House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions she has had with the chair of the independent panel on forestry on the future of the public forