Labour Bill would have been better than the Conservative one, but if it was based on the Jack Straw 2008 White Paper, I would certainly have voted against it because it would suffer from the same problem as the Government now suffer from. With smoke and mirrors and weasel words, you can pretend to be all things to all men in a White Paper. You can pretend that somehow you can devise a system of election that will be both accountable and yet in no way threaten the primacy of the House of Commons. Once you come down to legislation, you have to make a choice and spell out specifically what you are doing.
The Government have given themselves a life raft, if you like, by publishing, somewhat unusually, a White Paper alongside the Bill. You are meant to have made up your mind what is in a Bill before you publish it, but innovation is always a good thing. They have the life raft there because they recognise that once you go into detail, support for election, which is a wonderful slogan, disaggregates like snow off a dyke. The fact is that the Opposition and Cross Benches could take the day off, and this Bill, put to a secret ballot of the government Benches, would be defeated overwhelmingly in this House, and the Government know it. I am not asking for a secret ballot—that would be unreasonable—but it is at least reasonable to expect that the Government will give their membership a free vote. Let me say, and I mean no disrespect to our Whips, that if they do not give us a free vote, I am taking one, and I will be voting against the Bill. There have also been rumours that the Parliament Act might be used. Frankly, I think the Government would be well advised to dissociate themselves from that position very quickly. It smacks very much of an elective tyranny, and it would be wholly inappropriate for a constitutional Bill.
However, let us look at the Bill we have. After all, it has been in germination since 1832 and is the greatest reform Act we have ever seen, so one accepts that the Government have given it their best shot. This is the best that they can do, so what have they come up with? First, let us be quite clear that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, they are abolishing the House of Lords, not reforming it. I refer them to page 10, paragraph 1 of the White Paper. Secondly, they have gone for single, 15-year terms with no re-election. Let us recognise that that gives us no accountability whatever, not a scintilla. The reason they did that, I presume, is to try to make the system of election so divorced from that for the Commons that MPs will not feel threatened. Otherwise, they know the Bill will be defeated in the Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point yesterday evening that he wants to go further and have recall provisions. If I am elected for Scotland—because I gather that that is one big constituency nowadays for this Bill—I am going to make sure that I am not going to be recalled, so I am going to take steps, and I am going to demand powers to ensure that I am shown in a good light to my electorate. The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times will have the equivalent of bird-watching cameras trained on the door of the House to make sure that people elected turn up at least once in their 15 years and do not have their cheques sent to some bank account in Barbados.
The fact is that people will be wholly unaccountable. They will certainly be no more accountable than we are. Again, although the noble Lord, Lord McNally, visibly showed dissent about this, I remind the Government about the achievement of the Joint Committee on Conventions. If there is any doubt about it, at page 23, paragraph 61 of its report, it is spelled out, in terms, that this was an agreement based on the existing composition and if an elected element, let alone 80 per cent or 100 per cent, came in here, all bets were off, and it was a new deal. If we really want to clog up Parliament with the sort of nonsense that will go on, I suspect that the reputation of politics, which is already low, will plummet.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who used to be my MP—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
I think I may have. I found the Labour Party quite difficult to support in the 1970s and 1980s, as, indeed, did most of the Labour Party.
Let us go back to this campaign. How am I going to fight an election? How am I going to differentiate myself from everybody else who is standing and appear the better candidate? Am I going to promise things? If so, how are people going to know whether I have delivered on the promises? How am I going to deal with the heckler who says, “You say you are going to do that, but do you have the power to do it?”? If I do not have the power, I am quickly going to find a way of getting that power. The fact is that it creates instability in the political system and will eventually create gridlock.
I shall make a quick jibe about the fact that Members are going to be salaried. For a start, it rather intrigues me. I thought salary went with a job and did not depend on the way that you were put into that job. The public might think, “Hold on, if the present House of Lords is not paid, and this new crowd are paid, are they doing more? Have they more powers?”. The impression will certainly be that you have to justify that salary by making more noise than perhaps we currently do. Certainly the impression will be that you have to justify that salary by making more noise than perhaps we currently do.
Let us get rid of a couple of myths. First, there is the great mantra that it was in all three party manifestos. Please remind me which party manifesto was ringingly endorsed by the electorate at the last election? It seems to me that uniquely nobody really got a clean bill of health. I quite genuinely do not want to be unkind to the Liberal Democrats but they are the most associated with House of Lords reform. They have genuine pedigree on it. They did very badly at the election. The next party that did very badly was frankly the Labour Party. It had cottoned on to an elected House somewhat late in the day. Let us say that the view was sincerely held by many people. That party was rejected by the electorate. The only party that did tolerably well was the party that was most lukewarm about House of Lords reform, the Conservative Party. I would not pretend for a minute that the election swung on House of Lords reform but had it gone the other way, all three Front Benches would have been claiming that it was because of House of Lords reform that they were all elected and that they had a mandate. You cannot have it both ways.
Finally, I want to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said. The other myth is that this is the settled will of the House of Commons. That is absolute nonsense. In the 2007 vote a majority of Conservative MPs and a majority of Labour MPs voted against 80 per cent election. Indeed, in the 2003 vote the most popular option—all seven options were voted against, by the way, so much for a settled will of the Commons—or the one that was least unattractive was an all-appointed House.
I think we are looking for some political courage here. All three parties have had a go at this and all three have failed. You cannot square the circle. You cannot have an elected House of Lords without diminishing the power of the House of Commons. There might come a time when the electorate wants that but I do not think it is yet. I therefore do not want this kicked into the long grass. I want somebody to get the lawnmower out, clear a circle and give it a decent burial.
Lord Cobbold
My Lords, I am one of the many speakers who believe that the draft Bill we are debating today is not about House of Lords reform; it is about House of Lords abolition and replacement by an 80 or 100 per cent elected Chamber or senate. It is unlikely that many Members of the present House would wish to stand for election and so the new senate would not have the benefit of the experience and expertise that this Chamber enjoys and given that the new senators would be salaried, the proposed senate would cost several times as much as the present House. There can be little doubt that an elected senate would threaten the primacy of the House of Commons and, for this reason alone, I am surprised that any Member of the House of Commons supports the idea of an elected upper House.
To reject the proposals in the Bill is not to say that this House is not in need of some reform. Indeed, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, lists a number of reforms, all of which would or should be welcomed. The most urgent and important of these is the creation of a statutory appointments commission which would be responsible for all appointments to a life peerage and a consequential membership of this House. The commission should choose candidates from a publicly recognised range of experience and expertise with an agreed annual maximum number of appointments. Under present arrangements, there is no control on numbers of new appointments and consequentially no limit on total numbers in the Chamber. Following the exceptionally large number of recent new appointments, the House is definitely too large and one hopes that the excessive number of new appointments is not a deliberate tactic of those advocating an elected senate to weaken the present House.
There is no doubt that the present House of nearly 800 is too large and the Steel Bill suggests a system of voluntary retirement. While welcome in principle, I do not think that such a scheme could achieve the long-term reduction in membership that is required. In a sense, there is already a system of voluntary retirement in that a member may simply stop attending. I believe that a long-term reduction in existing membership can be achieved only by a system of compulsory retirement. This could be based either on the age of the Member or on period of service. Personally, I do not think age is the right choice. People age at different rates and I believe that the only fair and workable system would be a compulsory period of service for all Members which, in my view, should be 20 years. Given a fixed period of service of 20 years it should be possible for a Member reaching 20 years and still performing a valuable role in the House to be given an extension of service of, say, one to five years on application, I suggest, to the Lord Speaker. Implementing such a 20-year period of service would need to be accompanied by agreement on an optimal total size of the House, which is probably around 300, and a phased programme of retirement for the 150 Members of the present House with a period of service in excess of 20 years.
A further reform in the Steel Bill is the ending of the electoral process for choosing replacements for the 92 hereditary Peers when they die. While I am lucky to be one of the 92, I do not think that heredity can any longer justifiably be on its own a qualification for membership of this House. These suggested reforms are readily implementable. The Bill which is the subject of this debate must be rejected. It is a waste of time and money to set up yet another commission to investigate its merits.
Finally, if the coalition decides to proceed with the Bill, it is a major constitutional issue and could not be introduced without a referendum. In last year’s election, the manifestos of all three parties called for an elected upper Chamber so the public have not yet had the chance to express a view. A referendum could be the last way left to defeat the Bill. The Bill before us must be rejected: reform, yes; abolition, no.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I am not at all surprised that this debate has been conducted with such restraint and moderation. This House is well known for its courtesy and politeness, and for the measured and deliberative conduct of proceedings. None the less, I hope that no one will be deceived by the fact that this has been reasonably and calmly conducted. There is an underlining strength of feeling which has permeated all the speeches, most of which have been against what is proposed in the Government’s White Paper. The strength of feeling derives from the respect noble Lords have, and have acquired, for this place since they have been Members here. I am certainly no exception to that. I am saddened that the proposals have been brought forward by the present Government and appear to have been so little thought through. Frankly, the case for the fundamental changes contained in the White Paper has not been made out. It is simply not good enough to go on repeating the need for legitimacy, for a democratic mandate and for greater accountability without examining what those words could actually mean in practice.
Many noble Lords have referred to what might actually happen. Just how democratic would it be to have the list system, and on what basis would candidates put themselves forward for election? Would they bear a party ticket? Would they be answerable to any form of a mandate? How would they be selected—by the political parties or by whom? To whom would they be accountable? They would certainly not be accountable to the electorate that elected them, as has been made clear, because the electorate would have absolutely no sanction whatever, once a Member was elected. There would be enormously increased power, I suspect, for the political parties. There would be increased patronage for them.
I am therefore dismayed by what is proposed because it would do no good to this place and it would do little good for our democratic objectives. The Deputy Leader of this House has been very attentive throughout this debate and will be winding up tonight. I hope that he has taken careful note of what has been said so far. I hope that he has genuinely been listening and has not blocked his ears to what has been said, simply because he in favour of the proposals in the White Paper.
I trust the Joint Committee that has been established. I am sure that it will give a very thorough examination of what is proposed. However, when it considers these matters, it should have in mind that we are in a new world of communications. Here, we are concerned with ourselves, with our relationship with the other place and with our responsibilities in holding the Government to account, but we also need to have in our minds what is sometimes described as “the outside world”—the world beyond. It is not so much parliamentary speeches that influence attitudes outside, but the new means of electronic communication by the blogs, Twitter and whatever other means are available. That is what captivates people, and the media are fastening onto that, as they well know, because they are replicating it for their own purposes. We therefore need to reach out to them by other means, but it is not the purpose of this Chamber to do so. If this Chamber is to be a revising Chamber—which it is—let us focus on that and continue to do the work here.
I hope that the Government will not persist with the draft Bill as presented because it has no chance of getting through this place anyway. I hope that instead they will go for the incremental changes, some of which are contained in the draft Bill and others that are in the Steel Bill.
I could add a few more. If the Government are looking for advice, let me give a little advice of my own. In addition to the proposals in the Steel Bill, there should be no automatic linkage with membership of this House on elevation to the peerage. That can happen straight away. There should be an increased use of general debates on topical issues and on matters demanding urgent consideration, for which this House is very well suited. There could be much-extended use of the committee structure, so well exemplified by our European Union Committee. There should be more committee powers to summon Ministers. Sometimes, on major issues, Ministers could even be summoned to the Floor of this House. I have a suggestion that might appeal to my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister—given that Deputy Prime Ministers seem to be in vogue—should always be a Member of this House. He should then be subjected to regular parliamentary Oral Questions and have a long session of them once a week in this place. Perhaps my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister might volunteer to come forward and try this out in this place.
In those ways, along with the incremental changes in the Steel Bill, and with other suggestions that could be put forward—all of which could happen fairly quickly—this House would be enormously strengthened. It is the strengthening, not the weakening, of this House that would effectively demonstrate, not for the first time, that it is this House that properly speaks for all the people.
The Earl of Glasgow
My Lords, I am somewhat embarrassed. As a Liberal Democrat, I believed myself to be a member of the sensible party, and on nearly all issues I still believe that I am. However, in the case of House of Lords reform, my official party’s proposals make no sense to me at all.
I have always believed—and I thought that this was a fairly general view—that the House of Lords justified its existence by being a very effective revising Chamber. Its primary purpose was to scrutinise and improve government legislation and not, like the House of Commons, be a party-political slanging shop. The House of Lords succeeds in being an effective revising Chamber largely due to the quality and variety of its inmates. It is composed of the wise and the good, experts in an infinite number of fields, and representatives of nearly every ethnic group and religion in the country. Why should we want to exchange this for a Chamber of second-rate politicians who will feel that they have the democratic authority to challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons, where most of the first-rate politicians can be found?
Yet, say the architects of the draft Bill, this new second Chamber is still to remain subservient to the lower House and retain its functions as a revising Chamber. Second-rate professional politicians will be revising the work of first-rate professional politicians. It does not make any sense. We are told that this all has to be done in the name of democracy, but some in my party have a narrow definition of democracy. They are trying to push through a Bill that should be entitled “Let’s reform the House of Lords at any cost because it is not democratic and then see what happens after that”. That is the Bill that they seem to want to put through.
However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, this is not a reform of the House of Lords—I wish that the leaders of my party would be honest about this—it is abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a senate. I cannot think of a better example in modern politics of attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Fortunately, not everyone in my party is bent on constitutional vandalism. My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, has a Bill that is a serious attempt to reform the House of Lords—not to abolish it but to rid it of some of its anachronisms, indiscipline and absurdities while at the same time ensuring that it retains its primary function as an effective revising Chamber. My noble friend makes it clear that the only way to retain this carefully balanced House is by appointing Peers, not electing them.
Then, however, the delicate question in this case is: who does the appointing? Here, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Steel’s role model for a statutory appointments commission. I am proposing that the members of the appointment commission—the people responsible for appointing new Peers—should be the ones who are elected. When I say “elected”, I do not necessarily mean they should be elected by the people, I also mean indirectly elected, elected by their own association or group, or ex-officio appointments based on previous elections.
For instance, the Prime Minister or his representative would have to be on the commission. So, too, would the leaders of the other main parties. Members of the existing House of Lords might elect a Back-Bencher from each party to represent them; importantly, that would also apply to the Cross-Benchers. Under my proposal, that would be the extent of professional politicians’ representation. Other members of the appointments commission might be selected through election from key professions or important interest groups—the CBI and the TUC being the most obvious examples—and from leaders of important ethnic and religious groups.
If one must keep the commission to fewer than 25 members, which would be more than enough, there would clearly be some argument and competition over places. I personally like the idea of having, say, two people's Peers, possibly elected directly through the media, and I will be rooting for one elected hereditary, literally elected from among the 1,000 or so Peers. His presence would give the appointed Chamber some historical continuity and justify the House continuing to call itself the House of Lords. Whoever the members of the proposed commission turn out to be, I ask the committee set up to consider the House of Lords White Paper seriously to consider the possibility of an elected appointments commission. I hope that that will go some way to satisfy the leader of my party's diktat that anyone in any legislative position of power or influence and should be democratically chosen by and accountable to the people.
I believe that a second Chamber that, more or less, represents the best of British society as a whole in all its complexity is just as democratic and a good deal wiser than a second Chamber made up largely or entirely of elected politicians.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, the road to parliamentary hell is paved with good intentions translated into sloppily drafted, ill prepared, insensitive legislation. We have had a plethora of it over the past year. The White Paper and Bill do not even have the redeeming feature of good intentions. Perhaps the most scandalous revelation we have had in this debate was that by the Leader of the Opposition, when she told us how the members of the Joint Committee set up to produce the proposals were treated. They met only seven times—the last time six months before publication—and neither saw nor approved the draft White Paper or the Bill. I am amazed that they did not resign in indignation at that treatment.
I shall focus on just two points. The first is the practical constitutional one, which we have talked about, which is the balance of power between the Legislature and the Executive. Secondly, I shall suggest how to reduce the size of the House of Lords in a way that is voluntary, democratic, compassionate and cost-effective.
It was in his 1976 Dimbleby lecture that Lord Hailsham described Britain as an “elective dictatorship”. “Parliament”, he said,
“is now largely in the hands of the Government machine, so that the executive controls the legislature and not vice versa”.
He went on:
“Owing to the operation of the guillotine and other regulations designed to curtail debate, much of the programme is often not discussed at all”.
Although at that time the House of Lords had a massive built-in Tory majority, the constitutional conventions inhibited its use. In 1997, this situation took a serious turn for the worse. The Blair Government decided to use the guillotine routinely on all legislation so as to maximise the flow of legislation, with little regard to the consequences.
I was for 16 years in the Lobby. Indeed, I must confess that, apart from a few years as a party fonctionnaire, I cannot claim to be a proper politician at all. I was a mere observer of and commentator on the political scene, and I suppose that that is all I remain. However, I remember clearly that when there was an important Bill that was running into real difficulties, we used to speculate that the Government might be forced to introduce a guillotine. In those days, that had real political significance.
I had hoped, and indeed was confident, that one of the first things the coalition would do would be to end the automatic use of the guillotine on legislation. To my disappointment and to Mr Cameron's shame, there is no sign of that happening, so our people remain ever more reliant on the House of Lords to subject legislation to proper scrutiny untrammelled by timetables. Since the 1999 reform, this House has had growing confidence in doing so.
Who can doubt that if Mr Clegg's dreams were enacted it would not be long before that opportunity for scrutiny would be emasculated? All Governments are ruthless when they can be, and a regular guillotine would arrive with the senate. That, incidentally, is why the Opposition should never repeat the disgraceful filibuster tactics that they used here last year—although I admit that they had much provocation.
I come to the best way of keeping the size of the membership of the House within reasonable limits. I do not buy the idea that it is making the House harder to operate. An overcrowded Question Time is no bad thing. After the House of Commons was bombed, the new Chamber was designed precisely to achieve that. However, our membership is now more than 800, although the daily attendance is 450. I would set a limit of about 500. None of the alternatives in the Leader's Group report on the issue of Members leaving the House, which we will discuss in due course, seems to be acceptable. I believe the proposal for group elections put forward in the excellent speeches by my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Reay involves compulsion, which would have undesirable consequences.
One reason that voluntary retirement on its own would not work is the new daily tax-free allowance of £300. I most warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on his courage in introducing it, because it has ended once and for all the risk of further scandals on expenses—in this House, anyway.
My proposal is that on taking permanent retirement, any Peer should receive a tax-free single-sum gratuity for public service. Each Peer would receive the amount he or she asked for—provided, of course, that no one was prepared to accept a lower sum. One way of operating it would be for the Government to open it for, say, 50 retirements. Anyone could apply and the sums paid out to those who succeeded would of course be published; the unsuccessful bids would not. Bids would be accepted up to a limit of 50 seats or so or until the sum available had run out. The process could be repeated periodically until the number was down to the required total.
That may be an unusual suggestion, but I believe that once it had been thought through by the media and the public it would be seen as being transparent, truly voluntary and, most importantly, cost-effective.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I would be grateful if between now and the report from the committee scrutinising the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, could write for me what he thinks the Sunday Telegraph and the Mail editorials would be on his proposal.
Lord Marlesford
I never attempt to write editorials for other papers.
Meanwhile, I support the call for a moratorium on numbers made in April by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others in the UCL House Full report.
Mr Cameron has a problem. In this package, he is offering Mr Clegg a sum of Danegeld that he cannot pay; his cheque will bounce. As has been made clear, there can be no question of whipping this Bill through this House. The simplest solution would be for the House of Commons, where there is, in any case, a growing number of Members opposed to Mr Clegg's best guess, to be offered a free vote at Second Reading, if ever it gets that far, and for the Conservative Whips to indicate that the Prime Minister would not be heartbroken if it were defeated. After all, it is the supremacy of the House of Commons that we are debating.
On the point about us not being representatives, many people in this House have been elected representatives for a long time, but now we are all servants of the people. That is no dishonourable title.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I indicate that, after we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, I propose to adjourn the debate for a short while so that we may convene for Questions. I shall make appropriate announcements at that stage.
Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, I regret that yesterday I was unable to be present for a number of contributions from your Lordships. Therefore, I ask for the indulgence of the House if I repeat points already made by noble Lords yesterday and today.
I wish to focus my contributions on one very simple and, to my mind, fundamental issue: that neither House is perfect and that any fundamental review of the parliamentary institutions of this country should involve both Houses. That review should be much deeper and more comprehensive in nature than that delivered in the hastily prepared and superficial measure which we are now considering, and which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—I echo my noble friend Lord Marlesford—has informed us, apparently even by-passed members of the committee of the House. I respectfully remind my noble friend the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister stated, more than once, when Leader of the Opposition, that any reform of Parliament should start in the Commons. There is clearly no prospect of a review of this nature or depth taking place at present and, therefore, we are where we are: two Houses, neither of which is perfect either in composition or functioning.
Several of your Lordships have pointed out that government in this country can be said to be, in practice, almost unicameral. Your Lordships must, at least for the time being, continue to remain subordinate to the Commons and the object, in this Parliament, must surely be to endeavour to succeed in making this House the most effective, but junior, partner in the legislative function. I am personally of the view that in the 10 years since the passing of the House of Lords Act, this House has probably been working more effectively than at any time in the whole of its history, a view enunciated by my noble friend Lord Higgins, who is not in his place.
Quite a short time ago, if you were speaking in your Lordships’ House after 5.30, it was customary to start by saying, “I will not detain your Lordships unduly”. I also intend not to delay your Lordships unduly but for a different reason. I am speaker number 69 and 31 are still to speak. If this view is accepted, it is all the more regrettable that a Bill should be proposed to abolish this House—if anyone is in any doubt about that, the historic intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, will live in all our memories—without, apparently, taking any significant steps to reform the other place. Rather we should be building on the undoubted efficiency of this House in servicing the Commons and most particularly in the process of scrutiny and in calling the Government to account. At the same time—this is fundamental—we should not pose a challenge to what is, in practice, the supreme legislative sovereignty of the Commons.
Assuming this Bill fails, breathing a sigh of relief and doing nothing is not an option. The way forward must surely be through measured evolvement and improvement. Perhaps it is fortuitous that, at present, we have three admirable initiatives which—dare I say?—show the intention of giving effect to that process. These are, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Steel, together with the two documents prepared under the chairmanships of my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Goodlad. If, as is possible, the proposed Bill does not leave the Commons, the shortcomings which it embraces will fall away, not least of which is the question of powers in the Bill which have been the subject of a delicate body swerve.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the so-called democratic deficit, or lack of democratic accountability, raised by so many noble Lords. Very briefly, I suggest to your Lordships that such accountability is one thing that this House positively does not need and that the scrutiny of legislation and business in this House is much more effectively done without such accountability. That is a circular argument because, as several noble Lords have pointed out, democratic accountability goes out of the window with a 15-year election with no re-election at the end. I invite your Lordships to consider the feeling of freedom which an elected Member will feel on day one after election to such a reformed House.
One problem which will need to be addressed in any evolvement of your Lordships’ House is the question of appointments. I shall not go into the detail, already mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, but there can surely be no doubt that a strong appointments commission with statutory powers is an essential component in any way forward. It must be pro-active in looking out for suitable independent Peers and reactive in vetting political appointees. That is not me speaking—it is far too clever—but my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. The commission, in its present form, so admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, provides a fine example on which to build. I am very pleased to note that this is incorporated within the Bill of my noble friend Lord Steel.
This House is aware of its shortcomings and its weaknesses. They are being continually addressed in this House. This hastily and badly thought-through Bill—a theme running through this debate—will have the effect, not of reforming, but of abolishing this House. I suggest that is not the right way to go about it. If anyone, in support of the Bill, needs to give it further thought, I commend the research done by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the costs of this operation.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, when I think of the sheer value and quality that your Lordships bring to our legislative process, I think of a tribute paid to my noble friend Lady Warnock by a new Cross-Bench Peer, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in a debate on disability and SEN. Referring to the struggle that her parents had to get her into a secondary school of the quality able to develop her talents to the full, she said that it was the Warnock report that had been responsible for opening the right doors for her to develop her potential. Of course, we cannot all claim to have quite the same considerable record as the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Grey-Thompson. Indeed, one or two of us may have slipped in under the wire—an expression used last night—but that is the kind of quality that this country would lose from the Cross Benches if we passed this draft Bill.
I became aware of those qualities when I first entered the Chamber in 2001, as one of the first tranche of people’s Peers, appointed to the Cross Benches by that newly created and still not statutory Appointments Commission. Even more significantly, I came to realise the diversity and range of expertise and experience that was on hand. One change that new group of 14 or so Cross-Benchers achieved was to pilot a somewhat wider role in your Lordships’ House than those on the Cross Benches had taken previously. We were told that usually Cross-Benchers took part only in those Bills and debates on issues covered by their expertise and experience. However, a number of us in that new intake decided to play a slightly wider role, being prepared to listen to all the arguments and take a very full part in proceedings. That practice is much more prevalent than it was. I suppose that I should be thankful that 20 per cent of Cross-Benchers are to be retained in the Chamber, so there would still be a small degree of expertise and experience to draw on.
My second point is obvious and has been mentioned often; none of us can claim to be here because we have been chosen by the people through any form of election. In short, there is no way that we can claim to be specially chosen. Therefore, in the jargon, we are illegitimate. However, we should not be dismayed by that analysis, for, as many others have pointed out, both today and yesterday, legitimacy comes—as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said—in many forms. The second Chamber has always included groups of nominees, chosen for example by the monarch or by the Prime Minister, and today by the Appointments Commission.
The draft Bill can clearly be seen to have significantly damaging effects on the future shape, style and performance of the House—so much so that it has been described very accurately by many noble Lords as providing not for the reform of the House but for its abolition. I stress again the special, positive quality of the House and its huge range of specialist experience and expertise. Two hundred Cross-Benchers out of 750 would help to determine the quality of wisdom of the points that we lay before the other place—many of which, as we know, are rightly accepted. One thing is clear about the so-called reformed House; only one-fifth of Members will be nominated rather than elected. Therefore, the great bulk of those talents will disappear, and the volume and diversity of independent specialisms and expertise will shrink almost out of sight.
I come to my first question. Why on earth is this being done and what benefit is it going to achieve? How is it going to improve the results and performance of what we need a second Chamber to do—if we need one at all? That is the alternative question: why have a second Chamber if it is not going to perform the sort of role that we have now? Under the new regime, in the brand new House, 240 Members—five out of every six—will be able to say, “We are on exactly the same terms as those in the other place, so why should we continue to regard the Commons as superior to us?”. Clearly, the risk of gridlock is very serious indeed.
I come to my third and final point. Why incur the lunatic extra costs—apparently £177 million in the first year alone—of paying the salaries and expenses of the new senators’ staff? What on earth will we gain? I would rather go along with the auction that was suggested; at least that would be an amusing way to pass the time as we look toward our demise. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, it is quite clear from opinion polls that this so-called reform has absolutely no interest for the public—and, surprisingly, precious little for the press—yet we are facing the important and potentially very damaging prospect of losing a uniquely valuable and quite irreplaceable institution.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
This may be a convenient point to adjourn the debate until after Oral Questions and the First Reading of the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I beg to move.
Pakistan: Religious Minorities
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advocacy the Foreign Office is undertaking on behalf of persecuted religious minorities in Pakistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we engage regularly with the authorities in Pakistan on issues of religious freedom. Most recently, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my honourable friend Mr Burt, discussed religious freedom with the newly appointed Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Interfaith Harmony and Minority Affairs. He also met religious leaders from across Pakistan as part of the Ministry’s Interfaith Council. Ministers and our High Commission in Islamabad will continue to maintain regular contact.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, what does the abject failure of the authorities in Pakistan to bring to justice those who were responsible for the brutal murder of Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, and of Shahbaz Bhatti, the courageous Minister for Minorities, say about their commitment to uphold the rule of law and to protect minorities? Is not impunity for murder, forced conversion, rape, forced marriage, the denial of civil rights and the failure to protect Ahmadis, Sufis, Shias, Christians, Hindus and others directly linked to the rise of the Taliban in Pakistan? Does it not point to the crucial importance of returning to the original vision of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, who insisted on upholding the rights of minorities, saying that they should have a full place in Pakistan society?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, the noble Lord has set out a grim and very telling catalogue. The events he has described are appalling, particularly the recent murders and the apparent support by some members of the public in Pakistan for those who may even have carried out these atrocities. These are very worrying matters that we raise again and again with our friends and the authorities in Pakistan. We see Pakistan as a country to which we are bound by longstanding ties, but also a country where we must put forward our values in a strong and effective way. I have to say to the noble Lord that no one can be happy about this pattern of affairs, or with the advance in extremism around the country, no doubt encouraged by apparent aspects of impunity. All these matters are constantly in our minds and constantly in the way that we are developing our relationship with Pakistan, a great nation that needs certain help and support at this difficult time.
Lord Elton
My Lords, as the minority groups in Pakistan number some 14 million people, of whom around 3 million are Christian, this is a major problem. Can the Minister confirm that 1.2 million people living in this country are of Pakistani origin, and that this form of violence has now been exported here, particularly in relation to the Ahmadi population? Perhaps it is worth mentioning what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did not say. In his speech, Jinnah said:
“Minorities … will be safeguarded. Their religion, faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship”.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is right, as was the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to remind us of the original qualities and values which the founders of the state of Pakistan, and obviously Mr Jinnah himself, put forward. In the present situation we want to try to maintain, deepen and, in some cases, resurrect these things. As to our own direct links with Pakistan, I am told that there are 1 million British citizens in this country with family connections in Pakistan. Believe it or not, the number of visits and journeys undertaken between this country and Pakistan each year amounts to 1.4 million. So our ties are close, which puts us in a position where we have responsibility and, I hope, credibility and some authority in dealing with our Pakistani friends.
Lord Ahmed
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Articles 20, 21, 22, 26 and 27 of the Pakistan constitution guarantee rights for all minorities? Does he agree that the rights of all citizens, regardless of their religion or group, should be protected? Pakistan is at war with extremists and terrorists, and since expressing its support for Operation Enduring Freedom, has lost some 34,000 citizens. Is not the right approach that of supporting Pakistan’s institutions and its democratic Government, as Her Majesty’s Government are already doing? It is better to support friends when they are in difficulties rather than kicking them when they are down.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is correct. No one questions the fact that Pakistan is facing fearful challenges of all kinds, one of which is its contiguity to Afghanistan and the challenges of extremism. Taliban operations are just one example of many pressures on Pakistani society. Of course we must approach these matters in a supportive mood, but we must also uphold our values. The fact is that, for instance, the blasphemy legislation is part of the Pakistan penal code. We have raised the issue of that kind of legislation by pointing to some of the tensions and excitements it generates. We would like to see a pattern where that kind of regulation, along with the attitudes and terms it generates, is less prominent. That might lead to some reduction in the violence and the apparent readiness of some people to commit acts of terrible atrocity, particularly the two murders just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Prime Minister himself has made any representations to President Ali Zardari to provide adequate protection for Ahmadi Muslims, who have been subject to multiple assassinations and incessant persecution fuelled by the Khatme Nabuwat, who openly incite to murder in leaflets and public speeches? Will the Prime Minister take up with Zardari the denial of voting rights to Ahmadis by requiring them to make a sworn statement contradicting an article of their faith in order to be included on the electoral register?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was in Pakistan only a few months ago and certainly made representations on all aspects of human rights and religious persecution in Pakistan, and I think that his views were very well received. Specifically on the Ahmaddiyya, we meet regularly with representatives of the Ahmaddiyya community to listen to their concerns. Most recently Mr Burt, whom I have already mentioned, and my noble friend Lady Warsi met representatives of minority religious groups to discuss freedom in Pakistan. About a month ago, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary publicly condemned the Lahore attacks on the Ahmaddiyya community. We are well aware of these pressures and we dislike them, as does my noble friend. We continue to raise these issues as vigorously as we can.
Turkey: EU Membership
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what barriers they have identified in the negotiations for the accession of Turkey into the European Union and what steps they are taking to overcome them.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, Turkey’s European Union membership has the full support of this Government, subject to the rigorous application of the accession criteria. We work closely with Turkey to support progress in its domestic reform programme to meet EU standards. The Cyprus problem is an immediate obstacle to progress in the accession process. We support all efforts towards a solution on Cyprus and encourage Turkey to implement the additional Ankara protocol.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that popular sentiment in Turkey is moving against EU membership just when Turkey’s importance to the EU and to the region is increasing. In addition to the measures that he has outlined, will he consider devising with our EU partners a new, clear and dedicated initiative to speed up Turkey’s accession?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I hear what my noble friend says, but the new Government of Mr Erdogan—his party has just been elected for an historic third time, which is a remarkable record—have made it clear through the words of Mr Davutoglu, the Foreign Minister in the last Government and I think in this one, that they wish to continue with their aim of achieving EU accession. Therefore, the policy remains. Of course it is debatable and of course parts of public opinion in Turkey take a different view about how the relationship with the European Union should be developed, but overall, as I understand it, the Government of Turkey remain committed and seek our support and alliance to achieve that aim. That is what we are working on. I have mentioned one obstacle, that of Cyprus, which is obviously very difficult. If we make progress on that and the Turks can admit Greek Cypriot ships to their ports under the protocol that I mentioned, we will definitely be moving in a positive direction, which I think would benefit both Turkey and the European Union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, do Her Majesty’s Government regard the opinion of the British people as a barrier to Turkish entry, not to mention the opinions of the people of Germany, France, Austria and elsewhere in Europe? Is it not also the case that the people of Turkey are beginning to see a very much better future for themselves outside the failing project of European integration?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am not sure that the noble Lord is entirely right in his assessment of public opinion generally. Certainly it is true that in France and Germany there are strong sentiments against Turkey joining the European Union, but I have not heard the same sort of sentiment in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that we are a strong country in supporting the reform of the European Union to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. Part of that pattern of reform may well involve the integration of this very powerful and dynamic nation that Turkey is emerging as, with its own foreign policy agenda, which so far includes a closer and constructive relationship with, and indeed involvement in, the European Union.
Lord Liddle
While many of us on this side of the House agree strongly that the EU should adopt a more welcoming approach to Turkish membership, does the noble Lord not agree that the accession of such a large country as Turkey would inevitably weaken Britain’s voting strength in the European Union and have major implications for policy issues such as migration? Why is it that under the European Union Bill that we have been debating in this House, which requires referendums on 56 separate locks, the accession of Turkey would not be subject to a referendum? Does this not indicate the nonsense in the legislation that is before us?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thought that the noble Lord might raise that matter in relation to accession. He is obviously exercised by it and has, indeed, made clear his concerns over aspects of the Bill, which we debated at enormous length. I think that the best thing I can do is to give a very brief reply and say, no, I do not agree.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister bear in mind constantly the fact that Greece’s membership and Turkey’s lack of it is very often a severe barrier to the settlement of the Cyprus problem, to which there is real urgency? I declare my interest as chairman of the all-party group for Northern Cyprus.
Lord Howell of Guildford
There is absolutely no doubt that the Cyprus problem is a barrier and a difficulty and it would be excellent if the parties concerned could see a way to solving their problems and this long-standing issue of the division of Cyprus. I totally agree with my noble friend on that matter. It requires changes: it requires full support for what the United Nations is seeking to do, it requires a positive tone on the part of both Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus and it requires a positive tone in Athens and Ankara as well. All these changes are required and we are working to support them as hard as we can.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Does my noble friend agree that, in the context of the Copenhagen criteria, there are concerns about increasing authoritarianism, particularly to do with press freedom? Is he aware that Mr Erdogan has accused the Economist of being backed by Israel, simply because it chose to criticise his campaigning and presidential aspirations?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course, we raise questions of human rights, freedom of the press and other things with our Turkish friends at the right opportunities. Turkey is well aware of the outside pressures and the need to maintain high standards in the fields of human rights and good governance, but these are matters for the Turkish nation to pursue and we are confident that it is pursuing these matters on the right lines.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that in the recent general election in Turkey the first Christian deputy was elected to the Turkish Parliament. Does he agree that this might provide an opportunity to put more pressure on the Turkish Government in respect of their treatment of religious minorities? I have in mind the Syriac Orthodox population in the south-east of the country, particularly in the Tur Abdin region.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The Government are, of course, very new. These are matters that we have certainly raised in the past with the Turkish Government and will continue to raise. They have to be seen in a broader context, which is simply that Turkey is becoming a pivotal nation in the Middle East/north Africa pattern of events, in economic terms, in its dealings with its neighbours in turmoil, such as Syria, and generally in playing a crucial part in the global pattern of achieving stability and peace. In this broad context, the point that the right reverend Prelate has raised is very important. We will continue to have that part of our dialogue, but there are many other issues that we certainly want to discuss with increasing frequency with Turkey.
Hallmarking
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the outcome of the consultation, which concluded on 5 May, concerning the abolition of the regulations relating to the hallmarking of items made from precious metals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, as I have already explained in my reply to the noble Lord’s Question in this House on 4 May, there was no such consultation, nor was there a proposal to abolish hallmarking. The retail sector, of which hallmarking is a part, was the first sector to be considered as part of the red tape challenge review of some 21,000 individual regulations. The outcome of the retail sector review will be announced over the course of the summer.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a widely held view that the Government are indeed about to abolish hallmarking, egged on by the Europeans and encouraged by the Secretary of State, Dr Cable, with his well known Euro enthusiasms? Will she therefore now clearly state that that is not the Government’s intention and set aside what she says are these unwarranted fears?
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend has long experience of being a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box and he will know that I cannot do anything about anything to do with the retail survey which is going on at the moment. However, I can assure him that one of the oldest forms of consumer protection in this country, dating back some 700 years, is going to take some moving.
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, I declare an interest as a guardian of the Birmingham Assay Office.
Baroness Crawley
Thank you. Is the Minister aware of the serious lack of confidence that the UK’s assay offices have in this rather strange and opaque process that the Government have put in place to deal with this review? Will the noble Baroness guarantee that the essential hallmarking work of the assay offices is not damaged by this process?
Baroness Wilcox
I am very happy to reassure the noble Baroness that nothing we are going to do will worry or upset the assay offices and certainly not the Birmingham office, which, after all, is the biggest office in this country doing assay work. The noble Baroness is also president of the Trading Standards Institute, so she knows this subject very well. We are worrying unnecessarily and noble Lords need to look no further than the response to the red tape challenge. We have received more than 6,000 letters of endorsement for the assay office. There is nothing to worry about at this stage.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I welcome the assurances from my noble friend the Minister but it would be very good to have further assurances, as much as she is able. Does she agree that whatever decision is made on whatever red tape procedures that are going forward—whether that be on consultation or red tape—it will not lower the prestige and skills of silversmiths, goldsmiths and jewellers in this country, of whom we are most proud, and the values either now or in the future for our antiques industry? Will she confirm that it is beneficial in the eyes of the Government to know who made an object, and when and where it was made?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I agree with absolutely everything that my noble friend has said. We will do everything that we can to uphold such a marvellous protection for consumers in this country. Nothing about that is likely to change.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Art Market Federation. Is my noble friend aware that Chinese entrepreneurs are making small balls out of apple wood, giving them a thin skin of silver, sending them by air to the assay office at Heathrow, having them hallmarked as British and returning them to China? It is believed that, as a result, the value of the object is increased a hundredfold. Is my noble friend confident that the United Kingdom is securing an adequate return from the service that it is rendering?
Baroness Wilcox
I am sure that our assay offices know exactly what they are doing and they are well monitored by us. If my noble friend would like to send me a letter about these Chinese wooden objects coming into our airports, I am sure that I could respond. But I think he is worrying unnecessarily.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, while the Chester Assay Office had to close in the early 1950s, when the Minister is next in Chester will she take the opportunity to visit the wonderful display of silverwork with the Chester Assay mark in the Grosvenor Museum? In the mean time, will she recognise something that is very traditional and well loved by the British people? I hope that any precipitate move on behalf of the Government to abolish hallmarking will be resisted.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, if I get the opportunity, I certainly will make a visit. The assay office in Plymouth, where I come from, closed down many years ago, as have a lot of assay offices over time. The Government are looking at doing something positive in this area in order to compete with our European counterparts, particularly the Dutch. Under current UK law, UK assay officers can hallmark only in the United Kingdom. We are taking forward a legislative reform order, by April 2012 I hope, to allow UK assay offices to hallmark overseas so that we, too, can compete in Thailand and China.
Care Services: Older People
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neuberger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim report on the care of older people in their own homes, what plans they have to ensure appropriate care that respects dignity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, dignity and respect are the cornerstones of good quality care. The Government have made the Care Quality Commission responsible for assuring quality of care. It is the responsibility of local authorities to specify and commission care and providers to deliver it. The Government’s planned reforms for health and social care, with an emphasis on better commissioning, should increase our ability to drive up standards in services and result in improvements in quality of care.
Baroness Neuberger
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. However, is he aware that a large proportion of the responses to the interim report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission have come from the care workers themselves who feel that in present circumstances they are simply unable to provide care that provides dignity to the older people in their care? Can he assure this House that in those reforms that are going forward, measures will be taken to make sure that local authorities must commission services that allow real dignity, which probably means rather longer passages of care for the people concerned?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes some extremely important points and I agree with the thrust of them. As she said, these are interim findings. We all look forward to the finished report later in the year, which will no doubt contain deeper analysis than we have had access to so far. There can be no place for poor quality care in care services. We should all welcome an inquiry of this kind because it clearly will expose poor practice and will point the way towards some clear messages that we must bear in mind in the context of the Health and Social Care Bill. In that context, we are seeking to achieve much more joined-up commissioning so that we have health and social care working together towards quality outcomes.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a reprioritising of funding towards the care of people in their own homes is essential? Would he also agree that in training both commissioners and care workers a human rights approach is a very useful tool when caring for vulnerable older and disabled people in their own homes? I declare an interest as a commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Earl Howe: I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that being looked after in one’s own home is the preferred option for most elderly people. That is where we have to focus our attention and, over time, increasingly our resources to deliver good quality care in that context. She makes a very good point about training. Regarding the essential qualities of a good care worker, you cannot train anyone in a kind and compassionate attitude, which is probably the foremost requirement for anyone in that field. I take her point about human rights. My department is already speaking to the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has entered into a voluntary agreement with it to help us embed equality right across health and social care and to enable the commission and stakeholders to evaluate the progress we have made.
Baroness Wheeler: My Lords, I, too, welcome the work being undertaken by the EHRC on this vital issue. We know that there are substantial problems with commissioning and standards of care delivery. For example, many local agency contracts do not provide staff with travelling time between visits, which greatly adds to the pressures on them. Stories of older people even being catheterised to avoid the costs of an extra visit are not unheard of. However, as a carer, I stress that in my own locality, care agency arrangements work very well, to a high standard and as part of an integrated care package. How will the Minister ensure that future commissioning makes this experience the norm, bearing in mind that 81 per cent of publicly funded home care today is provided by the independent sector?
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness again makes some extremely good points. At the moment we have an architecture that, first, should ensure that basic standards of quality are maintained. We have that through the Care Quality Commission, whose job it is to register domiciliary care agencies and to ensure that they have systems in place to quality-assure themselves. That must be the starting point: agencies must make sure that they are delivering the service for which they have been commissioned. Secondly, it is also a matter of ensuring that we have visibility where problems arise and that service users are encouraged to believe that they can speak up for themselves, that whistleblowing is possible, and that anyone else who observes poor quality care should feel free to speak up and to know whom to tell when they see bad care happening.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton: My Lords, over four-fifths of local authority-funded home care is delivered by the private and voluntary sectors. In light of this, will the Government use the opportunity of the current Health and Social Care Bill to clarify that private and voluntary sector agencies providing home care services on behalf of local authorities are performing public functions under the Human Rights Act?
Earl Howe: I am sure that the noble Baroness, with her experience, can tell me a lot of what I do not know about what is built into the contracts that local authorities take out with private, independent and voluntary sector organisations. I would be surprised if the human rights obligations she refers to are not built into those contracts. It is clear that everyone has a basic human right to be treated properly wherever type of care is being delivered. The key here is to ensure that service users are aware of their rights. As I said earlier, my department is extremely keen to embed equalities and human rights in everything that it is responsible for.
Baroness Jolly: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what proportion of domiciliary care providers are owned by private equity companies?
Earl Howe: I am afraid that I do not have that figure in my brief. I am not sure whether my department will either but if I can find it out I will let her know, gladly.
Social Care Portability Bill [HL]
Scotland Bill
House of Lords: Reform
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Framlingham
My Lords, given the time limits on speeches, it is tempting to try to speak in a staccato shorthand manner, rather like Mr Jingle in Pickwick Papers. Sadly, I lack Charles Dickens’s skill with words and so I will have to say what I want to say in my own way.
I am conscious that I am one of the newest Members of your Lordships’ House, but I am quite a long-standing parliamentarian and spent my last 13 years in the Commons as a Deputy Speaker. I have seen ping-pong at close quarters and know only too well how an amendment to a Bill in this House can strike dread into hearts at the other end of the Palace. As a Deputy Speaker, I spent a long time not speaking but listening and, I hope, learning. I spent much time meeting Speakers and guests from other legislatures and being by turns proud and humbled by their reverence for our parliamentary system and traditions, including your Lordships’ House and the way its procedures work so well.
Before any momentous decision is taken, the key question is not how but why. If there is no satisfactory answer to why, then you never go on to how. To do so is only to waste time, effort and money, which should be spent where it could do some good. I am currently reading Adam Nicolson’s book about the making of the King James Bible. The Bible, a work of genius, was produced by a committee of 47, so committees can work. One sentence which guided them in their labours and which leapt out of its page at me in the context of this debate is:
“What virtue was there in newness, when the old was so good?”.
Indeed, what value is there in newness when the old is so good?
Abolition is self-evidently a bad idea. When weighing the issues, on one side of the scales are many good and treasured things; on the other side, the only thing is this increasingly debased currency of democracy. “Democracy” is a word like “community” and “stakeholder”; it had a meaning once but now it has become, sadly, debased. It has become a flag that has been pinned to too many masts; it has become tattered, bedraggled and, sadly, increasingly meaningless. Please let us call a spade a spade. This is not a reform; it is abolition.
The press renamed the allowances of Members of Parliament as expenses, to devastating effect. The community charge, whatever you think of it, became the poll tax and was killed immediately. This is abolition and the word “reform” must be corrected every time it is uttered. In all this, we must beware of relying on the media to tell a straight tale. They are no longer patriotic; they are no longer guardians of our constitution or cherishers of our traditions. We cannot rely on our newspapers or television even to be fair-minded. Their only concern nowadays is to fill their columns or their programmes with controversial or eye-catching headlines or photographs. If a serious argument goes by default to the detriment of our nation or its children and grandchildren, they show no signs of caring. In my political lifetime, I have watched this happen with growing unease. That now borders on despair, combined with bafflement at their lack of concern for the protection and preservation of a wonderful country such as ours.
Others have dealt, in great detail, with the nuts and bolts of the Bill, but the truth is that it is rotten at the core. I finish by using words that Mr Jingle might use: “Elected Peers not in conflict with the Commons? Nonsense. A 15-year term? Far too long. Continuing appointments? Confirms their value. Modify? Yes. Sensible reform? Yes. Abolition and Americanisation of our House? Certainly not”.
Baroness Goudie
My Lords, I am a radical. I believe in parliamentary reform—of both Houses. Scrutiny of legislation is only one example of where improvement is required, but it is illogical to focus exclusively on this House. On the contrary, it is only in the context of both Houses that one can identify the functions of this House and it is only after defining the functions of this House that one can sensibly approach the question of its composition.
I am a democrat—I believe in a fully elected House of Commons and the primacy of that House. That, of course, is what we have. To that extent, I am in favour of the status quo. No case has been made out that any weaknesses of this House will be cured by the proposed change in composition. No confidence can be maintained that the strengths of this House may not be impaired—far from it. The one certainty is that there will be uncertainty and confusion about primacy and the relationship between the two Houses. There is the potential for paralysis. It is naive to suppose that if this House were elected its Members would not consider that this elected House had at least equal legitimacy to the other elected House.
To meet this point, it is proposed that there should be different electoral systems, but that is merely digging a deeper hole. It is bizarre to be considering an alternative voting system just after it has been rejected in a referendum. More seriously, those who believe that the single transferable vote or proportional representation, or whatever, is superior to first past the post will inevitably consider that this House enjoys the greater legitimacy of the two. It is nothing short of absurd to imagine that the conventions that govern the relationship between the two Houses would remain anything like the same. These proposals are ill thought out. The hybridity will not command support in the country.
At a time of acute constraints on public expenditure, expense will be incurred. We saw the figures yesterday, while yesterday’s Gallup poll highlighted the problems of well-being for low-income families. Those are the issues that we should be discussing in this House and the other House.
These proposals will monopolise parliamentary time, not only over the issue of new creations but because they envisage removing those who were, unquestionably, appointed for life. They will therefore turn an appointed House into a disappointed House, which will need to scrutinise, at the least, the transitional arrangements. I welcome the establishment of the Joint Committee of both Houses to consider all these matters in detail. However, for most Members of this House, and certainly for the general public, there are greater priorities.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, when I read the Government’s White Paper, I was struck by how extraordinarily unbalanced it was. Ninety per cent of the White Paper dealt with the method of election to an elected House, the difference to the Bill if there were not appointed Peers and the period of the transition. There were two sentences only on the role and functions of the House and on its relationship to the other place. These sentences said that the Government see no reason why an elected House should alter or have different functions from the present House, or why its role and relationship should alter. It is on these aspects that noble Lords in this debate have rightly, in my view, cast such scepticism. Indeed, if I may say this with great respect to the Leader of the House, he has not been consistent on this matter. Yesterday, defending himself against the charge that this proposed legislation amounted to abolition of the House of Lords, he concentrated on the fact that the role and relationship would not change; yet previously he had said that he expected that the role would evolve and the relationship would change. I hope that the noble Lord who is summing up the debate tonight will make it clear which of these aspects the Government really believe. When the noble Lord says that the House will evolve but is not being abolished, I remind him that that is what evolution is all about. Evolution does result in extinction. He is just bringing it about rather more quickly than has happened in the past.
When I struggled with these matters on the Wakeham commission, we started with the question: why should we have a second Chamber at all? Surely that is the question from which we ought to start. When we went around the country taking evidence from the public, those members of the public who were sufficiently interested to want to come and give evidence—I accept that that is rather a select sample—were clear about two things. First, a second Chamber is necessary to counterbalance the dominance that the Executive have exerted over the other place. Secondly, however, the elected Chamber must retain its supremacy. Surely those must be the two bases on which we consider the role of the second Chamber. The Bill and the Government’s White Paper refuse to define the role and status of the second Chamber, saying that we should rely on the established conventions. However, the whole point about conventions is that they change. Surely, if the Government are launching this legislation without defining those functions and the relationship in the legislation, it is starting the British constitution on a voyage to a destination that is undefined. That seems to me not good enough. Will the Minister confirm that, despite what the Government said in the White Paper, the role of the second Chamber and its relationship to the other place will be within the purview of the Joint Committee?
I finish by making two other observations. First, the White Paper and the draft Bill talk about a normal term of 15 years, or three terms, non-renewable. However, if you look at the small print, that is not the limit of the term of Members of this House. It is the normal limit, but in abnormal times, if Parliament is dissolved within two years and there is a further election, there would be no further election to this House. Therefore, the maximum period of time for an elected Member of this House is 21 years, which seems to me far too long.
My second observation is on the size of the House. The White Paper and the Bill propose that the House should have 300 Members. In support of that, they say that this House, now amounting to more than 800 Members, has an average attendance of 388 and therefore 300 Members should be sufficient to carry out the normal roles of the House, particularly if they are full-time politicians. It seems to me highly implausible that a House of 300 would be sufficient to carry out the work of this House, particularly when terms are non-renewable so that Members do not have to account to their constituencies and there is no financial advantage in attending particular sessions. It seems very likely that people in that position, or at least some of them, will take their stipend and very rarely be seen here. So the size of the House seems much too small.
There is a very large number of issues which the White Paper and the Bill leave undetermined. There is a huge task for the Joint Committee to perform, and I wish it all possible success.
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, having been a Member of your Lordships' House for 26 years, I have had almost equal experience of the House when it consisted of mixed hereditary and life Peers as of the current composition of appointed life Peers with a small and select band of elected hereditaries. As far as I am concerned, the post-1999 House of Lords is no better, no more democratic and no more able to defeat the Government or ask the House of Commons to think again and does not have a greater breadth of expertise. It is certainly less independent, more partisan and more expensive. I therefore again wish to put on record my regret that the historic and traditional element of our ancient Parliament, which was represented by hereditary Peers, should have been lost apart from the small group who remain and continue to do sterling work. The brilliant speech by my noble friend Lord Elton earlier is a witness to that.
I welcome the proposals before us to the extent that they at least show that the Government are prepared to follow through on the so-called reform Act of 1999. For those of us who were here in 1997 and 1998 when the then Government spoke of their mandate from the public and how urgent and important their proposals were, there was an assumption that the Bill was but the first stage of reform and the dawn of a new era. In fact, all it amounted to was a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords or, as the then Leader put it, to get rid of hereditary Peers.
I am a natural conservative, in that I do not like change for the sake of change. If changes have to be made, it has to be shown that they are changes for the better. The 1999 reform Act did not achieve that; a wholly appointed House is not an improvement, although I can understand that those who have become Members since 1999 are able to persuade themselves that it is now a much improved place. If I had a magic wand, I would use it to return to the pre-1999 position, and I only wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, had been here in 1998, as I feel sure that she would have been a doughty champion of the status quo then as she is now. I join others in congratulating her—
Baroness Boothroyd
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, but I am not in favour of the status quo. I am in favour of reform, but it must be incremental reform, as laid out in the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I want reform, but I want sound and good reform when it does come.
Baroness Hooper
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I was about to congratulate her on the style and bravura of her speech yesterday. I must say that, if she supports the Steel Bill, in my opinion that is a long way in the direction of preserving the status quo. However, we are where we are—facing the current proposals.
There are so many ways in which the working of the House of Lords could be improved, and there have been many excellent and some very novel suggestions in the course of this debate. Like others, I have always believed that in considering further reforms we should be looking at the whole of Parliament—that is, at both Houses, also taking into account the powers and functions of the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which considerably change the constitutional map.
I have also always believed that we should move towards a fully elected second Chamber, since I do not consider that the present wholly appointed House has democratic legitimacy. However, my idea of a fully elected second Chamber would be via the medium of indirect elections, based on a system of electoral colleges to ensure that the breadth of expertise, which most people agree already exists and must remain if the role of the second Chamber is to be mainly that of scrutinising and revising legislation, should be guaranteed. The electoral college system would allow doctors, lawyers, academics, the voluntary sector, the regions and other groups to be defined to elect their representatives for a period of time. It would be on much the same lines as the hereditary Peers do today so, far from wanting the hereditary Peers to wither away, as has been suggested would be the result of the Steel Bill, I want them to remain and to be reinforced because of the historic continuity that their presence gives to this House.
I cannot therefore find anything to recommend in the Government’s proposals for direct elections or the system that they suggest. Perhaps the only thing I can agree with in these proposals is the decision not to change the name of the House of Lords, at least not in the short term. It would indeed be ridiculous to have a House of Commons without a House of Lords. It is perfectly feasible to have Members of the House of Lords without having to create them all as Peers of the realm, which has indeed become something of a charade. Yet the idea of a senate has no appeal at all.
I started out by trying to find something to welcome in these government proposals. The more that I have listened to the debate and its many brilliant and constructive speeches, the more I recognise that they simply will not do. I hope that the Government will do the same and draw the same conclusion.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, coming in to bat at number 75 it is tempting to have a bit of a slog but I shall be my usual restrained and cautious self. We can surely all agree that our democracy needs safeguarding and strengthening, that government—policy-making, legislation and administration—needs to be done better, that the performance of Parliament needs to be improved and that the House of Lords needs to be reformed. As we pursue political and constitutional reform, our lodestar should of course be democratic legitimacy—the principle that elections determine who should form the Government, that elected Members of Parliament and the Government themselves should be accountable to the people and that the people should, from time to time, have the opportunity to renew them or to replace them. But we have such democratic legitimacy through the ways in which the House of Commons works, as it is now constituted.
That the House of Lords is appointed does not invalidate or weaken our British democracy. So long as the primacy of the House of Commons is accepted, as it now is, the democratic imperative is satisfied. As we have it now, the House of Lords is no more than an advisory Chamber. Its role is revision and scrutiny, which is what the Government want it to be. Of course there are, from time to time, impassioned and prolonged debates between the two Houses. We in the Lords offer our amendments. Sometimes we reiterate that offer. Occasionally, rarely, we exercise our delaying power but ultimately the appointed House of Lords always defers to the democratic authority of the elected House of Commons. Although the textbooks may not quite put it like this, since the Parliament Acts we have, in effect, unicameral government: an elected House of Commons with an advisory House of Lords beside it. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, who always educates me in these matters, described our arrangements as asymmetrical bicameralism.
Mr Clegg’s quest to introduce democratic legitimacy into the second Chamber is the pursuit of a red herring. The people who make the laws are already elected and are accountable to the people. The House of Lords advises the real legislators. If we were to have an elected second Chamber, the clear accountability of Parliament to the people would be muddied.
Elections are not the only source of legitimacy. Judges, academics and faith leaders have legitimacy. The legitimacy of the House of Lords derives from the quality of the advice that it offers through debates, amendments, the work of Select Committees and so forth. The quality of that advice derives from the expert knowledge and experience of the Members of the House—Cross-Benchers and Members of political parties alike. Good scrutiny makes for good government. That is the justification of what we should do.
Our democracy needs reform. The debate about the Bill is not a contest between those who are in favour of reform and those who are against it. The House of Commons needs to pursue the agenda offered by the Wright Committee to strengthen the Back Benches and improve their scrutiny of the Executive. The interaction of the Parliament at Westminster and the European Parliament needs to be improved. We need to attend very carefully to the arrangements for devolution because, since the recent elections to the Scottish Parliament, the union is in greater danger than it has ever been before. We need to reinvigorate elective local government through relaxing control from the centre. There is a large and legitimate agenda for reform and it certainly includes reform of this House. We should not be complacent. There is some risk that this two-day debate might be perceived by some—admittedly those who read it selectively—as a sustained indulgence in institutional narcissism. At any rate, we should not talk too much about our own wisdom. We need to reform the House to make it a more effective advisory House, not to make it a new democratic hotspot.
If the House of Lords were to be abolished and replaced by an elected second Chamber, as the Government propose, how would relations between the two Houses be affected? There could be an attempt to nip this new element of democracy in the bud—to emasculate its democratic potency—restricting its powers to those conventionally exercised by the present mainly appointed House, which is what the White Paper proposes. Who of first rate ability or serious experience in the world would want to stand for election to a Chamber with such limited powers? In principle, an elected second Chamber could be embraced as a vigorous and spirited House of Parliament flexing its democratic muscles. However, in that case, the House of Commons would have to accept a rebalancing of the respective powers of the two Houses. Members of Parliament would have to accept that Members elected to the second Chamber would have the same rights to represent and relate to the citizens of this country as they do. When the United States federal Senate became directly elected, its Members serving longer terms—though not 15-years terms—than Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate became the senior House. The Unites States legislature is characterised by permanent conflict and impasse, with the Executive unable to secure their preferred legislation.
The compromise proposal of an 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed House would not work; I cannot imagine how such a hybrid Chamber could be successful. Of course, the appointed Members would be 20 per cent of a much smaller House. The Government propose that they should be full-time Members. They would be no match for the Cross-Benchers, who at present make such an invaluable contribution to your Lordships’ House. The decisive argument against the compromise proposal is that the unelected 20 per cent would again and again decide the outcome of votes in the mainly elected House, which would be unacceptable.
If we have abolition and replacement, it seems to me likely that the House of Commons would attempt to constrain the powers of the elected second Chamber; but the elected second Chamber would gradually and tenaciously aggrandise its powers, just as we have seen the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the London mayoralty and the European Parliament do. Do noble Lords remember the categorical assurances that we were given before the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979 that its powers would remain unaltered? We would have continuous instability and conflict and meanwhile we would have lost the virtues of the appointed House: its expertise and its forbearance.
Either way, whether we have a weak or a powerful elected second Chamber, the key question to be asked is: how would it improve the performance of Parliament? Again and again, I have asked the proponents of elections that question and I have never had an answer. I hope that when he comes to wind up this evening, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be able to give us an answer, but I fear that the price for the extra democratic legitimacy that is not needed would be a less effective Parliament.
It would be much better to concentrate our energies on reform of the second Chamber where we can agree, and on improving what we have. The proposals set forth by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in his Bill are more or less contained within the White Paper and the draft Bill: a reduction of our membership; arrangements for retirement; the phased departure of the remaining hereditary Peers; powers to expel Peers found guilty of grave offences; and a statutory Appointments Commission. The statutory Appointments Commission’s task would be to ensure that the quality, expertise, range and representativeness, in the sense of the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, were such as to provide an institution that would give the best of service to the country.
If the Government set aside, at least as their immediate purpose, elections, which are massively contentious inside Parliament, little debated or desired outside Parliament and irrelevant to the urgent needs of the country, it would not be difficult to achieve wide agreement on measures of incremental reform. Incrementalism is the British way of constitutional reform. Changes that often seem modest—for example, the introduction of life peerages—turn out over time to have profound, far-reaching and beneficial consequences. Mr Clegg, if he would moderate his ambition, could yet be a great parliamentary reformer.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, it is a complete pain to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He said so much that I wanted to say that I shall have to prune my speech as I go along. I suppose I can summarise my attitude to this Bill by saying, “I agree with Nick, but not much”. I agree much more with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I am a thoroughgoing supporter of an elected House of Lords, but rather in the mould of my noble friend Lord Waddington. I want to see a more balanced bicameral system. I want to see the Executive having less power. As the Executive have so much power in the Commons, a stronger, elected House of Lords would be a useful change to the British constitution, but that is not what we are talking about now.
What we are talking about now is a completely botched reform, concocted in dark rooms by a party that is meant to believe in openness, without even involving the Front Bench of the Labour Party or taking any account of all the expertise around this House about how it might have got further in achieving its aims. As my noble friend Lord Lang pointed out, leaving the powers and functions as they are but changing the composition of the House is a recipe for instability. The powers and functions will have to be rebalanced, and how that will happen is essentially unpredictable. I believe that, as others have said, we will go through a period where an elected House under this Bill will fight to improve its position, to get power and to make itself worth while. How could it do otherwise because the alternative is grim, dull and uninteresting?
We are offering people coming into this House 15 years with the wages of a moderately senior teacher, no prospects of promotion, no afterlife and no influence. How are people like that going to be respected by the House of Commons? It is the respect that the House of Commons has for the people here, for us, that makes the whole thing function. A lot of people here were senior Ministers, have played a part in Government and have the same qualities as the people in another place, except that they have been through it all and succeeded. Added to that, there is a collection of people who have succeeded in the courses that they have followed in life. Although we are a nuisance, get in the way of what the Government want to do and do not have to go through elections, none the less we are accorded respect, and that makes for the balance in the House.
We have a Bill and I do not see how, in the course of coalition politics and looking after the pride of the Liberal Party and its leader, we can get away from the fact that this is the Bill we will probably end up with. However, as many Peers have said, a lot in this Bill reproduces what is in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Therefore, we can actually build on many of the proposals in this Bill. If we cut away the bits that do not work and do not make sense we may end up with this Bill looking remarkably like the Steel Bill, perhaps with a few improvements. It is a task which I do not envy the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his committee. I am delighted he has taken it on. I am sure he will chair it brilliantly. I have no wish at all to join him but I look forward very much to what he has to say in a year or two’s time.
I have some suggestions for him. Now that we are going to have a fixed pattern of elections, it seems to me that even in an appointed House we could take a step towards election by making sure that at election times the parties expose to the public the list of those they intend to put forward for the House of Lords under the Steel Bill. If we are having the Steel Bill system with a 15-year term and a regular flow of new entrants, the major parties—Conservative and Labour—will have about 70 or 80 Peers to create in any five-year period. They can safely expose the top 30 or 40 names without any risk that anyone on that list will not get into the House of Lords. That would mean that when you were voting for a party you knew what they were going to do with the House of Lords and you knew the quality of people they were going to put in there. It would be something which was a matter at the general election. It would be an element of democratic accountability. You could even have a separate vote for the lists of Peers that parties were putting forward. This would have the advantage of dissociating the percentages in this House from the percentages that had voted for the other House and would greatly weaken any claim to democratic legitimacy that this House might feel as a result of having had an element of election.
I would also suggest, in contrast to what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, that when it comes to reducing this House, as needs to be done, we should not pay people, we should offer hereditary peerages. It is an attractive thing. My peerage, if I am cynical about it, is a reward for buggery and bribery but hallowed by several hundred years in between. Noble Lords have got here for entirely legitimate and honourable reasons, certainly by comparison, and they would be elegant additions to the hereditary peerage as it will then be, which is something entirely irrelevant. It will have been severed from its connection with this House and will be merely a decoration rather in the way that French titles are a decoration. It would be a pleasant badge for people in this House to be able to hand down to their successors and adequate compensation for many people who were looking for a good reason to retire. Giving money to people to retire is going back to sinecures and to bad old ways I would not like to see reproduced.
I want to see a House of Lords which is as strong as it is now and which is an attractive place for the many people who get here because of their own experience and skills. That is the right balance to try to maintain. I think we can do it while improving, in many ways, the House at the moment and I wish the noble Lord, Lord Richard, every success in that. I hope, too, that he will manage to remove IPSA from the Bill. I do not think we should wish that on ourselves.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
As a former senior police officer, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to detain them for very long. I came into this House some 13 years ago, and one thing that I have learnt is to value the wise counsel of your Lordships. It has been said several times throughout the debate, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I do not think that it is broke, and the House performs extremely well. Clearly, there is room for reform, and I agree entirely with the wonderful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I support her Motion.
The changes that have taken place in this House since, I suppose, 1911—more than 100 years—have evolved slowly. We have heard noble Lords refer to this. It has been an evolution rather than a revolution. One thing that I should like to say is that if the House changes, it is important to look at the transitional period because noble Lords who have given selfless service should be allowed time to leave this place. I gave up a promising plan for retirement and moved down here at some economic cost. The House and certainly the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, should consider—and the Bill is silent on it—the exit strategy for those who will be dispensed with if the Bill is passed. I hope that it will not be passed and that the House stays pretty much as it is. I read of grandfather rights, a term that seems appropriate to this House. They should be looked at as well. It may well be that we can ease the burden of those who may have to leave.
When I first came into the House, regular attendance was a badge of honour. I remember in the House Magazine being mentioned as one of the top 10 attendees. I was very proud of that. Because it attracts more expenses, regular attendance now seems to be a badge of dishonour. That is a tragedy because it discourages people from attending, and the press pick up on this as though somehow we are abusing the system, when we are simply performing an important public function.
I fully support the reforms of the Steel Bill. In a strange way, in my experience over 13 years, this House often represents public opinion more than the other place. That is a strange anomaly, even though that place is elected; but, of course, that place is controlled almost totally by the party system. This place has a healthy independence and long may that continue. It will become a party animal if we have elections.
As has been said many times, the Bill is a bad Bill. There are a lot of unanswered questions. As has also been said many times, I do not envy the Joint Committee, which has a difficult task ahead of it. If the House is elected by some more proportionate means, Mr Clegg seems to think that that clearly would be a more legitimate way of electing people than first past the post. This House would eventually argue that it was more legitimate and would challenge the other place. That is fairly obvious. I conclude simply by saying that the constitution of this country should not be the political plaything of a minor player in a coalition Government who were hatched together over a few days. This country of ours deserves better.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, let me say at once that I acknowledge how complex a task it must have been to put this Bill together. Unlike some, I think that it was brave and constructive to produce it so that we can have something concrete to argue around.
I start with some clarifications. Nothing that I am about to say should be taken as a disparagement of Members in the other place. There has been an undertone of that in some of the contributions. The vast majority of them are decent, intelligent and conscientious Members of Parliament who are trying to do their best for the public realm.
Secondly, although I oppose elections to this House, I accept the need for reforms as many others have done. Many have mentioned the Steel Bill, as do I. Thirdly, we must accept that the onus is on those on my side of the argument—the non-elected side—to justify the non-elected status quo, which is almost unique in the democratic world and against the spirit of the times.
Further—I do not know whether this has been mentioned—we stand in particularly intense conflict of interest on the Bill, because the majority of us will be booted out if it goes through. We have to try extremely hard to be objective and see ourselves as others see us. At times, we can be apt to be a trifle too self-congratulatory.
I want to talk a little about a referendum. Some have mentioned it; I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, praise it yesterday. Partly because of the conflict in which we stand, I believe strongly that this should be put to the people of this country in a referendum, although I am very chary of referenda. Let us not forget that it was in the Labour manifesto that there should be a referendum. Some will say that a referendum is superfluous because all three parties had it in their manifestos at the election that this place should be elected. That is a spurious argument. It was far from being a mainstream issue. Only zealots plough through modern manifestos.
I also note that in the European Union Bill, which my Government are in the process of legislating, they propose referenda for 50-plus Community arrangements. One will require a referendum if there is any change to either the right of election or the right to stand in any European election. How can it conceivably be right for us to impose a referendum under those circumstances while denying a referendum under these much more direct and plangent circumstances?
I do not believe that this is our Parliament. It belongs to the public. We are not just changing this House in the course of the Bill; we are uprooting it. I cannot for the life of me see how my Government, who claim deficiency of democratic authority as the reason for the Bill, can then ignore that democratic requirement. It would surely be aping the deficiency that they level at us to push through reform without it.
I devote the remainder of my time to the potential impact on the quality and character of this House if elections go ahead. First, who will want to stand for elections to this House? Given that it will have seriously inferior powers, what ambitious man or woman wanting a full-time career in politics will make this their first choice? Furthermore, that second-rateness will be wantonly rubbed in their faces if paragraph 111 of the White Paper is followed into legislation. It states that,
“the level of salary for a member of the reformed House of Lords should be lower than that of a member of the House of Commons”.
What on earth can that mean in terms of status or the authority of this place? We will be so inferior that we cannot even get the same rate as the people down the road.
The idea that someone might start here as a means of climbing to the elevated House of Commons is scotched, first, by the 15-year term and, secondly, by a ban on going straight from this place to the other place—there has to be a five-year break. It is not as if we will work less assiduously. The constituencies will consist of about 450,000 and does anyone suggest that that will not yield a massive amount of work? Of course it will. We will have less than half the number in the reformed House to deal with the plethora of legislation and policy than the other place will have. What sense is there in that? There will be less power, less pay, more work and no title. Who really believes that ambitious politicians will come to this place?
Lord Trefgarne
Will the noble Lord take a little care in denigrating the potential candidates for an elected Chamber? I am thinking of being one myself and I would have no plans to go on to the House of Commons.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I find it very easy to respond to the noble Lord’s intervention because, in his case, he would certainly be the exception to my rule. I am trying to be sensible and point out some of the realities about the two places.
I end with a few comments on the 20 per cent appointed Members of this House, if that option goes forward. One of the statistics produced by the progenitors of the Bill to beat us with is that on average only 44 per cent of Cross-Benchers bother to turn up to vote. That is precisely because many of them attend debates and Bills which engage their expertise and experience; otherwise, they get on with outside jobs and perform the outside commitments which feed and furnish their virtues of experience and expertise. I do not disparage people who may come here—I am trying to be realistic—but I do not believe that a full-time, paid 20 per cent of Cross-Benchers could do what the present Cross-Benchers do, for the reasons to which I have briefly alluded.
Apart from all that, I suspect that the culture and tenor of this place will be very changed under the new aegis. Partisanship will, inevitably, be in full cry, not least because getting a candidacy under the new aegis will be via an even more narrowly partisan channel than that which applies to MPs now.
Lastly, despite the best intentions of the framers of this draft Bill, I cannot see that it will yield a Chamber as ready, let alone as qualified, to amend government legislation as we are. I have not been able to update the statistics to this moment in time, but when I wrote an article in 2002, I found that in the period since Labour gained office in 1997, there had been more than 1,000 whipped votes in the House of Commons and not a single one went against the Government. In the same period, there were roughly the same number of votes in this place and a quarter of those were lost by the Government. I do not believe that that fantastic independence of mind and voting will survive an elected House. I believe that our native genius is demonstrated in the evolution of our Parliament, in both Houses. Let us continue on that evolutionary path and eschew revolution.
Lord Stewartby
My Lords, one of the problems of speaking fairly far down the batting list is that most of what needs to be said has already been said, several times. For the convenience of the House, I shall confine myself to do no more than identify a number of areas where I am more concerned now, as a result of listening to much of the debate, than I was before. I certainly do not favour abolition, even if it is creeping abolition over several years. On the other hand, it has become increasingly important to tackle the issue of reform. Like many others, I commend my noble friend Lord Steel for his work on that and hope that we can progress it, either on its own or in conjunction with part of the draft Bill in front of us.
What bothers me most is that it appears that those who drew up the Bill had certain preconceived notions of what would and would not work, and how they wanted it to happen. However, one must consider function in broad terms and identify its requirements if one is to give it authority through our parliamentary system. I do not see that that happened. Instead, we have a proposed composition of a rather extraordinary kind, which contains a lot of elements that are individually very hard to justify.
We have heard a lot about the 15-year appointment period. I think that that is completely unworkable. If you are elected and for some reason do not do anything much in the parliamentary system, you can go on holiday for 15 years—which might appeal to some people.
Do we really need another elected body? We are always complaining that we have too many elections—to central government, to local government and to the devolved Administrations. Do we want to put in yet another tier?
I missed the point about Members of a reformed House being paid less than Members of Parliament. That is an extraordinary twist and I do not think that the Bill will get anywhere, even if its fundamental proposal of elected membership makes progress.
When dealing with an electoral system, it would be better to have one elected House than two so that responsibility remains clear-cut. There will undoubtedly be challenges from one House to the other—it will not always be the upper challenging the lower—and the Bill will change the relationship between the two. It will change the way in which they carry out their functions and it is a huge leap in the dark.
One can be sure that any upper House of the kind proposed would seek to extend its competence. One has only to look at the EU or Scottish Parliaments to see that the new body would desire immediately to widen its competence across the board and would demand more powers; that is so certain that one does not even have to justify it.
On a practical level, I worry that the process will effectively exclude any parliamentarians who continue to know what is going on in the outside world. For some years, the House of Commons has made it evident that outside jobs are frowned on. Here, all Peers are part-timers and get a lot of experience from what they do outside the House. If they are replaced by 300 professional politicians, how will that enable the new body to bring all the necessary experience and knowledge to bear on its parliamentary work?
The worst thing about the 15-year figure is that there will be no accountability for those involved. One will not get anything that could be described fairly as a democratic system in the full sense if there is no accountability once somebody has been elected in the first instance. That is such a gaping omission that it invalidates a lot of the concepts behind that part of the draft Bill.
The question of who would stand and what we would do about existing Peers with outside jobs and so forth are unresolved areas, but they will need a great deal more thought and attention if there is to be any prospect of them getting near legislation. I do not believe that legitimacy depends entirely on election. In our society there are many examples of people with considerable responsibilities but who are not elected to their posts. Judges are the obvious case, but they are not alone. Throughout the structure of public affairs we have people like the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the ombudsmen. A long list could be produced of those who are not elected but who exercise very substantial power. So the legitimacy argument is not quite as helpful to the Government’s cause as it might seem at first sight.
I hope that this debate will focus attention on many of the most difficult and worrying areas of the process. I have said quite enough already, but I conclude by saying that those who are going to have to try to work this system deserve our thanks and admiration.
Lord Neill of Bladen
My Lords, I am number 82 in the list of speakers in the debate and I agree with my predecessor who has just spoken that everything that has to be said has already been said. I should like to summarise my views by saying that I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said yesterday and what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said today. I also agree strongly with the statement made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon:
“the changes to the House as it is currently constituted, and its replacement by an elected senate, will automatically affect the primacy of the House of Commons”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; cols. 1161-62.]
I am opposed to the destruction of the present House of Lords and I am opposed to the creation of a new Chamber as per the model in the White Paper and the draft Bill. I also object to the spurious urgency that is being heaped upon the committee which has been asked to look at the White Paper. It should have all the time that it could possibly want in order to carry out the job. However, it has really been given the wrong agenda because the Bill and the White Paper are, to put it rather mildly, not 100 per cent on course. What the committee should be thinking about are what incremental changes are needed and can be made without damaging the overall fabric.
I want to spend a little time on the principle that underlies the desire for having elected Members in this House. The benefit of being elected will be conferred upon 80 per cent of the Members, but there will be another 20 per cent who will not have it. Part of the scheme provides that some 20 per cent of the House will be illegitimate by the test of direct election. There are also the 12 bishops who, on the same test, would not have that benefit; and then the Ministers, however many there may be, would be specially nominated by the Prime Minister to serve in this House. So there will be a group of people who will not have been blessed by the touch of the people.
Where does this principle come from and where does one find an exposition of it that is applicable to our circumstances? We have a country in which the entire electorate has its own Member of Parliament in the form of some 60,000 people per constituency. They have a right to call upon their MP to look after their own interests or the interests of the constituency in the form of local interests, and indeed national matters if that is their concern. It is the duty of the MP to answer those concerns. The Chamber in which their MPs sit is accorded primacy under a system of conventions which have been set up, so their representatives sit in a Chamber which has the final call on what legislation is enacted. Look at all that and then look at what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister say in the foreword:
“In a modern democracy it is important that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom those laws apply”.
That condition is fully met in the case of the House of Commons, but why, one asks, does it have to be met for a second time in relation to the House of Lords?
I do not know how well your Lordships remember the passage getting on a bit in the book where there is some discussion about the European Convention on Human Rights and the composition of the House of Lords. I shall read paragraph 428 on page 162 to your Lordships.
“The Government is not aware of any Strasbourg case-law on the composition of the second chamber of a member state of the Council of Europe. There is a variety of types of membership: in the Czech Republic all members of the Senate are directly elected; in Austria all members of the Bundesrat are indirectly elected; the Seanad in Ireland includes appointed members; the Senate in Italy includes a few appointed members and a few ex officio members; the Belgian Senate contains directly elected members, indirectly elected members, co-opted members and hereditary/ex officio members. In other words, while first chambers must be elected by the people in order to comply with the Convention, second chambers will frequently have a different form of composition, which may or may not involve direct election. If one looks beyond Council of Europe member states, all the members of the Canadian Senate are appointed”.
So there is absolutely no widespread recognition of any general principle that applies to the appointment to a second Chamber and I call that in question.
I want to draw attention, as has been repeatedly referred to, to the extraordinary feature of the elected Members—that they get a 15-year term and they are never questioned or brought up for review at general elections as they come and go over those 15 years. The matter is taken even further by the provision in relation to payment, that their salary has to be set below that of the MPs because they,
“would not have constituency duties”.
What an incredible phrase. One might expect there to be funds for an office to be set up for this huge constituency of pushing on for half a million. One might expect special funding for that, but there is not a word about that. It is not conceived. There is a completely dead hand; once the vote has been given in their favour they are in for 15 years. There is nothing to stop them setting up an office—true enough—but there is no concept of that; it has not be dreamt of or thought of by those who make these proposals and that is an extraordinary feature.
Those who propound the democratically-elected principle must believe in it. One is amazed then that they fall short of demanding a 100 per cent elected House. Why are these other 20 per cent deliberately selected as not having the benefit of this electoral process? They nevertheless get a 15-year term, unquestioned, however they perform their duties. One is surprised at the poverty of the demand. One would expect that, if they really believed in the importance of this principle, they would be going for 100 per cent.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, by any criterion, in our bicameral system your Lordships’ House is more representative than the other place. I am not ignoring the question about electoral mandate, but as we have heard so often, elections are both before and afterwards—the electorate has the freedom to choose an MP and to unchoose their MP next time around. That seems to be a fatal flaw against the 15-year fixed term. Certainly the ballot box is not the only way in which democratic legitimacy is acquired. There are many people who, for a variety of reasons, have no say in elections to the other place, while in this Chamber there are doughty champions of some otherwise relatively voiceless groups in our society.
Our experience of the Appointments Commission since its establishment in 2000 has been a good pilot for a wider application of that principle for getting to this place. This House is already fairly diverse but the nominations by the commission have increased that diversity. The chair of the commission, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has pointed out that, of those nominated by the commission since 2000, 37 per cent have been women, 22 per cent from ethnic minorities and 8 per cent disabled.
While with my right reverend friends on these Benches I welcome the opportunity to consider the governance of our country in its totality, including reform of your Lordships’ House, I would not want changes in any way to reduce the capacity of Parliament to speak for society as a whole. I am speaking about so-called “civil society”, distinguished as it sometimes is from the formal mechanisms of the state and the commercial market. Obviously, the boundaries are somewhat fuzzy and there is considerable overlap but in a healthy and free society some distinction of that kind is necessary. In a way, I would be more comfortable with a definition of civil society that sees it as society conceived of as a whole and served by various political, commercial, military and other instruments, but which is and must remain ultimately the body from which these other instruments derive their legitimacy.
At least if their voting habits are anything to go by, large numbers of our fellow citizens are sceptical about our present electoral system and it would be profoundly unwise to replicate that scepticism in the upper House. For that reason, I simply cannot agree that a directly elected upper House, whatever the proportion, would be a reform—I would describe it as a deform. When I reflect on the point about the existing commission, I am tempted to say that you can have election or you can have diversity but you cannot have both.
I shall not comment on the inevitably greater challenge to the primacy of the House of Commons in the Government’s proposals. Many noble Lords have made that point and I agree with it. However, I wonder how many places in the world have a bicameral system under which both Houses are elected and the upper House has not, in practice, acquired the upper hand. We have heard that sometimes this leads to deadlock but in countries where there is deadlock there is often a president or a political head of state to bring them together. Is that one of the unthought-through implications of what is being proposed?
I now turn to two other aspects of the proposals. The first concerns the overall size of the House. That question cannot properly be answered without a detailed reflection on the purpose of the House and its role. A smaller House could, if properly appointed, do the representative job asked of it. But 300 Members is almost certainly too small. Much thought would have to be given to the nature of the appointing body or bodies and the way in which they make their nominations. I very much warmed to what the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, particularly about electoral colleges and perhaps an indirect election by that means.
It would, however, be important to make sure that in a rightly much more professional House, those Members whose expertise relies precisely on their lives and expertise outside Parliament are able to keep their feet firmly on the ground outside the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster. A more professional House should not exclude the contribution of some noble Lords who cannot be here every day. That has some bearing on the numbers.
My other point is about the place of bishops. It is essential to separate as far as possible the role of the bishops of the established church from issues of representation of faith communities. That faith communities should be one of the estates or constituencies of civil society from whom Members of this House are chosen is so obvious as to be, in the inelegant modern phrase, a “no-brainer”. I take it absolutely for granted that however difficult it is to work out the details, we must have appropriate representation of the different faith communities in our legislature, whether they can secure election or not.
The bishops, however, are not here for any such reason. We do not represent the Church of England, Christianity or the world of faith, even though many in all these areas say how much they appreciate our presence. The bishops of the Church of England have sat in this Parliament since its inception for no reason other than their responsibility for the areas covered by their dioceses and all the people who live in them. I happen to think that the link between bishops in the Lords, the establishment and the Crown is so close that the removal of one is likely to hasten the demise of the others. I do not think that most of those who would like to get rid of the bishops in a rather cavalier—although I really mean roundhead—way have thought through all the consequences of what they are proposing.
The concern of these Benches is not in itself about ourselves. After all, we are the one group in this House for whom there is a sunset clause already written in. I could quibble about the details of the proposals, but if we did end up with a House of 300-ish, 12 places for bishops of the established Church of England would be reasonable and manageable. However, in such circumstances it would not be wise to keep automatic places for the Bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester, and I would prefer to see the church free to make its own selection. However, that is a detail and I hope that we do not get to that point.
In many minds, this question is obviously linked to that of religious representation as a whole. Of course, under the present proposals there would be no place for religious representation as such apart from the bishops of the established church. That is another reason why I would prefer an appointed House, which would give us the opportunity to think carefully through the role of faith communities in civil society and how their voices, often those of minorities, may continue to be heard.
If I wanted to be naughty, I would say that the only good thing about this Bill is that it would increase the proportion of Members of the House sitting on these Benches. However, bishops are not supposed to be naughty.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend the Leader of the House, it could be said that the proposal on which we are asked to take note must rank among the most inappropriate political events since Nero fiddled while Rome burned. That is not to criticise the quality of this debate, which, at least until now, has been superb, although for all I know the melody played by Nero might also have been superb.
The simple fact is that this proposal is the wrong answer to the wrong question at the wrong time and, in my view, is being addressed in the wrong way. Its proponents seem to challenge the doubters, such as me, to show why it should not be adopted. That approach is perverse. Surely it is for the proponents to show why these proposals should be adopted—something that they have so far singularly failed to do. I was taught many years ago that constitutional propositions should be tested against basic criteria. I listened with great care to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester yesterday as he set out certain tests. I wish to follow him in that direction.
First, are these proposals wanted? Like many others here, in over 40 years in active politics I have never met anyone outside the refined and elitist quarters of the political class who has ever even remotely raised the question of House of Lords reform with me. Anyway, it is not for us to show that it is wanted; it is for its proponents to show that it is wanted. So far they have failed to do so, because they cannot.
Secondly, will these proposals repair something that is not working? Even the paper that we are debating accepts that your Lordships’ House is currently working well and it contains no apparent proposals for making it work better. Indeed, the only proposals for that are those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in his Bill, which I strongly support.
Thirdly, will these proposals improve the governance of this country? Given that the role and powers of the second Chamber are to remain unchanged, even its most ardent proponents are not arguing that reform will improve the governance of this country; they are arguing only that it will be more democratically authoritative, whatever that is meant to mean in this context. I have yet to hear a remotely convincing explanation of that.
Fourthly, will this improve the scrutiny that is brought to bear on legislation? On the contrary, it will in time remove that vast well of specialist expertise that is the key to the effectiveness of this House and replace it with journeymen political hacks. That is a prediction that I confidently make if these proposals go through.
Fifthly, will it improve the lives or quality of life of the citizens of our country and, if so, how? I have yet to meet any member of the public who thinks that their lives will be improved by these proposals; indeed, I have not yet heard in this debate from the proponents of these proposals any suggestions as to how they will improve lives. Again, it is not for us to show that these proposals will not produce a benefit for people in this country; it is for the proponents to show that they will. Once again, they have not, because they cannot.
Sixthly, will the proposals, as claimed, strengthen the accountability of this House? What on earth is accountable about electing someone for 15 years, being unable to get rid of them during that period, however bad they are, and not being able to keep them after that period, however good they turn out to be? This is at a time when Parliament is looking to enable the recall of unsatisfactory MPs, who, anyway, are always changeable every five years at election time. That is a paradox of which Lewis Carroll would have been proud.
Seventhly, is reform really a legislative priority today? We are currently involved in two wars, in one of which many British lives have been lost; we are facing the gravest economic situation that this country has endured in my political lifetime; and we are trying to reform the welfare state, the National Health Service and our education service, all of which are creaking under the strain of overweening bureaucracy. The thought that we could spend months deliberating on this half-baked scheme simply beggars belief. It is not good enough to argue that the reason why we have to do this is that it has been on the constitutional agenda for 100 years. The longevity of a misguided concept does not make any less misguided.
Nor is it good enough to make great claims that such constitutional change will create greater acceptability. I warn your Lordships against taking too much notice of rhetorical claims on constitutional reforms. I still recall the confident and unqualified government claim in 1997 that Scottish devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. Tell that to Alex Salmond today.
A great deal has been said about the effect of these proposals on the balance of power between the two Chambers and there are still those who argue that an elected House of Lords would never dare to seek greater powers. There is in the west of Scotland a saying that if you give someone a Minch they will take an isle. It is even more in the nature of political institutions, particularly those that are elected, to seek constantly to extend their powers, so it is naive beyond credulity to believe that an elected second Chamber would not constantly seek to do so.
This dog’s breakfast—and dog’s lunch and dog’s dinner—is not a serious proposition but the product of a belief by the Liberal Democrat leadership that after the failure of the AV referendum it needed another constitutional flagship within which to shelter its increasingly tattered credibility. This, then, is what these proposals are—unseaworthy, unwanted and unsafe. Many years ago, in a spirit of friendly generosity, from a conference platform I described the Liberal Democrat logo of the dismembered bird as a cloud cuckoo looking for somewhere to land. I cannot help feeling today that the homeland of that mythical bird would be an excellent place to lay these proposals finally to rest.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to follow the excellent speech of my friend—and he is my friend—the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who for many years was my pair in the other place when he was a mere Earl. That is one of the intricacies of the aristocracy that I still cannot understand, even after the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, earlier today.
When we were in the other place, we used to listen to passionate speeches by Paddy Ashdown, as he was then—the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown—and we heard one yesterday. It was eloquent, powerful and passionate in favour of democracy and accountability. There was only one problem with it—the draft Bill does not deliver what he seeks. It was obvious when he intervened on the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that he did not realise that there was a draft Bill in the White Paper. As my noble friend Lord Gordon said, where is the democracy and accountability in a list drawn up by the leadership of each party? It sounds like the list that is currently drawn up for membership of this House, just replicated in another way and going through the democratic process to give it some legitimacy.
The noble Lord also mentioned the 61 legislatures where he claimed—I think, wrongly—that there was no challenge from the second Chamber to the first Chamber. That needs to be checked. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his committee should visit all 61 parliaments, but one or two might help. If they went by boat, it would be even more appropriate.
One of the interesting things about this debate is that I do not think that anyone, perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the Leader of the House, has supported the Bill. It is astonishing. Where are we now? I am the 85th speaker, and only two speakers have been in support, although we thought that the Leader of the House had his tongue in his cheek. I should not say anything about his cheeks but sometimes you do not notice when he and I have our tongue in our cheek. It is astonishing that we are going ahead legislating on that basis.
Let us go back to first principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said. Do we need a second Chamber? Other countries, such as New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries, are good democracies and manage perfectly well without one. Until recently, I was in favour of abolition of the House of Lords. Some people said that when I came here I changed my views. My views have changed, not because of my membership—or not just because of that—but particularly because of seeing the unicameral Scottish Parliament in the last few weeks. It is totally controlled by one party—no, by one man. My honourable friend Ian Davidson described it in another place, in not the most felicitous phrase, as “neo-fascism”. I would say, cautiously and carefully, that it is becoming very totalitarian in Scotland now, with a unicameral Parliament controlled by one party, with every committee that was supposed to provide the checks and balances also controlled by that party and with the Presiding Officer also from that party. It is really worrying. For example, they are now about to rush through a Bill on sectarianism with very little thought, under pressure from the tabloids, before the football season starts. The unintended consequences of that could be very serious indeed. I have come to the view that a second Chamber is needed to provide those necessary checks and balances.
The next question is what kind of second Chamber. The White Paper and the Bill, as many others have said, put the cart before the horse—they talk about composition before the purpose, functions and role of the second Chamber. I can see arguments for a nominated second Chamber, if it has a revising function, as it does at the moment, but a second Chamber improved by the proposals included in the Bill drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I do not think that David realised that he was going to have so many people supporting his Bill—and rightly so—in the course of these two days. There is also a case for an elected second Chamber. However, if that is the way forward, we have to recognise, as a number of others have said, that it will challenge and question the primacy or the supremacy of the House of Commons. Other Members have argued that far more forcefully than I can. Conventions will need to be revised or a written constitution will be needed in relation to that.
Two points have not been covered in this debate. As I said, this Bill has very few friends here; indeed, it does not have many friends anywhere. When the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to the careful consideration that we undertook in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, I saw my noble friend Lord McNally—and he is an old friend of mine—make a note and look in my direction. If he was thinking what I think he was thinking, he is right.
Finally, problems have arisen because for some time now constitutional change has been piecemeal. Problems have arisen. One of the most urgent—more urgent, I think, than any reform of the House of Lords—is the democratic deficit in England. English people do not have the same say over a domestic matter that we in Scotland and others in Wales and Northern Ireland do. That ought to be dealt with rather more urgently than looking at the House of Lords. It would be better to tidy this matter up rather than to carry out another constitutional change. If we go ahead with it, I predict that it will have unintended consequences far greater than any of us can now imagine.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, it is very difficult to follow a speech such as we have just heard. I say at once that I am against a wholly elected House. Apart from anything else, it would mean losing the Cross Benches, a point made very powerfully this morning by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I think most of us would agree that the Cross Benches are, in the immortal words of 1066 and All That, “a good thing”, not because we are in any way better than any other Members—of course not—but because we are independent not only of party but of each other, as we have seen very often during the last few weeks; indeed, we will see it shortly when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, follows me. He and I share a room and I know that he strongly disagrees with everything that I am about to say.
I am not only against a wholly elected House; I am against a wholly appointed House, for two main reasons. First, it would give too much power to the seven members of the Appointments Commission just as the present system of appointing Peers gives much too much power to the Prime Minister.
Lord Elton
Is the noble and learned Lord aware of the fascinating fact that this House was more than 50 per cent appointed in the regime of Tony Blair, when the Government suffered the greatest reverse of any time in their history since the Second World War?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I am not sure that that answers the point that I am against appointment by the Prime Minister. I would also be against appointment by so small a body as the seven eminent men who are apparently proposed. To have seven people appoint the whole of one Chamber of a bicameral Parliament seems to me to be wrong in principle.
Secondly, it would mean that the voice of the people had not been heard in choosing any of the Members of this House. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, argued yesterday that the voice of people is heard, and often heard, in this Chamber. That is true and I entirely agree with her. However, it is not heard in choosing the Members of this Chamber, which is a very different thing. That was the great point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. Perhaps even more relevant, it was the great point made by the royal commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, in his measured speech this morning, was not against reform but he said that we should take it slowly and even think of appointing a royal commission to take the matter forward. Surely he was forgetting that we have already had a royal commission. Its membership could hardly have been more distinguished—eight were Members of this House out of a total of 12, I believe. They took a mass of evidence, both expert and non-expert. May I say in passing that I am really surprised that so little has been said so far in any of the speeches that I have heard about the work that that royal commission undertook? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, himself was the only person who has mentioned it, and he was far too modest about the merit of the proposals in that royal commission. It reached very clear conclusions, one of which was that a significant number of Members should be elected to represent the regions—the north-east, the north-west, Scotland, Wales and so on. There are 12 regions in all. That seems a very good idea. The commission went on to consider various models of how it might be achieved; under model B, there were to be 87 elected Members to represent the regions, or 15 per cent of the total, while under model C it was somewhat more. A majority of the royal commission favoured model B, and so would I.
I am in favour of a partially elected House. There are two main arguments against having any elected Members at all. First, it might lead to friction between elected and non-elected Members; secondly, it might lead to friction between this House and the other place—and perhaps even call in question the conventions that we all know. The royal commission dealt with each of those objections at considerable length and rejected them both, and so would I. Of course, a wholly elected House would challenge the primacy of the other place. That almost goes without saying. That of course is what is proposed, but it is not what the royal commission proposed and not what I favour.
Since in a debate of this kind, one should always come down and say what one does actually want, perhaps I can say what I would like to see and to have considered by the hardworking committee that will consider all these matters. I would like to see a House of 400 Members—rather more than the 300 proposed in the Bill. There is more than enough work for 400 Members to do. Of those 400, 320 would be appointed by the new Appointments Commission, of whom 100 would be Cross-Benchers. The remaining 80 would be elected by proportional representation to represent the 12 regions, as recommended by the Wakeham commission. I am easy as to the form of proportional representation, as long as independent Members are not discouraged from standing. They would serve for two terms, renewable; they would not be eligible for election thereafter to the House of Commons, so the House would not become a stepping stone for ambitious politicians. All Members, whether appointed or elected, would be paid the same salary, which would be taxable.
I accept that of course what I am in favour of is a compromise between what is proposed in the Bill, which I do not like, and the wholly appointed House favoured by very many. But a compromise may yet become necessary if we are to reach a consensus with the views held in the other place, whatever they may turn out to be. I would not expect such a compromise to be popular in either place, but then compromises are never popular until they become inevitable, and often not then.
Lord Gilbert
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could enlighten us as to how a Prime Minister should proceed when he finds that there is no material in the other place adequate to form a Government, which has been the effect on every Prime Minister for the last 50 years, and probably many before that.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I am not altogether clear as to the relevance of that point to what I was saying. I am not suggesting any alteration in the other place; I simply referred to what I would hope might be regarded as incremental reform of this place, to use the expression of the noble Baroness yesterday.
Lord Gilbert
If I might help the noble and learned Lord, I heard him say that he was against any appointments to this place by a Prime Minister. If a Prime Minister cannot have total freedom to choose his Government, what is he going to do under the noble and learned Lord’s recommendations?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Of course the Prime Minister can choose the Government. There is an argument, which we have already had, as to whether he should be entitled to choose Ministers to sit here, but what I am against is the Prime Minister choosing, as he does, the vast majority of the Members currently present.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, in following the noble and learned Lord I regret to say that I have no solution to what should happen, although I admire his courage in going back and putting forward one that has been considered before. It certainly is true that we are faced with compromise. I suppose that is inevitable. As the noble and learned Lord said, there is always going to have to be compromise. The trouble with this compromise—the Bill—is that it is between a school of political theory and the empiricists. It is between those whose heritage is revolution and those who believe in evolution. Indeed, I suspect that the parliamentary draftsman got two completely different sets of instructions when he set out to draft the Bill.
To take the first school, where do the political theorists come from? It has been claimed that there are none and that for 100 years, in the footsteps of Asquith and Lloyd George, all that is being done is to complete pragmatically a process which was started then. I do not think that is right. The origins of where we are go back a lot further: to the Enlightenment and to 1776 with Tom Paine, sitting in Philadelphia and about to advise, very successfully, the founding fathers. He wanted to persuade the 13 colonies that they could break free from the King and the British Parliament, so he was making the strongest argument that he could and saying that the English system was broken, to use a more recent term.
In the pamphlet entitled Common Sense, he referred to:
“The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers”,
who were to be got rid of under his scheme. He praised:
“The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons”.
Tom Paine was committed to 100 per cent election and to written constitutions. Indeed, he wrote about the unelected that they were wholly independent from the nation, but he did not mean “independent” in the sense that it has been used in this debate. He also wrote:
“From the want of a constitution in England to restrain and regulate the wild impulse of power, many of the laws are irrational and tyrannical”.
Were Tom Paine to be here today, would he think differently? I think that he would still be in favour of election and of a written constitution. Would he be able to distinguish between the remaining hereditary Peers and the life Peers in this House of Lords? I would hazard a guess that he would not be able to distinguish them and that if he did not it would make no difference to his opinion. He would think that because this House was not elected, it should be abolished.
However, many empiricists, who are evolutionary, think that many of the political theorists enjoyed Tom Paine when they were young. They liked the drama of the Declaration of Independence and the fall of the Bastille, which turned them on, but most people grow up. Some take longer than others and some never achieve it but most of the theorists who write essays when they are young turn into empiricists later. Unfortunately, some never do.
This Bill is hooked on democratic legitimacy and concepts, but has been drafted by somebody who has been told that they must take care of the effects. As the French Revolution showed quite clearly, theorists are not much bothered by effects. However, empiricists are. Much reference has been made to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and you have to give him a point. If you had full-scale democratic legitimacy, as described in political theory, the second Chamber would be able to disagree with the first Chamber about going to war. If it did so, there would be a constitutional crisis. However, neither mandates nor manifestos make things happen; events do. Libya was not in anybody’s manifesto. Therefore, there could be—and very likely might be—a standoff between one House and another based on a democratic theory of legitimacy that creates a crisis but the draft Bill is trying to solve this problem. The other instructions to the draft will have been to grant some form of political theoretical democratic legitimacy to it but to reduce it to a minimum. Hence, we will have a House of only 300, which is clearly too small. Hence, we will have 15-year terms. Hence, we will have all the other things about which Members have been speaking during the debates. I do not need to repeat them all.
There is a standoff within the Government between the Paineite theorists and the empiricists. The Bill both grants the democratic legitimacy that is looked for and does its best to take it back. This is why it will fall.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
Several people have said that it is very difficult at this stage in the debate to say something new. However, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chichester did exactly that. It was rather spine-chilling to follow his logic on the Bill and the possible subplot that might lead to a president in this country who would be the arbiter between the two Houses. It was particularly chilling because the picture that came to mind was President Clegg. If I was not already opposed to the Bill beforehand, I certainly was after listening to that particular possibility.
It is late. I do not normally speak on Lords reform but it is important that the Government and the Joint Committee get a sense of the strength of feeling that exists in the House on this draft Bill. They have certainly got that today and yesterday. However, it is also incumbent on us as individuals to use our personal experience to highlight some of the practical problems that will arise from these proposals.
Like everyone else, I am tempted to comment on everything, from the Steel Bill, which I support, to the use of the Parliament Act, which I oppose, and all the other issues. Instead, I base my words on my experience as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons—when the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was Leader—Leader of the House of Commons and government Chief Whip, which are very different roles as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawlsey, said yesterday. However, all these roles, in one way or another, brought me not only into the usual channels in the Commons but also into the discussions that have to take place from time to time between the business managers of both Houses. Both Houses have to interact; both Houses have to negotiate. That can be quite difficult. In particular, there can be an impasse between both Houses. We can, as we have seen on many occasions, get to a ping-pong situation. I have been there in the smoke-filled or darkened rooms, in the corners of corridors, and I have to admit to being party to negotiations and compromises and to a whole variety of done deals just to keep the show on the road. That has not always been easy, as anyone who has been involved will acknowledge.
However, when I was in the Commons, as Leader of the House or as Chief Whip, I always knew that in the Commons you had one great advantage that the Lords never had. It was the very basic, simple fact that the Commons was elected. That is not to say that this House had no influence. It is not to say that this House never got its way. It did have an influence and it did sometimes persuade the Commons to back down and accept what was being proposed, and it did, on occasion, delay legislation, but when the crunch came, the Commons was elected, and the Commons always had the edge. Therefore, I ask this House, and the other House, to think what would be the situation if this House was elected, be it 80 per cent—as someone said, four-fifths legitimate—or 100 per cent. Those discussions and negotiations would be completely different.
The Government cannot just say that the primacy of the House of Commons would be preserved because, in reality, that is just not possible. Ministers always say that the way things will be preserved is by conventions. That is always the answer when we talk about this but, as the Leader of the House said yesterday,
“these arrangements and conventions may—indeed will—develop and evolve”.
You bet they will, and there is only one direction, there is only one way, in which they will change. The power of this Chamber will increase and the power of the Commons will diminish. No group of people, however much or little they are paid, who are worthy of election would sit back in this Chamber and not flex their muscles once they were elected, and I think that they would do it pretty quickly. My noble friend Lord Sewel said yesterday that institutions are dynamic. If we were to have an elected House of Lords, you would soon see how dynamic it could be. I think that that issue is now dawning on people in another place.
My second point is about accountability in the proposals in the draft Bill. Like others, I question what accountability there could be. I thought of it personally. If I were to stand in the senatorial elections under this system, first, I would be there for 15 years; secondly, as the Leader of the House said yesterday, I would,
“not be accountable to voters in the same way that MPs are to their constituents”,
and, thirdly, I would be barred from seeking re-election. So there is one very basic question: to whom am I accountable? It is not the electorate, and it is not my party, because I will not be able to seek re-election. I reckon I would have carte blanche. As long as you do not break the rules, you are there for 15 years. As the Leader of the House said yesterday, long single terms will uphold the independence of Members. He spoke of the,
“spirit that differentiates this House”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1156.]
So if we have that valued independence that he praises now, as we do, why are we going through all this to elect independent but non-accountable senators? It seems a nonsense to me. Like many others here today, I was in the Commons for quite a long time. I was there for 27 years, and I fought, I think, eight elections. That is accountability, not what is proposed here. What is democracy worth if it does not include accountability? It is a very basic question and one to which we have not yet had an answer.
Finally, I accept that it is very difficult to mount a theoretical, academic defence of an unelected House, although some people have got quite close to doing quite well today. Like others, I do not think that the House of Lords is perfect. We could improve it, as many have said, and as the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, tries to do. My defence is the practical fact that this House works. No one could have designed it in the way that it is but it has evolved into a very useful Chamber. It is my very strong belief, with others, that it is absolutely impossible to elect the Lords without the most severe impact being felt on the Commons. If you are doing that, in addition to all the other changes that this Government have been proposing, you might be best to start with a blank piece of paper and write a whole new codified constitution from scratch. The alternative, and what we are seeing at the moment, is piecemeal tinkering with our constitution. There will be unintended consequences and this approach will probably create far more problems than it solves.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, there is really very little to say that has not already been said very eloquently by those who have spoken before me. That feature of the debate that has taken place yesterday and today allows me, I hope, to be brief. I wish to associate myself particularly with the coruscating speech delivered yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and with the speeches delivered today by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and also with the many speeches delivered to your Lordships by those who have opposed the notion that election of Members of this House would be a desirable constitutional innovation.
This House has long been the subject of reforms to its membership. The reforms have always been pragmatic ones designed to make the House better able to discharge its constitutional functions. The reforms began—so far as I know; there may have been earlier ones—in 1878 when provision was made by statute for life peerages to be awarded to eminent judges or lawyers, and these became the first Law Lords. The reforms were designed to make the House better able to discharge its then constitutional role of being the final court of appeal for the kingdom. That was a wholly pragmatic response to the proposal by Prime Minister Gladstone to remove from the Lords its appellate jurisdiction. A general election brought in Disraeli as Prime Minister in place of Gladstone and the creation of Law Lords to sit on appeals to the House was the result.
The Parliament Act 1911 was a procedural reform introduced to prevent a Tory-dominated House of Lords from defeating legislation desired by the Lloyd George Liberal Government. That too was a pragmatic response to a need for the House to be in a satisfactory state. The 1958 Act extended to anybody the possibility of the grant of a life peerage and this too was a pragmatic response to the growing criticism of the hereditary character of the then membership of the House. The 1998 Act started the process of removing hereditary Peers from membership of the House but this Act, like the 1878 and 1958 Acts, owed little, if anything, to doctrine and everything to pragmatism—what would enable the House more efficiently to fulfil its constitutional role until a final decision about membership of the House could be reached. These reforms have since 1958 enabled a constitutional balance between the Commons and this House to evolve. I know of no criticism of that balance except that the Members of this House, bar the remaining hereditaries, owe their membership to appointment and not to election. Subject to that single criticism, the House has since 1958 discharged its constitutional functions without serious criticism of its membership.
Is that criticism justified? Your Lordships have heard over the past two days all sorts of criticisms of the proposed Bill and the details contained in it. Having listened carefully to those criticisms, I should have thought that the proposed Bill was a bad Bill, but that does not dispose of the underlying question of whether an elected House of Lords should be preferred to an appointed House, either wholly or in part.
A fully or mainly elected House would undermine the balance between the two Houses that has evolved since at least 1958—perhaps earlier. It would produce constitutional complications, disputes and deadlocks, the outcome of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to foretell. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, it would produce a “destination undefined”.
In considering the proposed reform of the House and whether an elected or an appointed House is to be preferred, there are only three relevant questions. First, what is the constitutional function of the House? Secondly, what attributes of Members of the House are needed for the discharge of those functions? The third question is whether election of Members of the House by members of the public is a necessary attribute for the discharging by Members of the House of their functions.
At present, the roles of the House are threefold. First, its reviewing and advisory role in relation to the House of Commons is applicable mainly to primary legislation but also to secondary legislation, particularly under the procedural reforms proposed in the report of my noble friend Lord Goodlad. The scrutiny of legislation is to identify whether any unintended consequences are to be discerned that might be thought to be undesirable, and whether the legislation as drafted will produce the consequences that were intended for it. Those scrutiny processes are highly desirable for the production of sound legislation and are performed by this House to a degree of satisfaction to everyone.
The second role of the House is to provide a venue for the introduction of politically non-controversial legislation. That role can be set aside for the purposes of the present argument, because an elected House would be able to discharge that role as well as would an appointed House.
However, the third role of the House is of critical importance. It is the function of holding the Government to account. That may arise in an almost infinite number of respects—some scientific, some technical, and some that are connected with the Armed Forces, legal matters, matters of medicine or other technologies. The “degree of expertise” is a phrase disliked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I would accept “diversity of experience” as a better use of language. That diversity is of huge importance in enabling the holding to account of Ministers to be discharged to its optimum effect. The House as presently constituted contains that diversity of experience. It is by no means confined to the Cross Benches, and is to be found in all parts of the House. It must be very rare for an issue to arise that calls for discussion or debate in the House where no one in the House has experience—expertise, if one likes—of that subject. I can certainly remember no such case since I have been in the House. That informs our debate; it enables questioning of the Minister to be effective and searching.
The next question is whether elections would produce Members of the House as well able to discharge their important constitutional function of holding the Government to account as does the House as presently constituted. The expert knowledge and experience of Members is clearly of great importance, as I have said. The independence of Members is also important. Members of political parties, as well as Cross-Benchers, are independent in the sense that, once they are here, they stay here. They are not subject to discipline by government Whips if they choose to vote or speak against party policy. That independence is important and obtainable under the House as it is constituted at the moment.
I do not believe that an elected House could match the qualities I have just mentioned. The manner in which individuals are appointed is certainly open to criticism. I entirely support the introduction of a statutory Appointments Commission—
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he has exceeded the guidance time.
Lord Scott of Foscote
I have exceeded my time by a minute and I apologise for that. I entirely support the introduction of a statutory Appointments Commission tasked to produce a balanced House. That is important, and consistent with an appointed House.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I speak in this debate with considerable reluctance, because I, too, was concerned about this House spending a considerable amount of parliamentary time on the issue when so many people are facing such difficult circumstances. I recently gazed at the supermarket shelves reflecting that there was hardly a loaf of bread for under £1. However, the more that I considered the draft Bill, ironically, it highlighted one of the main roles of your Lordships' House: to keep a long-term view when short-term considerations press in on government.
I am in favour of reform, but the reforms in the draft Bill are deeply flawed and could lead to our finely balanced constitution, which operates like a beautiful clock, being tampered with one too many times and jamming altogether. In my brief time in your Lordships’ House, I have come to view the relationship of this House to the other place rather like a boxer and his trainer. The other place throws a democratic punch, to be met by a mitt labelled delay, scrutiny or review. Perhaps another punch or two is thrown, but eventually, the boxer gets the prize. The trainer is there only to improve the boxer. By electing this Chamber, the trainer will become another boxer and the two will end up fighting or, worse still, they will be on the same team and there will be no fight at all, no scrutiny, review or delay.
A boxing match also needs a referee. Who will referee potential endless ping-pong between the two Chambers? Will it be a Joint Committee, a referendum, a YouGov survey or the judiciary? The draft Bill is silent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton: the other place will lose its supremacy once public opinion and the media, in any dispute between the Chambers, are on the side of senators. The judiciary just battled Facebook and Twitter and did not do so well. I do not believe that Members of the other place will fare any better.
I have also tried to imagine the doorstep conversations in elections under the draft Bill. I would have to ask for a person’s vote and explain, “No, I do not want your vote for me as your elected representative but as your elected reviewer, your elected scrutineer, your elected delayer”. I think that the final comment will have been shouted through a door shut in my face, and quite rightly.
What would my election literature look like? My whole CV condensed onto an A5 flyer? I do not believe that that would improve public confidence in our politics one bit.
The two elected Chambers will also clash at grass-roots level. As the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said, senators will take on case work in part of their areas. I think that I can feel a cold draught coming from the other place as chills go down their spines at the thought of theyworkforyou.com having senator and MP competitive league tables. Of course, if this would deliver a better service for constituents then it would be worth considering. The very valuable work of an elected representative dealing with constituents inquiries is rather like customer service from a big retailer, but I cannot think of any retailer that advises you to phone up twice, to speak to two people, to get two customer reference numbers and to have two people contacting the suppliers, as the likelihood of conflicting answers would increase.
On a serious note, hundreds of civil servants are at the end of hotlines from offices in this Palace doing their best to deal with complex cases. I believe that such duplication will be a waste of public resource as well as immensely frustrating to the civil servants who will find it impossible to tell a senator that they cannot deal with an inquiry because the MP called two days ago.
Much of what I now say regarding the Lords Spiritual applies to the current Chamber as well as to any reformed House. I would like to deal with the reality which is outlined in paragraph 91 of the White Paper, a paragraph with which I agree—that although historically they are here as independents, the reality is that they are seen as representatives of the Church of England.
I am impressed by the Lords Spiritual, who bring a sense of service to their community and a spiritual, moral and ethical perspective that enhances the independent nature of debate in your Lordships’ House. I believe that the work of this House is improved by each of the Benches having a blend of part-time and full-time Peers. I am deliberately avoiding using the term “working Peers” as it implies that other Peers do not work, which is not true. I believe that there would be much merit in having a blend of Bishops: some part-time with diocesan responsibilities and some full-time akin to working Peers. It would be most welcome to have Bishops more fully involved in the life of this House
Unfortunately, under the draft Bill, none of the recommendations of the royal commission is developed. Surely the churches in the other home nations should be represented and the wisdom of the leader of the largest voluntary provider of social services in the country—namely the Salvation Army—would be extremely valuable. Perhaps canon law will still deny this House the insights and immense wisdom of the Archbishop of Westminster but there are very gifted laity in the Catholic Church. What of the black-led denominations whose story often includes having to found their own denominations as many of the established ones were not the most welcoming? To my knowledge there is not a single attendee now, let alone a leader, from within those denominations in your Lordships’ House, and I think that the House is poorer for that.
There are no perfect proposals, but the division of the 12 places on the basis of church attendance within the UK would be a good starting point. On the latest British social attitude surveys that would give us 3.5 Anglicans, 3.5 Catholics and five others. I know that I am expecting a lot from a Bench that believes in miracles.
In looking into the history of this House, it was most encouraging to learn that the 14th century church was rather radical and that women owned land. So in 1306 a writ of summons was sent to abbesses to attend Parliament—but alas, there is no evidence that any of these women attended. Whether by laity or working Bishops, there needs to be a clear timetable outlining and guaranteeing when the Benches of the Lords Spiritual will include a substantial number of women. Places in the nation’s legislature are not on a men-only basis for any organisation.
The public want a House that functions. I would support a fully elected House, with proper recognition of the democratic power of the people and a means to resolve disputes between Chambers. However, I am not convinced that we will ever come up with such a solution. On the options presented to me, I would support a wholly appointed Chamber based on a statutory Appointments Commission, and I would submit myself to reselection if required.
I pray in aid of my conclusion the result of a vote in a House of Lords Chamber event in 2010, when a majority of the 16 to 18 year-olds who had the privilege of debating this issue voted for a fully appointed House. I concur with the comments of many of your Lordships about the loss of wisdom and expertise to this House under the reforms. I cannot express that point better than Ed Gerlach, from Western Sixth Form College, who took part in that Chamber event. He said:
“I agree that we should have appointed Lords. They are from different fields and will know what they are on about from a variety of different backgrounds. People were saying that a lot of them are middle aged people, but they have been around longer and know better what they are on about. They are the people who we should trust. I agree that we should perhaps have a few younger people but you cannot use that as a criticism. They know what they are on about because they have been around the longest. I do not mean that in any disrespectful way”.
And neither, my Lords, do I.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, after 10 years spent chained to the ministerial Bench, I cannot remember ever uttering an original comment in this House, and I am therefore not likely to do so on this subject, particularly after almost 90 speeches which have covered every conceivable part of the document. It is a work of genius, I think, for the three main parties to be in favour of reform and for the Government to produce a document which seems to have attracted the wholehearted and complete support of fewer than five out of the 90 noble Lords who have spoken. Of course, we all await the Minister’s ability to redress the balance, and we look forward to that contribution with great joy.
As reformers, we should rejoice in the fact that the Government are committed to this degree of reform. I would remind those in my own party who have reservations about reform that it took us 40 years, more than a generation, to improve on the 1911 Act with regard to the relationship between the two Houses and then almost 50 years before we moved on again with regard to hereditary Peers. It is not as if this country or even my party moves at breakneck speed when it comes to constitutional reform, so I hope that on all sides there will be some degree of constructive response to this initiative. But I am all too well aware of the fact that the criticisms that have been expressed of the Bill have been not just on the detail but on crucial aspects of principle.
Let me express an obvious point. I have enjoyed my period in this House and I have particularly enjoyed the quality of the contributions to our debates. It is very rare that we do not present words of great worth to the nation, however ill reported they may prove to be. But part of that limited reporting is the very fact of the matter: we can be disregarded because we are unrepresentative. We are not a debating society. We are the second Chamber of one of the world’s oldest democracies. Other countries which have come much later into the democratic field than us have tackled the problems of a second Chamber with success. It may be said that many of those countries have written constitutions. Well, let the Government address themselves to that fact.
Fundamental Acts of Parliament such as the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and the Act passed with regard to the hereditaries are part of our constitution. If the Government need, and I think they obviously do, to define clearly the relationships they see developing between two Houses if they are elected, it is for the Government to make that abundantly clear before either House is asked to make a judgment about the composition of the House of Lords. That is why the biggest weakness in the document is its complete failure to identify the issues of powers. I hate to say this to my noble friend Lord Richard, but it looks as if we will need to ask the committee to go back to the drawing board on these issues, such has been the force of criticism in the debate.
I am in favour of an elected House. I do not see that an elected House could be anything other than an enhancement of our democratic position. However, I cannot recognise the concept of an elected House in this document. Election is not only a question of winning the votes to arrive at a place, but also about the accountability of the exercise of power when one is in that place. Of course, this document proposes that Members of this House would get here through election and not be accountable at all; they would enjoy 15 years as legislators, but not as representatives. The Government certainly need to address themselves to that.
Whenever the Government, in this paper, have gone into any area of detail, they seem to have fallen very short of the quality of argument we would expect. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, identified a proposal in this document that a Minister of the Crown can be appointed, can become a Member of Parliament and can be dismissed from his post by the Prime Minister, but also dismissed from Parliament by virtue of the post having been lost. That is an absolute absurdity. Where has a conscious thought gone into this White Paper if such absurd positions as that are produced? Let us be clear, however, about what this document does tackle and what the fundamental principle is that we have to address.
I have heard a great deal about the weaknesses of the document and about the Government’s position and I have made it fairly clear that I intend to support my Front Bench in a great deal of the criticism of the Bill because we hope that, when the Bill emerges, it will be very different from the one envisaged in this document. What is being tackled is the problem that we all share, each and every one of us. We are here as creatures of patronage. It is not an attractive word, not a word that has featured a great deal in this debate. Though we have been full of considerable congratulation on the work that we do, on the efforts that we put in on behalf of the community—and I appreciate all that work—it is still the fact that we are here because somebody in power thought that we should be. That is no basis for the second Chamber in a democracy. That is why, despite the bumbling efforts of the Government over this document, despite the ease with which we are able to subject it to criticism—unless my noble friend Lord Richard and his committee are able to produce very different perspectives indeed—we should respect that obvious point. We, a House of grandparents appointed through patronage by individuals, should recognise that we have limited legitimacy and one which has no place in the law making of a modern democracy.
Lord True
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I shall disappoint other noble Lords by agreeing with a number of things that he said. He will have noticed that the debate opened with a striking speech by the Leader of the Opposition, in which she tore up, on behalf of the new reforming leadership of the Labour Party, the commitments made after many years of discussion involving the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is shaking his head, to an elected House. That was in the Labour Party’s manifesto and Labour pushed for it after its manifesto. The shadow Cabinet has awarded itself, as I see it, the freedom to duck and weave on this issue, while, as many of us will have noticed in this debate, not ruling out returning to election in the future, when it suits it rather more politically. I find in that position, which I must put down to Mr Miliband, very little principle and quite a lot of opportunism.
I share many of the reservations expressed about aspects of the Bill, but I am afraid that I accept many of its core arguments. I ask the House to consider whether this Government have done what this House time and again has asked Governments to do on legislation. They have put forward a Bill, however imperfect, for pre-legislative scrutiny. It is easy, when someone puts his head above the parapet, to open fire and, indeed, we have heard absolute volleys of grapeshot over the past two days—the ample body of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde offers a larger target than most. However, I hope that, in shooting at the target of this Bill, we will not block, at this perhaps closing stage of the question of the House of Lords, serious scrutiny of the idea of election, which has been in the open, as others have pointed out, since it was endorsed by the royal commission. I certainly hope that we will not rule it out, however tempting it might be, pour épater Monsieur Clegg.
I could not support a 100 per cent elected House or the effective exclusion of Cross-Benchers. Nor could I support the removal of the right reverend Prelates, for what I thought were the rather old Tory principles set out in the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that were quoted to us yesterday. I would dearly love to see the return of the Supreme Court and the Law Lords here. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, pointed out, that happened in 1876 after an earlier ham-fisted reform. It might well lessen the risks of future clashes between Parliament and the judiciary.
However, I cannot rule out election of at least some political Peers with the certainty that has informed so many speeches in this debate. The case for election is not only democracy, although I do not disdain democracy. After all, Lord Chancellors apart, since Victorian times almost all the greatest statesmen who have led in these islands, save the odd exception such as my noble friend Lord Carrington, have first been elected. That includes even the great Marquess of Salisbury. The case for election is not only some greater legitimacy, as has been argued, although I do not disdain that either. There have been many attacks on the 15-year mandate, but they neglect to point out that the House, although never dissolved, would be renewed and refreshed by election by thirds, as is the US Senate.
The case for considering election is surely that from which so many people in this debate have recoiled: challenging the House of Commons to do its job better. It has generally been accepted that the Executive are too strong and that the other place is malfunctioning. I agree with all those who have said that Clause 2 of the draft Bill is nonsense. A House with a significant elected element would challenge the House of Commons and its primacy more and with more conviction. But why not? Then the other place might have to win a few more arguments rather than relying on the juggernaut of the Whip and the mantra of primacy that we keep hearing.
I do not want to reel back through the mists of time, but it is an odd fact that the last time this House brought down a Government was in 1783, which opened the way to one of the greatest of all our Prime Ministers, William Pitt. I do not fear the challenge that election would put into the system. Nor do I panic about the word “gridlock”, which comes up time and again—sometimes from those who darkly hint that it would happen if they did not get their way on this matter. Do we not have too much ill thought-out legislation pumped out through our Parliament, including by the Government whom I support?
I am sorry but, if the need to avoid gridlock contributed to more forethought, more willingness to compromise and less haste to publish monster Bills, I would not lose too much sleep if election contributed to that. There are many ways to break deadlock and, in the good old days, Members of the House of Commons used to have to stand and take their hats off when Members of the House of Lords attended joint conferences.
Lord True
I suspect that that might appeal to many here. As regards the criticisms that have been made about aspects of the draft Bill, I appeal to the House not to put itself in the position of being seen as ruling out any idea of election. Let us ask the Joint Committee to try to burnish a proposal and then—I agree with what my noble friend Lord Astor said yesterday—the proposal should be put to the people in a referendum.
To conclude, there should be at least one other option in such a referendum. When Lord Gardiner put his paper on reform to the Labour Cabinet in 1968 he said that there were four options—abolition, do nothing, election or appointment. Things have not changed much since then. The prevailing mood in the House is clear: noble Lords want an all-appointed House. Most see a seductive and stealthy route to that in the Bill put forward by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. I cannot support that Bill. We have an Appointments Commission already and I question the prevailing assumption—as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick—that a committee of seven or nine people, chosen from the ranks of the great and good, should be charged by statute for all time with controlling the peopling of a whole House of Parliament. I cannot accept as readily as some that it is axiomatically wrong that 40 million people should have a say in who might come to this House, while it is right that seven people should determine in secret who comes and why.
The core proposition of my noble friend Lord Steel’s Bill is the ending of the replacement of our hereditary colleagues in order to leave an all-appointed House. I will pass over the point that that would disproportionately disadvantage this party, which had the largest popular vote at the recent general election, and ask why, if this is so desirable—as has been so eloquently argued—the creation of this all-appointed House should be done by stealth. Why should it creep through the shadows under the name of incremental change? Why can it not proclaim itself as the full and final reform that so many of your Lordships wish? However, this is something that no party has put before the British people recently. It is featured in no programme and has been subject to no scrutiny or public debate. We have heard eloquent arguments for an all-appointed House, but if we want to settle the House of Lords question and close off election, as many noble Lords wish, we will not do so by a hole-in-the-corner measure.
The proposition for an all-appointed House, put by so many noble Lords with such conviction, should be put squarely before the British people in a referendum, alongside whatever proposition on a politically elected element may emerge from the Joint Committee and the deliberations of another place. If the British people then vote to reject the idea that they should ever have a right to vote for any Member of this House, I might be able to accept my noble friend Lord Steel’s Bill. Until then, I am sorry that I cannot.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I am in the minority in the House and on the speakers list, although I am much comforted by some of the speeches that I have just heard. It is both right and just that those who have power over the lives of others and who can make and amend laws—and we in this House do have powers—should be subject to the will of those people, the electorate. Therefore, in principle I seek a democratically elected and accountable second Chamber. In this I am in accord with my party and its traditions. Noble Lords may have heard statements to the contrary today, but the Labour Party stands for a democratically elected second Chamber and I do not believe that it will change its view in future years.
There has been a lot of talk also about MPs at the other end changing their views. I do not know from my contacts whether this is the case. However, I have spent some time looking at MPs who spoke in the debates at the other end, and it seems that many of them have been around for quite some time. A fair number of them are coming to the end of their careers, and possibly a number might hope to come to the House of Lords. It is very difficult to get a measure of the strength of feeling among the new MPs—and there are a lot of them down there. My guess is that if push comes to shove, most of them will stand with their leadership. Secondly, they will look at the manifestos on which they were elected. All the manifestos, even if the parties did not get majorities, have statements to the effect that those parties want an elected second Chamber. The MPs will also look at allegations that have been made about their conduct, and about breaking their promises, particularly after what we have seen in the past 12 months. Again on this issue, if it comes to the push, I believe that they will not leave themselves open to the allegation that they have breached the promises given in their manifestos.
I urge the House to look a bit wider than this debate has done so far—and I am very much a supporter of the House and in love with the House. We had rather a surprise three or four years ago when more people in the Commons voted for the change. People down this end did not believe that would happen. It is important that we do not misjudge the mood and the momentum. This topic is very much about momentum. It has been on the move since 1997 and there is a long way to go yet.
There is also a change of mood taking place among the public at large at a very fast pace that it ill behoves us to ignore, particularly in relation to the media, to communications, to the internet and so on. We can be caught out if we do not watch what is happening. If there was a referendum on whether the House should be 100 per cent elected, the public would throw it out completely, no matter what arguments were made.
There has been some movement in the Commons but I certainly cannot see it standing on its head and supporting the Steel Bill or 100 per cent appointments. I just do not see that happening; it is not the reality. They are not going to do that even if there was more opposition to election. We have to take note of some of those points. They will also be conscious that we are now a House of over 800 and that they are to be reduced in due course to 600. They will ask questions about the cost and sustainability of what we are doing. These are all topics that have not come up so far today but I think we should look at them.
Some people here are taking note of the need for change beyond just talking about tinkering around the edges. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, this morning. He is a greatly respected Peer and not a man who is about disturbing the normal state of affairs—he is a man for stability and a man who knows when there is a mood and change taking place and when there is a requirement to respond to it. It is interesting that he now advocates a move towards a form of election—not direct election, true, but indirect election—but this change is starting to take place in some areas in this House. The message for those of us who listen carefully to each other is to listen very carefully to what is going on around us.
If this Bill went through, I suppose that would be my manifesto for an election next time round and I would be out on the first list in 2015—one of the number to be ejected. The view has been put to me that if you are in favour of elections you will be the first to go out of the House if changes do come. Maybe I will respond to that.
Having said all that, I find the Bill a huge disappointment in certain respects, mainly in regard to omissions—it is what is not in there but which should be in there that I worry about. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, I am in favour of accountability and that means at least once going back to the electorate for election. In fairness, the Labour Party never had a policy which went down that road. We argued with Jack Straw and some of us hoped that we might be able to persuade the party that it should introduce some accountability because otherwise it makes a mockery of claiming that this is fully legitimate.
Secondly, I come to the infamous Clause 2 and failure of the Bill to address the issue of powers. I am an advocate of broadly maintaining the present relationship between the two Houses. Over time I have been asked about what work the Government were doing on codification of the powers and conventions between the two Houses. I am absolutely surprised that this has gone completely off the agenda and not been mentioned at all. I find this amazing. The last Government knew it had to be done and was starting to look at it but this Government have left it wide open. I hope that the Government will reflect on that carefully because there is no way you can keep the status quo. It was mentioned this morning that over 200 secondary legislation SIs came through the House last year. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, knows himself what you can do with an SI in this House: you can have a fatal vote on an SI and you can change completely a government policy—as indeed Members in this House did on the Gambling Bill when they threw out the SI. When you have elected people in the Chamber, can you leave the freedom for them to do that? In no time you will be in trouble.
My next question is linked to the Parliament Act. Do the Government have in mind using the Parliament Act on a frequent basis? More particularly, do they have in mind the possibility that, as previously when the delaying power was reduced from two years down to one, one of the ways in which they could deal with a problem between the two Houses is to change the delaying power from one year down to nine months, six months or even three months? I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point because it is fairly fundamental. It would be very difficult to put through but, if it went through, it could create an entirely different relationship between the two Houses.
My time is running out. I regret that the Government have not spent any time looking at the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and others—the quality, calibre and experience of this House. How do you get such expertise through a system which requires selection and election? Many alternatives could be used instead of the present arrangements, which rest with the existing parties, and I am sorry that the Government in being radical—as they are trying to be—have not spent some time looking at that issue to see how we can get nearer to a system of finding people willing to stand for election who are similar to the ones we already have in the House. I hope the Government will look at that issue. I have raised it with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I hope that the Joint Committee will be prepared to look at it.
Lord Paul
My Lords, this debate is both long overdue and very timely. In this day and age, it is abundantly clear that the structure of our constitution needs reform and revision. To depend on piecemeal legislation, convention, interpretations and other practices of the past will increasingly create ambiguities and imprecisions at a time when clarity and specificity are required to serve the needs of our ever more complex society. Effective reform is the best constitutional legacy we can bequeath to future generations.
As we engage in these efforts, we should broaden our approach. The structure of the constitution and issues such as the composition of this House have become our primary focus; however, I feel that it is as important to consider reform and revision of the processes, the procedures and the operating functions that underlie the constitutional structure and make it work. These are the nuts and bolts that give the structure its strength and assure its legitimacy.
In the penumbra of larger reform, we now have an excellent opportunity to make sure that these operating procedures and the ways in which this House regulates itself will conform to the highest standards of fairness and probity. In this context, four principles need to be incorporated in our working processes. Regretfully, they have not been fully adhered to in the past and this, as your Lordships are aware, has been the source of considerable controversy.
The first principle is equality in the way the rules of this House are applied. If there are any investigations or allegations regarding Members of this House, all those concerned must be treated equally; selective application of rules against some and exculpation of others is discriminatory. When it is known that many have done what only a few are castigated for, that can only be a gross transgression of British justice.
The second principle that needs to be clearly established is the undesirability of ex post facto application of rules. Rules and requirements that are in place at the time of alleged actions should be the rules that apply to any such situations. As far as I know, retrospective violations have no status and are not recognised in the courts of law. Why, then, should they be the basis of punishment for Members of this House? It may also be appropriate to consider how committees examining allegations against Members are composed—whether it is more appropriate to select committee chairpersons from among those who belonged to the House when the alleged events were supposed to have taken place.
The third principle is that of transparency. When this House or its committees conduct investigations or examine evidence, it is essential that all relevant documents be made available. Scrupulous care should be taken that nothing is omitted or withheld.
Finally, I believe it is essential that in any proceedings against a Member of this House, that Member should be allowed some legal representation, especially if he or she is to be subject to unrestrained cross-examination by legal luminaries. Simply summoning Members and denying them the right to legal representation is something that our justice system would not tolerate and nor should we.
Your Lordships will not be surprised at my interest in these matters. Experience, after all, is the parent of insight. However, my primary concern is that we govern ourselves with the same degree of propriety that we expect from the civil institutions of government. Reform will really be reform only when it reaches all levels. Widening the scope and application of reforms of this House allows us an opportunity to do this—an opportunity it would be unwise to neglect.
Lord Lyell
My Lords, in my short career as a cricketer I learnt one thing: if one is number 95 on the batting list, be quick, say your bit and perhaps get out—although I hope I shall not be declared out too early by the umpire. Two of my noble friends—one who is beside me and another who was, briefly, in his place—have between them 120 years’ experience in your Lordships’ House. In my case, I have learnt that the day that I took my seat, on 22 February 1961, my noble friend the Leader of the House, who alas is not in his place, was 13 months old. I cover a good period then. In the 50 years since then—I am now in my 51st year here—I have been able to learn a very great deal, both in your Lordships’ House and outside. What I have learnt so far in this debate—yesterday rather than necessarily today—comes from the marvellous remarks of my noble friend Lord Dobbs. If your Lordships have a look at col. 1235 of yesterday’s Official Report you will see what he said about being a fresh Member of your Lordships’ House. I am that boy but it is 51 years on, so I have had some learning and experience that I hope will be of help in discussing reform of this unique institution.
One of the mottos that, as a youngster, was drummed into me above all is, “Leave the place as you wish to find it”. That is my leitmotif and the main thought that I would share today. I believe that the evolution and development of your Lordships’ House, this second Chamber, will happen in some way, but I am not entirely satisfied—indeed, I am not sure—that it should evolve in the way that the Bill and White Paper propose.
I am asked by young friends, and also by older ones, to try to explain, in what I call O-level terms, what I do as a parliamentarian. It is most useful that we are having this debate in the two weeks that the London suburb of Wimbledon is at its peak, because I try to describe what we do in your Lordships’ House by saying that we are amateurs. Down in the other place, they are the professionals, but we play the same game. In this great game of politics, occasionally there is a break of serve and sometimes one of the top seeds gets knocked out. But I always tell my young friends that the name on the trophy is that of our friends in the other place.
I hope that our duties will remain as they are now, or that they will remain in a new institution however it evolves. I hope, first, that we will revise. Secondly, I hope that there will be no guillotine or chasing or methods of that sort. I hope that there will be no time limit, because that is one of the benefits of your Lordships’ House. I also hope that the Select Committees can continue as they are.
As an individual, what have been my powers? What have I been able to do in my career in your Lordships’ House? I have been able to do many things, both passively and actively. One extraordinary thing that will be of note to my noble friend sitting beside me and indeed to the Deputy Leader is that I have been able to do extraordinary jobs for an institution that is particularly well known—I think that it is beyond the Old Swan, as the Deputy Leader described it. This institution had a serious problem over recruitment and required considerable help. I said, “Did you not go to your Member of Parliament or to a Minister who is well known to be a supporter of this great institution?”. They said, “We had no success at all”. So it came to a Conservative Member of your Lordships’ House to try to help this great institution in the city of Liverpool. I was humbled by the reception and help that I got. That is one tiny example of what we can do.
The pitfalls of what might come to be development of your Lordships’ House were beautifully explained by my noble friend Lord Steel, in col. 1199 of yesterday’s Official Report. He explained the three massive developments involving power going from your Lordships to the House of Commons. This is the first time when there may be a little difficulty regarding power going from the other place back to this place. His wise words are well worth reading.
Let us look at who might be the occupants of these Benches in a new and reformed House. As your Lordships know, I come from the boondocks, the rural areas of Scotland. I have found it particularly difficult explaining what one might call the democratic process, or politics, or this splendid place that in the vernacular in Scotland they call the Waste Munster—which is not necessarily anything to do with rubbish in that province of Ireland, but is the district where we work. It is an indication of the remoteness of what we are discussing in your Lordships’ House in my neck of the woods. Should I survive long enough and wish to take part in any election to this new Second Chamber, I would find it rather difficult to explain exactly what one is supposed to be up to. We already have a Member of Parliament in another place; a Member of the Scottish Parliament, with different powers; and a Member of the European Parliament.
As for what any title of your Lordships’ successors might be—noble Lord or senator—I do worry. As for the candidates who might take this up, I hope your Lordships will consider the wise remarks of my noble friend Lord Cormack yesterday. He asked why somebody of the age of perhaps 65 might commit himself to 15 years of his life in here. I, as an impudent lad, will also add the problems of finance. The thought of a salary for Members of your Lordships’ House, or whatever it might be called, will provide, I think, succulent prey for this institution called IPSA. It has already caused great dramas in the other place. I imagine it swooping down on my noble friend as well as on my noble friend Lord Caithness and others coming from the boondocks. It will be particularly interesting to see what we will be allowed to charge as overnight allowances. I hope that we will not find headlines in a newspaper saying, “Canada geese attack tents in St James’s Park”. I would suggest that, to consider us perfectly clean and innocent, the IPSA might wish to see us camping in St James’s Park. No government money will be spent. We will be as white as snow.
Should I or any Member of your Lordships’ House from my neck of the woods succeed in being elected to the new Chamber, to whom would they report? Would they cover all the activities of a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Scottish Parliament—you can see the toes being trampled on—or a Member of the European Parliament? I look to see what my noble friend Lord Steel has to say in his Bill, which I hope will go on.
In my 51st year in your Lordships’ House, there is one motto that has stood by me. I borrow two words from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales: Eich Dyn—I serve. That goes for each and every one of us. How we do it, now or in a new Chamber, that will be something to consider. I hope that we will have constructive discussions and a constructive solution.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, I propose to address most of my remarks today to those Members of your Lordships' House who were previously Members of another place or have, in the course of their careers, suffered election to obtain their advancement. It is my view that the final decision on these matters will actually be taken down the other end of the corridor; in this respect, I am much more sanguine than my noble friend Lord Brooke, as I sense already a distinct change of tide at the other end of this corridor, which relates to the sorts of people who might arrive in your Lordships' House, were membership here to be by election. They are suddenly beginning to realise that at the other end.
Before I dilate on that, I would just like to say how much I enjoyed three speeches in particular that I was able to hear in the course of the last two days. First of all there was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Low, who produced one of the most elegant speeches that I have heard since I came to your Lordships' House, about 14 years ago. Secondly, there was the ferocity of my noble friend Lady Boothroyd. I had the pleasure of having a constituency that abutted directly on hers for nearly 27 years. Thirdly, there was the speech of the noble Marquis. I think he is the only one we have who ever speaks, but I thought that he produced a most professional contribution.
Now that your Lordships have heard that, it will therefore come as no surprise to hear that I am a fervent supporter of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I hope that he persists in his efforts. I hope very much, too, that my noble friend Lady Boothroyd will test the opinion of the House at the end of this evening’s proceedings. She can be sure that I will be in the Lobby beside her if she chooses so to do.
I challenge one of the idées reçues of this debate, which is that if we have elected Members, the power of the Whips will be considerably enhanced. I simply do not believe that. Whips derive their power from two things: the ability to bribe and the ability to threaten. Once you have your seat here for 15 years, I cannot see that any Whip can say to anyone, “Thou shalt have that”, or, “Thou shalt not have something else”. As far as I can see, the Whips will be absolutely powerless over Members, once they are here.
I derive a couple of conclusions from that. First, two types of people will arrive here. There will be those who come for the money and the title. It will vary from family to family who is keener on which, the husband or the wife, the money or the title. I make no judgment. Also there will be some ambitious people arriving here who would like to be Ministers. All these ridiculous restrictions, such as that you are here for 15 years and you cannot stand again down the other end for five years, and the idea that all the present arrangements between the two Houses will persist—it is all absolute nonsense. If anybody actually believes that, I have a bridge I can sell them somewhere. I will take bets on it. You do not have to worry about that—it is going to disappear. It is absolute nonsense. Anybody coming here for the first time, once he is here, if he is not the cash and title type of creep, will be the sort of oik that wants a job, and he is going to fight for it. He will be in a position to make it very uncomfortable for the Government of the day. He will have 15 years to go on making it uncomfortable. I know what I would do. The first thing that I would say is, “Hey, what about the Parliament Act—we’ve had enough of that, thank you very much”, or, “Hey, what about supply—can we have that, please?”. “Finally”, he will say, “we are going to have our share of Cabinet Ministers”. There would be no stumbling block to put in the way of any Parliament not to concede those things to Members of this House who were determined to have them.
As was said in the debate earlier, this House has huge powers. The trouble is that it has not used them; it has funked the fight. But the powers of this House to obstruct are absolutely enormous, and there will be enough people who will use them once they are elected here.
I said a moment ago—I do not think that this has been said in your Lordships' House in this debate—that there was a change of attitude appearing at the other end of the corridor, and the reason is that they are discovering something. They are just beginning to realise who will be getting into this place: it will be the people who Members of the House of Commons beat to get their own seats there, and they hate each other—you had better believe it. Whether they are men or women, and however long they have been there, the people who will be after the seats here will be the so-and-sos who tried to stab them in the back and prevent them getting selected in the first place. No love will be lost at all. So I am afraid that I disagree again with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the likely attitude of Members down the other end of the corridor. Through all of this, that factor is changing very fast indeed.
There was this other nonsense about constituency work. Really, does anybody think that the public will not come to elected Members of this House saying, “The other fellow is no goddamned use. You sort the problem out for me; he has failed”? Anybody who has been down the other end knows that that is what will happen. Of course it is. You cannot stop it, and that will be another source of friction.
I am so glad to see the noble Lord come in. I have his name down here: the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. That was not meant to be sarcastic. I apologise to him, as he made my afternoon, and I congratulate him on what he had to say. Moreover, there were only two other Members from his party on the Benches around him when he got up to speak, but he managed to increase that number to four. That is a major achievement. One thing that I have noticed about today's debate is that although this is a coalition Bill, I have not heard many Conservative speakers get up to say how much they want it. Even more surprisingly, I have not heard any Liberal Democrat speakers get up to say that they want it. There is one following me, and I know that he will have a go. That is why I regard myself as a little unfortunate today, because I normally prefer to speak rather later than this in your Lordships’ debates. We will see that that does not happen again. I am damned if I am going to have a Liberal Democrat replying to me in any future debate in your Lordships’ House, particularly one with the abilities—I will not specify how I value them—of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.
I have said all that I want to say. I seriously hope that my noble friend will press her Motion to a vote today. I support it very much, just as I support the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I promise most sincerely that I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in any respect. The last two days of debates have been laced with the most delicious, rich irony, which is somehow so traditional in any debate in this place when we are talking to ourselves about ourselves. I counted the number of former Members of Parliament on the list of speakers. There are 68, two-thirds of the total. The first irony is that rather too many of them seem to think that appointed politicians are somehow more reputable and reliable than elected ones, which I think reflects on their previous experience.
Meanwhile, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has set the scene best in his book on this subject, Unfinished Business. He wrote:
“Executive control over the House of Commons is stronger in Britain than in any comparable country. Though it frequently masquerades as a defence of the rights of the Commons, in reality many of the arguments against comprehensive reform”—
that is, of this House—
“are a defence of that executive power”.
He hits the nail on the head. The endless defence of the supremacy of the other place amounts to an assertion that we really should have that “elective dictatorship” of which Lord Hailsham spoke in 1976. Indeed, some Members seem so anxious to avoid a House that will assert itself against the Executive, strengthening Parliament as a whole, that they would prefer to have this House abolished altogether, and not be bicameral at all, rather than see it gain the legitimacy that it so richly needs but at present so woefully lacks.
Surely the White Paper and draft Bill, and the central intention to ensure that this place contains an elected element by 2015, should not come as a surprise to any Member of your Lordships’ House. Of the 105 speakers in this debate, 65 have been appointed since 1997, when a Government came to power determined to introduce a democratically elected element to this House. All noble Lords who have come to this House after that date must be absolutely clear that our appointment was not for life but would be temporary. That, too, is an irony.
Much has been made, especially on the opposition Benches, of the need to clarify the future relationship between the Houses if and when these reforms are fully implemented. The best analysis that I have seen concluded:
“There is no reason why any further increase in the authority and effectiveness of the second chamber following elections should undermine the primacy of the House of Commons”.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will recognise that quotation because he wrote it. It is a direct quotation from the Jack Straw/Philip Hunt—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—White Paper of 2008. Members on the other side of the House should read their own White Paper before they come to the House and pretend that all these matters are completely new.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can the noble Lord answer the question which his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, failed to answer yesterday as to why he thinks that a House elected by first past the post should have primacy over a House elected by single transferable vote?
Lord Tyler
If the noble Lord had read his own White Paper, let alone the Government’s White Paper, he would know that three tranches of elections to this House—whether it is 80 per cent or 100 per cent—mean that at no time would the membership of this House have a more up-to-date mandate than that held by Members of the other House. That is absolutely clear—and Jack Straw and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were clear about it, too.
I am very respectful and appreciative of the wise heads in this House, but they cannot go on asserting the primacy of the other House and yet build up the impression in this House and beyond that they intend to threaten a veto on any reform Bill that the other House sends us. That is yet another irony.
Breaking a habit of a lifetime, I will concentrate for the few minutes that I have on the one area where I think there may well be a consensus in your Lordships’ House. Several Members have questioned the suggestion that 300 is a sensible number for a reformed House. This matter requires very careful analysis by the Joint Committee. The commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—who was here just now—recommended 550; the 2001 government White Paper 600; the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee 350; the Bill which was sponsored by Messrs Clarke, Wright, Cook, Young and Tyler, 413; and the Jack Straw/Philip Hunt White Paper 435. At no stage has anyone suggested that the workload of this House could be undertaken by 300. We all thought that it was preferable to have a second House of Parliament where it was not necessary to have full-time parliamentarians. I regret that the White Paper has gone on that route when it has never been recommended.
There are five reasons why 300 Members is too small a number. First, as I have hinted, Parliament as a whole benefits from having a proportion of Members who retain an active involvement in other walks of life, which would be very difficult to have with only 300. Secondly, given the relatively long but one-term limited service, it would be difficult to recruit candidates who were prepared to be full-time parliamentarians while they were not able to take part in other activities and go back to another career. Thirdly, your Lordships should note that 80 of the 800 Members of your Lordships’ House are already involved in European scrutiny. It is already a very considerable commitment and I do not think that 300 could do the job.
Lord Higgins
In fact, the White Paper comes up with the very strange proposition that the figure should be around 300 or so because that is the average attendance in this House. However, this assumes that the average attendance covers all the same people, which is absolute rubbish. People come depending on their expertise in a particular debate. We need more than that number in order to get the coverage.
Lord Tyler
I am very grateful to my noble friend, but there is an additional reason. In fact the average is not 300; it is over 400. That figure is out of date. I accept entirely what my noble friend said and I hope that there will be support from other Members across the House when it comes to looking at this issue in the Joint Committee.
Finally, under whatever system of PR, if the number is so small it will be quite difficult to get diversity—indeed, even gender balance—in the membership of this House. If only 80 Members are elected in each tranche there will be relatively small multi-Member seats and it will be quite difficult to get the sort of diversity and gender balance that I know many Members of your Lordships' House wish to have. Many have already expressed concerns on this.
Lord Lucas
Does the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, accept that whatever way I vote today and whatever I think of his speech as a whole, I am in total agreement with that last section?
Lord Tyler
I am embarrassed by this support from all sides. It is an unaccustomed experience. I hope that this will be a very early discussion in the Joint Committee.
The Government’s proposals are incremental and evolutionary and take advantage of the work of the royal commission led so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. They take advantage of all the thinking that went into the work on the Jack Straw White Paper and it is simply nonsense to suggest that this issue has suddenly burst upon us in this House and in the other House and among the public. People have been talking about these issues for a very long time and been studying precisely the concerns which have been expressed in your Lordships' House yesterday and today. These proposals maintain the best of this place and will give it the legitimacy and credibility that I believe it not only needs but deserves. The pace of change will still be slow, but its direction will be clear. For that, it is very much welcome.
Baroness Valentine
This is a subject I tackle hesitantly, given the weight of discussion which precedes me, but I want to make a few brief points. First, on this emotive and political subject, it is important that Cross-Benchers do not feel constrained by being seen as turkeys with a view one way or the other about Christmas. The non-partisan views of those with broad experience are vital to ensuring that what emerges from the Joint Committee is better government for the UK and not, at worst, a political fudge.
The law attributed to Parkinson says that the time spent on any agenda item will be in inverse proportion to the budgetary consequences. Major reform of the House of Lords would not be my priority at this time. Europe's recovery is bumpy and uncertain, and on its border, the Middle East is in upheaval. By giving this issue valuable consideration and debating time, we are offering fodder to those who argue that legislators are out of touch with the concerns of real people.
On the other hand, the aspiration of shrinking the House seems both deliverable and desirable. A mechanism for removing permanently or temporarily those noble Lords who are not participating could be found, as well as a presumption in favour of, say, a 15-year tenure. My greatest worry about reform is that the Lords will drift towards becoming a replica and competitor of the other place, leading to politics within and between the two Houses. Politicised decision-making would replace more reflective consideration of the longer term needs of the country.
I understand the aspiration to have a more democratically accountable House of Lords, but democracy operates poorly where the electorate feel little connection with the institution or the individuals. I would put in this category MEPs and London Assembly Members, with apologies to those present. On the other hand, people identify strongly with the London mayor as an individual and often with their local MP, and they feel a connection to the role of their local council. Without such connection, voting risks defaulting to party lines, and for me, a highly party-politicised House of Lords would be a backwards step.
Today, this House provides a wealth of different experience, expertise and perspective with academics, business people and community leaders. The role of the Lords in non-partisan expert scrutiny risks being overwhelmed by Lords with party-political priorities and scores to settle. But if we are to see an elected House of Lords, I am with many other noble Lords: we must then review the primacy of the other place. Further, by recognising and accepting prescribed ways in which primacy no longer held, the Commons would be in a stronger position to resist the gradual erosion of its power.
What might we hope to fix through reform? I have one simple proposition—a longer-term approach. The current constitution does not encourage adherence to lasting principles and the necessary steps towards them. Is it the British character to be better at make-do and mend than grands projets and grand visions? Or might our horizons lengthen; might we be more bound actually to tackling climate change rather than just signing up to long-grass targets? Might we be ready to act for higher literacy standards for the next generation of children? Must we always wait until road, rail, air or energy capacity is at breaking point before reluctantly committing to remedial investment? It is always easier to duck, turn, ignore and avoid, leaving the tough decisions to tomorrow and the next man.
My aspiration, if we are to have an elected House of Lords, is for it to be a coherent conscience of the country. In this capacity, should the Lords then challenge the primacy of the other place? In the case of long-term policy commitments I would say yes. There should be a mechanism for securing a measure of political consensus across both Houses and success would be policies capable surviving several changes of government before and during their implementation.
Perhaps I may finish with a quote from General de Gaulle:
“Politics is too serious to be left to the politicians”.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the past two days of debate have been rather different from our previous debates as we have had a draft White Paper to consider and that has made a substantial difference to the tone of the debate. However, it still saddens me that we have not been discussing what the role of a second Chamber should be before we decide on the composition. We are once again starting with the cart before we actually look at the horse.
Looking at the House now I see a Chamber orientated towards the south-east of the UK. I do not think that is healthy and it has been exacerbated by the change in the expenses system making it much more difficult for those of us who live in the south-west or the north to come and attend at the times we would like to.
When one looks at the size of the House, it is going to take about 450 Peers to fill the committees that we have now. The average attendance for 50 per cent of our sittings is 424 so the size is not far wrong for managing our current workload. However, the current workload has increased as the number of active Peers has increased. Are all the committees we have at the moment relevant? Are they the right ones? On Monday, in a debate on working practices, more committees will be recommended for us.
Indeed, the draft Bill itself requires more work for this House. According to paragraph 125 of the White Paper we will now be able to tackle financial matters again. That is probably a very good thing because if we had been able to do that we would probably have saved some of the ghastly mess we have seen over the past five years as there is more expertise in finance matters in this House than there is in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, says that 300 Members is not workable—of course it is workable. It is only a question of what we do or what we give those people to do. A House of 300 used to be a very big vote in this House. I remember that if we got 300 it was quite something. The House then was working extremely well and extremely efficiently but we were covering fewer areas. It is a question only of what we have to cover.
When one looks at attendance, it is quite interesting—75 per cent of the elected Peers attend 50 per cent or more of the sittings but only 55 per cent of the life Peers attend those same sittings. Are we missing out on the expertise of the 300-odd life Peers who are not attending 50 per cent or more of the sittings? Is their expertise being utilised properly? Surely there is another way we could utilise that expertise and tap it without them having to be Members of your Lordships’ House?
I have always said that the Achilles’ heel of this House has been our working practices. There is no doubt that in the recent past those working practices have been increasingly abused. Some noble Lords will not learn, or even cannot be bothered to learn, our rules and conventions and some deliberately flout them. We have seen that already in this debate on both days. For the first time that I can remember, the Government have been unable to get some of their legislation through in a reasonable time. That was the result of a deliberate decision by some Members of this House. That worries me because once that has been done, it will be done again. I put it to your Lordships that there is a new fault line in this House that cannot be papered over. It is a matter that will have to be addressed as part of the reforms.
In the past two days, it has also been interesting to listen to the damascene-like conversion that some of your Lordships have gone through. I spent 10 years of my life explaining to right honourable and honourable friends in the other place how this House worked, that we were very sorry that yet again the Government had been defeated, and that the Secretary of State would have to change his legislation and make some concessions in order to get a Bill through. Some of those former right honourable and honourable friends are with us today, and it is nice that they now support a totally appointed House. It is, however, a little galling to find that some of them want an exit strategy for life Peers, given that, not so long ago, there was not a life Peer who was prepared to provide an exit strategy for an hereditary who had given up a lot of his life to serve in your Lordships’ House.
What really concerns me is how Parliament functions. The other place, as we know, does not scrutinise legislation as it used to. Increasingly, we are under the heavy hand of an elective dictatorship. My belief is that the other place will not change. The Executive will not allow the other place to control it and, as the Executive have increasingly taken power in the other place, the role of this Chamber has become more important. We have been able to scrutinise legislation, to suggest alterations and make amendments. There is nothing new in that. We did that when most Members of this House were hereditary Peers. It happened to me when I was a Minister. I was for ever making concessions and getting defeated. I do not think that the House is any better now than it was pre-1999.
However, I remain convinced that this House needs major reform because it is only by having an elected House that can challenge the Executive that one will get a better balance in the parliamentary system of this country. The other place will never be allowed to do that. I want a second Chamber to hold the Executive to account and the only way that we will do that is by having an elected House. It is also right and fundamental that the peerage should be separated from the right to sit in Parliament. If someone in the other place has done extremely well, they can be offered either a right to come here, if we have an appointed House, or they can be given a peerage and they do not come here. The two should not go together.
I have a final point on the electoral system proposed in the draft Bill. We had a referendum on the alternative vote system. It would be ludicrous if we did not have a referendum on the STV system. Whatever the outcome of any legislation to alter the constitution of this country, it certainly should be put to the public to decide whether they want it.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, the sad issue of the debate over the past two days has been that, rather than having a constructive debate that takes us forward, we have seen a joining together of Members—whether they are in favour of reform, an elected House or a non-elected House—against the proposals. The responsibility for that has to fall at the coalition’s feet. The Bill is not a draft Bill for reform of the House of Lords. It spends much time talking about and providing for an elected House—whether 80 per cent or 100 per cent—and totally ignores the peripheral issues that are as important in that reform.
A number of Peers referred to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords—the Wakeham report. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is in his place. He was a very able chairman of that commission. In his closing remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that the Bill builds on the Wakeham report. In many ways, the Bill does not build on that commission, of which I was a member. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about the Bill being drawn up by a group of people in a committee that contained no one from the Opposition or the Cross Benches. That is absolutely true. The Wakeham commission met for 10 months. It received more than 1,700 submissions. It held 21 public meetings in addition to visits to various parts of the country—Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—to meet parliamentarians in those areas. There was not a majority in those meetings or from the evidence that we took in favour of a directly elected House. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said:
“This is not about what the public want, it is about us putting our House in order”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1189.]
A major constitutional change is proposed but the public are not at the centre of it. I find that unacceptable.
The debate today has centred on the issue of election, because that is what the draft Bill concentrates on. That is not good enough for our constitution. Many Members who have taken part in the debate, including me, have been put in the position of having to reject the proposals in the Bill because, frankly, it is an Elastoplast. It does not provide for stability of parliamentary rule in a democracy and it does not cover the essential issues. We have little coverage in the Bill of the roles and responsibilities of the new House of Lords and how they would impact on the House of Commons—and, indeed, whether the role of the House of Commons also needs to change. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to that, and how right he is.
Until I came to this House, I had been elected to every position that I had held in my working life. I had no doubt where my responsibility lay: it lay with the people who elected me. If you have a House of Commons that is elected and this House becomes overnight—not by evolution or incremental steps but by a full-blown decision—an 80 cent or 100 per cent elected House, I know where elected Members of this House will think that their accountability lies. Any idea that constituents will not go to you when they have voted for you to ask you to deal with issues is cloud-cuckoo-land. That will present a challenge in a short time.
I support the content of the Wakeham commission report, which dealt with an element of elected membership. This is a missed opportunity. It could have been so different. Perhaps there is some truth in the reports that we have had that these proposals were a consolation prize for the lost political ambition of the AV voting system being introduced. If there is, that is not a service to the population of this country.
The Government have said that they will listen. What proposals will they bring forward for public consultation on their initiatives, even after the Joint Committee report? Will the Government hold a referendum on the outcome of any discussions? Will the Government use the Parliament Act if this House is a barrier to the changes that they seek? Those are not frivolous questions; they are questions that have a right to be answered.
The prelude to this debate will be the Joint Committee. I wish my noble friend Lord Richard and his colleagues the best of luck in their work. I cannot think of anyone better to chair the committee. He really has a difficult task in front of him. Try as I might, I have great difficulty in seeing it being able to deliver to the Government, to this House and, most importantly, to the House of Commons a revised Bill that will satisfy what we need in this country. That said, I wish it well and I am sure that the quality of what it produces will be much better than the draft Bill that we have before us, because I cannot think that it could be any worse.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, first do no harm. That is the guiding principle in my professional life as a surgeon. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, also a surgeon, will recognise the importance of that principle in undertaking any major surgical intervention. The proposed Bill, which, effectively, abolishes your Lordships’ House and replaces it with an elected second Chamber, represents in many ways major constitutional surgery. I would like to look at it in that frame, through the eyes of a practising surgeon.
The first question that we have to ask ourselves in any major intervention is: what is the indication for the intervention? Here, it is not entirely clear. The introduction to the Bill and the White Paper makes it clear that the House of Lords does its job well and that, in the future, as a replaced elected Chamber, it is to retain the same functions with the same powers, yet it appears that the purpose is to overcome some democratic deficit. That will be achieved through creating instability through having a democratically elected second Chamber, but with appointed Bishops and with the continuing ability of a Prime Minister of the day to appoint Members to the House. So we will end up in a situation where we have a kind of half-pregnancy, which is not possible; we will have a half-democratic legitimacy. That is a potential source of instability in the future.
Another potential indication for change could be to focus on the proposals that have been discussed on many occasions in the past two days and put forward in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. That is a good stepwise direction of change in terms of achieving reform of your Lordships’ House that is urgently necessary.
The second important consideration is always to try to avoid complications and unintended consequences of a particular intervention. Sometimes complications can be fatal and, if they can be predicted, one should take mitigating action to try to avoid them. Over the past two days, we have heard of a number of potential unintended consequences and complications that may attend this Bill if it becomes law. The first relates to the primacy of the other place. There appears to be a consistent and consensus view that one thing that must be maintained is the primacy of the other place. I certainly agree with that. How will that be achieved? It is irresponsible to assume that the primacy will be maintained just because it is the wish of the Government and because a particular Bill says that it will happen.
We have heard that there are 61 parliaments around the world that are bicameral and have an elected second Chamber, but I wonder how many of those bicameral parliaments with an elected second Chamber have no written constitution. How many of them depend merely on convention, which, as we have heard, is a fragile constitutional settlement to ensure a relationship between the two Chambers? That is an important question that the Joint Committee might wish to consider further. Such consideration may help us to understand whether we need to move forward with some form of written constitution, codifying the responsibilities and powers of two elected Chambers, if that is the direction of travel.
Another issue that has been raised, and which I think represents a potentially serious future complication, is the voting methods used to elect Members to the other place and to a future elected senate or second Chamber. We recently had a referendum on methods of voting for the other place and the people of our country decided that first past the post was their preferred method for sending their elected representatives there. The Joint Committee might consider the implications of that vote in determining whether it needs in a future Bill to enshrine the fact that the people have spoken and have declared that the most democratically legitimate method of election is first past the post and that any other method used to elect a second Chamber would be less democratically legitimate than that used to elect the House of Commons.
Another area of considerable concern for unintended consequences is the potential impact on the constitutional monarchy. In our Parliament we have three elements: the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the constitutional monarchy. The Lord Great Chamberlain sits as a Member of your Lordships’ House and one of the important responsibilities of that great office is to serve as a channel of communication between the monarch and the House of Lords. Noble Lords have alluded in this debate to the risk, if there are two elected Chambers at loggerheads, that the position of the constitutional monarch may become complicated and that they may be drawn into political controversy. I suggest that we need an absolute assurance that an unintended consequence of this legislation will not be that in some way the constitutional monarchy is undermined in future.
A third issue of considerable importance is the role of the Parliament Act, which has been considered principally in terms of its use to drive forward potential legislation to abolish your Lordships’ House and to replace it with an elected second Chamber. The Parliament Act also contains a very important reserved responsibility for your Lordships’ House, which is to ensure that the life of a Parliament is not extended beyond five years. We should be concerned about how that responsibility will be maintained in future to ensure that a tyrannical Government cannot extend the life of a Parliament because they control two elected Chambers.
Finally, it is important that we have some form of informed consent. In this regard, it is important at the outset of the process of considering the Bill that the Government commit themselves to a free vote both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. We need to be absolutely certain that any proposals that are finally considered will enjoy genuine confidence.
We have heard over the past two days that Members of your Lordships’ House lack democratic legitimacy. However, every Member of the House today has important obligations and responsibilities to the people of our country, who expect us to use the opportunities and privileges of membership of your Lordships’ House to serve their interests and to ensure that the laws to which they are subjected are the best possible laws. We must not take for granted the fact that we live in a wonderful country where, over the past 100 years, we have enjoyed democracy, prosperity, the development of universal health care and education, common decency and the assimilation of a variety of different cultures into our society. None of this would have been possible without a stable parliamentary system. In this regard, the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons—the understanding and respect between them—has been absolutely critical. We must think carefully about the consequences of any future Bill and its implications and impact on denying the people of our country the rights, opportunities, obligations and pleasures of being citizens of the United Kingdom.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I think I should explain why I am speaking from this Bench. It is partly because I have a hereditary duty to do so. Also this is the Barons’ Bench. When I first arrived in your Lordships’ House I knew no one, but the book said that this was the Barons’ Bench, and being a Baron, I sat here. I did not know that when the Government changed, you moved from the Barons’ Bench to the other side, so I remained here for quite a long period of time until someone asked me which party I was in. I said that I was an independent unionist Peer.
This may seem complicated, but for other reasons it is not appropriate for me to speak on the same side as the Liberal Democrats. It is only for today, and I would rather not speak behind my noble friends while looking at their bald pates or flowing locks. I would rather look them in the whites of their eyes. I want to make the speech of my grandfather, although I am not sure whether you make a speech, you give a speech or you deliver a speech, but at the beginning it goes something like this. I am going back over 100 years to 1907 when a Motion was debated in the Commons:
“That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/1907; col. 909.]
At the time my grandfather was the MP for north-west Lanark, then for Maryhill, North Down, and lastly Croydon, and of course I had an uncle called Stafford Cripps. Here is an extract from my grandfather’s speech:
“What is the real charge that is laid at the door of the Second Chamber? It is that it oppresses the people because it resists their will as expressed by their elected representatives when these representatives happen to be Liberals. In other words it is resisting what the Liberal Party believes to be the will of the people … In short this reform of the Constitution is being proposed not for the safety of the people but confessedly nakedly, unashamedly, in order to strengthen the position of the Liberal Party”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/1907; cols. 1206-7.]
As I listened to the right honourable Gentleman yesterday raising his voice in lamentation over his innocents that had been slaughtered by the Lords, I expected him to conclude by paraphrasing that finest of all funeral orations, the one delivered at Gettysburg, and saying, “Let us all highly resolve that these dead will not have died in vain and that the government of the Liberals by the Liberals for the Liberals shall not perish from the earth”. I have therefore decided to deliver his speech, and in the secret pigeonholes to the left of the entrance, each noble Lord will find a copy of it, as well as the links to Balfour and others. It was a fascinating debate, but it shows that even after 100 years, things still go on.
I need to look to the future, but that is more difficult. I want first to describe and define the House of Lords as I see it. It has 830 Members, some 32 of whom seem to be classified as either absent or not available. That is quite a lot of people. More than that, it has 450 members of the Administration, including some of the greatest minds of all. If you add the other people to that figure, it comes to 500. We have a responsibility not only to Members of the House of Lords but also to the Administration who have served us faithfully and well for generations, and I would not want to see something that evoked dramatic change without being aware of it.
I have a problem. I did something terrible this morning. I took that piece of paper and by mistake put it into the red bag that you give to the council. It has been crushed by an 18-pound weight. However, I did think it was one of the worst documents I had ever read. Some noble Lords know that one of my earliest jobs was writing reports on the House of Lords for the Labour Party. I probably submitted more wasted paper to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his committee than anyone else. But I actually love this place and love knowing about it. I know also that among my colleagues there are some really great minds. I also have the advantage that I was brought up to sit and listen to everything, so I have been drip-fed by geriatrics over years. Indeed, I will admit that probably 80 per cent of my knowledge has come from your Lordships’ House.
Now we come to the simple matter of the future. I want to make a suggestion. If you are in Parliament, you should represent something or somebody other than yourself. I looked around and decided that the Bishops represent some 31 million people, 10,000 churches and 8,000 or more parishes. We should represent someone. I thought we might introduce some legislation called the representation of the peoples Act. I would like to represent every one of the local councillors in the land, some 80,000 of them, and possibly involving over 120,000 people. We may be able to decide who we represent.
Many things could happen. I have a great affection for the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, not only because she was on the Wakeham commission, but also because she was the chairman of the war Lords. If we are to go to war, I would rather have her on my side.
I do not approve of the legislation and will certainly not vote for it. I may not vote against it, and I look forward to the response of the Government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord said that we should all represent something. I suppose that I represent the long list of Lords Ministers who have dabbled in Lords reform, but without, alas, much success. We come to the end of this long but invigorating debate. I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, on his excellent maiden speech—it seems a long time ago. He said that in the few short weeks he had been in your Lordships’ House he has moved from a position of supporting a wholly elected House to endorsing a mostly elected House. I wonder where the noble Lord’s voyage of discovery will end. We await his next contribution to a debate on Lords reform with eager anticipation—he will have further opportunities.
There have been many reports on Lords reform, none better than the royal commission report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who spoke so eloquently yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and other noble Lords argued at some point for indirect elections. This is, of course, not a new idea. Viscount Bryce chaired a conference of Peers and MPs appointed by the Prime Minister in 1917 on the reform of the second Chamber, which made proposals for the indirect election of Members of the second Chamber by MPs in regional groupings. Alas, it went the way of many such proposals. I have much greater hopes for my noble friend Lord Richard.
Of course, this debate is rather more significant than many in recent years. We have a draft Bill, far-reaching proposals, pre-legislative scrutiny to come and a pathway towards the first elected Members setting foot in the second Chamber in 2015. How determined the Government are to meet that date is, perhaps, open to question. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, yesterday reaffirmed the 2015 goal, yet in his highly entertaining interview in the Financial Times this weekend he seemed to have lost a little of his reforming zeal. Perhaps he was looking for St Augustine for inspiration. “Oh, Lord”, the Leader seemed to be saying, “deliver me an elected second Chamber, but not quite yet”. We will all be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord McNally, takes a similar view. Indeed, does he think he can take his Members of Parliament with him, to say nothing of the noble Lords behind him?
The caution that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, expressed over the weekend is, I think, entirely understandable. He must know that the Government are being disingenuous in presenting these proposals as a stand-alone measure with little consequence for our overall constitutional arrangements. He must know that, if enacted, the Bill would have a profound impact on Parliament and our democracy. I regret that, because the Government’s failure to admit this risks the whole reform process. I am a reformer, I support an elected House, I have always voted for it, but I want that reform to enhance our democracy. I do not want changes which threaten a fight between this House and the other place. I do not want changes that detract from the Lords’ role as a revising Chamber. Time and again it has been this House that has improved legislation, held Ministers properly to account and saved Governments from themselves—my own included. Would that the other place could say the same.
It is noticeable how many noble Lords in the past two days have commented on the performance of the Commons and their concern to strengthen Parliament as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a telling point about the overweening power of the Executive and of his fear that the Bill would extend that. Nowhere is that more to be seen than in paragraph 68 of the White Paper where a Prime Minister can at a whim throw a Member of the new second Chamber out of Parliament. That is the rub of it. As my noble friend Lord Whitty has said, the Government have simply not put the groundwork into the draft Bill. Yet they had plenty of time. The draft Bill was published on 17 May but the cross-party committee, chaired by Mr Clegg, has not met since 24 November. Almost six months has been wasted.
It is pretty arrogant on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister to think that he can waltz this reform through Parliament, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, reminded us, on the whim of a hunch or a best guess and to do so without so much as a genuflection to the complexities with which governments and parliamentarians have wrestled for these past 100 years. Why that should be so has become clear during our debate. The Government seek to strive for a second Chamber that replicates most of what the House of Lords does now but with electoral legitimacy. We are told that the reformed House of Lords would have the same functions as the current House and that no change is envisaged in the fundamental relationship with the House of Commons, which would remain the primary House.
In Clause 2 of the draft Bill, we are pointed to the relationship between the two Houses. It is worth restating. It says that nothing in the Bill,
“affects the status of the House of Lords … the primacy of the House of Commons, or … the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses”.
My noble friend described that as nonsense and I think that he was being kind. That is my response to the noble Lord, Lord True, who also criticised Clause 2. But does he not recognise that Clause 2 goes to the heart of the Bill? Nowhere is that more illustrated than in the conventions which govern the relationship of this House with the Commons.
The Cunningham committee was clear that, in a formal sense, the Lords has equal status with the Commons as a House of Parliament in initiating and passing Bills, subject to Commons financial privilege and the Parliament Acts, and equal status in approving delegated legislation. In reality, as Cunningham said, the formal position has come to be moderated by conventions reflecting the primacy of the Commons. The moment that elected Members walk into this Chamber, those conventions will evaporate.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to comment on how precisely that clause differs from his recommendation in his own White Paper, which I quoted to your Lordships’ House earlier. It said:
“There is no reason why any further increase in the authority and effectiveness of the second chamber following elections should undermine the primacy of the House of Commons”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for reminding the House of my heroic efforts on the cross-party group chaired by my right honourable friend Jack Straw, and very enjoyable it was too. I say two things to the noble Lord. First, we produced a White Paper for consultation. We did not produce a draft Bill. Secondly, I am not arguing about primacy. I am arguing about the issue of an elected House of Lords using the powers that it formally has within the context of primacy. I believe that even within the context of primacy, the clash between two elected Houses will bring profound constitutional changes.
Noble Lords could argue that we should not worry about that, which is a perfectly legitimate point to put across. But the one thing that I have learnt from my three years of dabbling in this subject is that unless a Government are explicit about the powers of an elected second Chamber, any attempt at reform will always be doomed to failure. I speak as someone who has always supported legitimate reform of your Lordships’ House. When elected Members enter this House, the conventions will evaporate because they are voluntary constraints on an unelected House in their relationship to the elected House. Once you have an elected House, what is the need for restraint?
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was eloquent yesterday in favouring a strong second Chamber to stand up to the Executive. His noble friend Lord Ashdown reminded us that there are many examples around the world of bicameral systems with two elected bodies which manage to sort out their relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, remarked, that is because the relationship between those houses is set out in some form of written constitution that will usually provide for dispute resolution between the two houses. I acknowledge that the implications of a written constitution in the UK are profound. However, as my noble friend Lord Elder suggested, they have to be considered when introducing major constitutional change.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, I am listening carefully to the noble Lord. Since his own party proposed a fully elected Chamber in its manifesto, do we take it from his remarks that that can be done only in the context of a written constitution?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I believe it to be inevitable that if we are to have two elected Chambers there has to be a codification of the respective powers of both Chambers and there has to be a way of resolving disputes. One cannot simply rely on the Parliament Acts as legislated for.
Noble Lords have raised a number of issues. I will not go into all of them, but I will just talk about the Bishops. I acknowledge the contribution of the right reverend Prelates to your Lordships’ House. I particularly welcome the speeches of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Leicester and Chichester. If we are to have a 20 per cent appointed House, I am sympathetic to spiritual leaders having a place, although I understand where my noble friend Lord Judd is coming from. We should not underestimate the role of the established church in the life of our nation. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, took a rather different view. I am sure that right reverend Prelates will take some comfort from him that once expelled they will none the less be invited back to say daily prayers.
I turn now to the transitional arrangements. We are offered three options, but what has happened to grandfathering? My clear understanding of the term, which comes from the world of professional regulation, particularly in the health service, is that experienced professionals in an unregulated profession go forward to a new professional register on the basis of experience. The term grandfathering is in the coalition agreement, which on my reckoning would rule out both options one and three. I would be grateful for the noble Lord’s response to that.
I would also like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the Parliament Acts. My noble friend Lady Dean asked whether the Parliament Acts would be used to force legislation on Lords reform through your Lordships’ House. I would caution the Government on that. In a profound speech yesterday, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon put some very important questions to the noble Lord on the implications of the foxhunting case of Jackson v Attorney-General in 2006. We look forward to an answer on that.
In the end we come back to the question of powers and to the relationship between the two Houses. Unless some Peers think this is a smokescreen for refuseniks, let me pray in aid the words of my noble friends Lord Wills, Lord Whitty, Lord Hoyle, Lord Desai, Lord Davies of Stamford, Lord Davies of Oldham, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and Lady Quin—all passionate proponents of an elected House, but all saying that this Bill will not do and all bemused as to why the White Paper and draft Bill are so lacking in understanding and coherence on the central point of concern to your Lordships. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the present settlement will suffice for an elected House and that if in due course that turned out not to be the case, Parliament would be able to address it at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, argued yesterday that primacy of the Commons would be unaffected because of the Parliament Acts and the fact that Governments stand or fall on maintaining the confidence of the Commons. I understand that argument. But for me it is not so much about primacy. Both noble Lords underestimate the assertiveness the House will show when unfettered by conventions and with legitimacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put it well when, based on the Scottish experience post the Scotland Act, he said that he doubted that statutes determined behaviour. He pointed to the example of how political reality and lines set in statute come into conflict and said that in the end political reality wins. We saw that in an extraordinary intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. He suggested that an elected second Chamber could have prevented this country from going into an unwise war. I, too, am wary of such military interventions, but I am very wary indeed of giving what would be an effective veto to a second Chamber on matters of war and military engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, has illustrated the likely ambition of an elected second Chamber, particularly if it claims greater legitimacy under a proportional system of election.
As for the reliance of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on the Parliament Acts, I return to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who reminded us of the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. It is well known that it promised a second Chamber constituted on a popular base. What is much less remarked upon is that the preamble makes it clear that the Parliament Act was designed solely to govern relationships between an elected Chamber and an unelected Chamber. It also spelled out the need for an elected House to have its powers limited and defined. So, 100 years ago, the architects of the Parliament Act understood that the powers of an elected Chamber would have to be set out in statute.
I am convinced that that is the case today. That is why the Bill is ill conceived.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I had a boyhood dream that one day I would stand at a Dispatch Box as a government Minister facing Members of a hostile House and, an hour later, purely on the basis of my oratory and eloquence, I would have turned them round on to my side. I heard a voice say. “Dream on”. However, I shall have a go and, as your Lordships have been so disciplined, I see that I do not have only an hour but two-and-a-half hours to convince you. I can get my speaking notes out now. Some of us have dinner appointments so I will not use all of that time.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strasburger on his travels. He should not worry about the teasing of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that, since he entered the House, he has travelled a short distance in his opinions about its reform. Some noble Lords on that side have travelled miles and miles and miles.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, now claims to know what I am thinking about him even without my saying a word. I hope he will be really insulted by that thought. However, even he confessed that he had once been in favour of reform, that he had come into the House and now was no longer in favour of reform. I think the technical term for that is “the foreman’s job at last” syndrome.
One thought about “Apocalypse Now” prompted me to share with you a short quote from a book that was given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, who I do not think is in his seat. His grandfather was the leader of the “last-ditchers”, who tried to stop the 1911 Act. There are two quotes that are worth reading:
“And what was the final decision of the Constitutional High Court of Appeal, or rather of that proportion of its members who dared to deliver the verdict? The numbers were read out, but those who knew Willoughby and saw him as he entered the Chamber had no need to lengthen their suspense. All was settled and over. By seventeen votes the Parliament Bill had been accepted, and was now the law of the land”.
It was his thoughts about that that were more interesting:
“From the night of the 10th August 1911, when a great principle was sacrificed to expediency; when the right course was departed from for fear of the consequences, the Conservative Party received a shock from which it has never really recovered”.
I am merely pointing out that those speeches we have heard today that predict only the most terrible consequences for radical reform can be very, very wrong indeed. As historians such as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, continue to point out, the following century for the Conservative Party was one mainly spent in government. I also find it extraordinary to hear suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others that the Deputy Prime Minister has been somehow high-handed in his approach to this legislation. No senior politician has given Parliament more chance to consider these measures, has shown more flexibility or offered more opportunity for genuine reflection.
I am not sure which parts of his own White Paper the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tore up during that extraordinary speech. However, he says with pride that they never produced a draft Bill. So you never did—shame on you that you did not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful for him raising this issue again. The purpose of producing a White Paper is to allow for debate and discussion and that is what we did. The Government would have done better to have had a widespread public consultation and debate before producing a draft Bill.
Lord McNally
This again from a Minister who produced a White Paper that produced no such debate. They sat on reform for a decade. When we talk about consistency, I was on the Cook-Maclennan committee prior to the 1997 election, where my party and the Labour Party both committed themselves to a raft of constitutional reform, including reform of the House of Lords. My party has been consistent for the last 14 years on our proposals. The Labour Party has performed somersault after somersault after somersault and there is no way they can get out of it—that is the record.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I remember well the noble Lord, Lord McNally, standing as leader of his party in your Lordships’ House and stating categorically that an elected second Chamber would never threaten the primacy of the House of Commons. At that point he was leader of the Liberal Democrats. How does he tie that in with the speech made by his noble friend Lord Ashdown, who said that this Chamber—if reformed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is advocating—would and should be able to challenge the Commons on issues such as going to war and finance?
Lord McNally
Is the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, in his place? No, he is not. When I was on the Cunningham committee, there was great bemusement because I said, as I still believe, that the House of Lords has the right to say no. That is an essential part of the relationship between the two Houses. I honestly wish to God that this House had voted on the Iraq war and that Ministers had read this House’s debate on the matter, but we will not go down that road, not because I do not believe it but because, even among the red herrings that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, usually streaks across this debate, I am not going to pursue that one.
Lord McNally
You will get your full two hours if you carry on like this. [Laughter.]
Lord Grocott
I knew that in the first five minutes of his speech the Minister would be Mr Nice. He has now turned inevitably to the Mr Nasty phase. He needs to explain to the House that if the new, elected second Chamber were to have essentially the same powers and functions as the present one, as his own White Paper and draft Bill say, how on earth could this Chamber veto absolutely crucial matters that would be determined by the primary House?
Lord McNally
I never said that this Chamber should have a right of veto; I said it had a right to say no. There is a difference. Usually in this House somebody is allowed to develop an argument, and I will cover the whole question that was raised. I am not trying to be nasty to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I am very affectionate towards him. There were a number of thoughts that passed through during the speeches. I liked the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of a House of grandparents appointed through patronage. I think that is one to reflect on. I liked another one by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who said,
“we must avoid what de Tocqueville called a ‘perpetual utterance of self-applause’”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1194.]
We did not entirely manage that over the last two days.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
While my noble friend is very entertaining, does he plan to answer some of the serious questions that have been put in this debate?
Lord McNally
You have to be patient. You are behaving as you used to do in the House of Commons. That is why wind-up speeches in the House of Commons take so long. This has been a long debate. I am not going to answer every question in 100 speeches, partly because, as I have already pointed out, this is the start of a process of consideration. I think many of the questions that were raised quite rightly should be addressed by the committee to be chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I will make further points on that. However, I must remind this House—this unelected House—that all three parties fought the last election advocating direct elections as part of their plan for reform of the House of Lords. Those policies presumably went through a decision-making process in all three parties. I wonder how many of the speeches made from the Labour Benches would go down at a Labour Party conference, or how some of the speeches made from my own Benches would go down at a Liberal Democrat conference.
My party leader and my party took a great deal of criticism when they appeared to go back on a manifesto commitment concerning tuition fees. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made great hay of that during his contribution. However, this is a threefold commitment that the government proposals reflect. As far as I am aware, no one has put proposals to continue with an unelected House before a party conference or put them into an election manifesto. As the noble Lord, Lord True, suggested—
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to my noble friend, but what does he say to the statement made earlier today that no party won the general election and that the one that came closest to doing so—the Conservatives—had the most lukewarm sentence in its manifesto?
Lord McNally
All three parties had it in. I have to say that that is a kind of car salesman’s excuse. Let me make it clear that I am not anticipating changing many minds during this speech. However, I am also very well aware—more than this House seems to be aware—that this is not a perfect reflection of opinion in the country. That should be the warning to this House.
Lord McNally
No, I am not taking any more interventions.
Much has been made in this debate of the recommendation in paragraph 61 of the Cunningham committee report, which says:
“Our conclusions apply only to present circumstances. If the Lords acquired an electoral mandate, then in our view their role as the revising chamber, and their relationship with the Commons, would inevitably be called in to question, codified or not. Given the weight of evidence on this point, should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again. What would, could or should be done about this is outside our remit”.
As a member of the Cunningham committee, I was happy to sign that paragraph. The conventions between the two Houses were examined on a regular basis throughout the 20th century and to say that they will be re-examined is no more than a statement of the obvious. What is equally obvious is that how they should be examined and with what outcome was outside the remit of the Cunningham committee. The idea that the Cunningham committee is somehow holy writ and that the conventions and relations between the two Houses would fall like a portcullis at the time of the passing of the Bill is simply absurd.
What is clear is that the relationship between the two Houses has always evolved and will continue to evolve in the future, particularly over the transitional period. The fact remains that the relationship between the Houses is underpinned by the Parliament Acts and the conventions. The House of Commons remains the primary Chamber; nothing in this draft Bill changes that. Nor are we suggesting any short, sharp shock in these proposals; rather, there is what old Fabians will recognise as “the inevitability of gradualness”.
I am interested in the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Wills, Lord Davies, Lord Brooke, Lord Kakkar, and others, about whether codification is necessary. I hope that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will look at that issue and take evidence. But there will be a lengthy transitional period of two Parliaments, which will allow transfer of knowledge. Noble Lords would not be prevented from standing for election or being considered for appointment to the reformed House.
Lord Wills
As the noble Lord mentioned my name, I would be grateful if I could intervene. I want to be clear on this point on codification. Am I right in thinking that the Government are not ruling out such codification?
Lord McNally
We are sending the matter to a committee that will take wide evidence. I hear my noble friend saying that we are ruling it out, which is not an entirely helpful intervention at this stage of the evening, but I do not think that you can set up a commission under a chairman of the independence and distinction of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—and I am delighted that he was willing to take this chairmanship—and then tell him in advance what he can look at. I will go no further. I am sorry. I see the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who always tries to give a spurious kind of veneer of intellectual credibility to—
Lord McNally
Is there anybody I have not insulted yet? Please form an orderly queue. In among the insults, there are some facts. One fact is that it was at times a bit like sitting in the North Korean Parliament. I have often wondered what that was like. Speaker after speaker even had to make the kind of praise that Kim Il-sung had every so often—in this case, it was of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd.
Baroness Boothroyd
I wonder whether the Deputy Leader would allow me to bring some semblance of order into this very interesting debate. Perhaps he would answer a serious question which I put yesterday. I am still waiting for an answer and I am sure that we would all be interested in it. In what way would the nation benefit and parliamentary proceedings be enhanced by the abolition of this House of experts and experience, and its replacement by a senate of paid politicians? I am sure that if we came back to answering questions which were being put in the debate, we would all be much happier.
Lord McNally
Of course we would. First, there are no proposals to abolish this House. Secondly, the difference between what I am putting before the House for debate and consideration is that this has gone before the electorate in manifestos, while what my noble friend Lord Steel is proposing is an escape hatch. It would mean that we would go to the electorate next time and say, “By the way, that elected House that we promised you is not going to be delivered. We have fixed it so that we are now going to have a wholly appointed House for as long as anybody can see”. I do not think that is a particularly democratic way and that is the difference between what you are proposing and what I am proposing.
Baroness Boothroyd
This Government have done so many U-turns, they could do another one.
Lord McNally
A most unusual intervention from a Cross-Bencher—you are lucky that we do not have a Speaker. I did at one stage support the Steel Bill. I wanted it because it was the best on offer after the Straw-Hunt proposals were put on ice. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, knows full well that she could have had the Steel Bill in its entirety in the previous Parliament and that we constantly promised her our votes for it. Yet again, we are dealing with things where the Labour Party, with 13 years to do something about them, did precisely nothing.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I will skip to my own defence because ultimately, while I agree that it was too late and regret that we did not take it earlier, we did take up most elements of the Steel Bill in the CRaG Bill. In the wash-up, however, those were taken out by the Conservative Opposition of the time.
Lord McNally
More mea culpas. The fact is, as well, that one of the benefits for those who like some aspects of the Steel Bill is that the proposals of that Bill are all now in the draft Bill before the House: a statutory Appointments Commission; ending by-elections for hereditary Peers; permanent leave of absence and dealing with those convicted of serious criminal offences. In addition, noble Lords will be considering next Monday the recommendations of the Procedure Committee to provide for permanent voluntary retirement.
However, the proposals in the Bill of my noble friend Lord Steel are in the context of a wholly appointed House, whereas the Government are committed to a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber as set out in the draft Bill. It is unrealistic to believe that any proposal for incremental reform of this House, such as the provisions in my noble friend’s Bill, could be sped through this House without controversy, even with the support of the Government. Moreover, it would be completely unnecessary to do this when the Government have published detailed, comprehensive proposals for full reform.
I turn to the Joint Committee. As I have said before, I have tremendous respect for its chairman. I hope that he will keep an open agenda in terms of the evidence that he takes. The committee that the Deputy Prime Minister chaired tried to bring forward proposals and had a certain degree of consensus. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will agree that we worked on and looked at the case for reform based on our manifesto commitments and that the case for reform should be by election. We are setting up the Joint Committee with 13 Members from this House, including a Bishop and a Cross-Bencher. The House agreed a Motion on 7 June that the Joint Committee should report by the end of February 2012.
Giving a target date to a Joint Committee is normal practice. If the committee needs more time, Motions can be put to both Houses to extend the date; but it should not be seen—as some Members, with nods and winks, have suggested—that the committee will have a licence to promote open-ended delay. Reform of this House is an issue that will be debated long and hard both inside and outside the Joint Committee over the coming months. The Government look forward to those discussions. We will listen to the arguments and adapt our proposals. However, we intend to introduce a Bill so that the first elections to this House can take place in 2015.
I end on a personal note. I have given way to no one in my affection and respect for this House—what it does and what it stands for. I greatly regret not grasping the opportunity for reform offered by the Wakeham committee, on which point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was absolutely right. If we had, we would be further down the road to a lasting reform than we are today. If we miss the opportunity presented by this Bill and procedure, a House that has won much respect—not least in its willingness to defend civil liberties and human rights and to stand up to the over-mighty power of the Executive—will lose respect as it looks increasingly out of kilter with the spirit of the age.
The proposals that we have made give this House and the other place the opportunity to carry through a reform as significant as the one passed by the Liberal Government a century ago. This is no time for noble Lords to join the last ditchers. There are those who say that, at a time of economic crisis—the worst in 80 years—this is not a time to divert our attention from the central challenges of our day. I would rather invoke the spirit of the last great coalition Government, which launched the Beveridge plan, the Butler Education Act and won a world war. Government is not a one-trick pony. The battle to right the economy is no reason to delay a much needed and long-overdue reform of this House.
On accountability, I am interested in the suggestion that it might be two terms of perhaps seven years. I do not know. Again, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to look at that. The 15-year term has some weaknesses in democratic accountability that have been pointed out. However, it takes the breath away when speaker after speaker, all of whom have been sent here for life, start lecturing us about the dangers of somebody being sent here for a limited 15-year term. As the Prime Minister made clear in the other place, the Government’s actions to date in producing this draft Bill have been based on trying to work for consensus. The Government are ready to listen; we are prepared to adapt; but we are also determined to act. The Bill, when introduced, like any other piece of government legislation, will be scrutinised, carried through, debated, discussed and passed in the same way.
I have been asked about the Parliament Act. I do not think that you start a piece of legislation by brandishing the Parliament Act, but, especially after some of the passionate debates in favour of the supremacy—the primacy—of the other place, I ask Members of this House, “If the clear and settled view of the other place is for reform, are you going to veto it?”. I think that we should be told.
Other noble Lords raised a number of detailed questions. The Government have set out their views on these issues in the draft Bill and the White Paper. I am sure that the Joint Committee will consider all these issues in very careful detail. My suggestion is that Hansard for the two days of this debate, the Wakeham report, the Cunningham report, the Jack Straw White Paper and the White Paper accompanying this Bill be the Joint Committee’s summer reading. We should now all wish it well and let it get on with that work.
Baroness Boothroyd
That, notwithstanding the Government’s proposals for the House of Lords set out in Cm 8077, which amount to the abolition of the House of Lords, this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to bring forward proposals for incremental urgent reforms that would improve the functioning of the existing House of Lords.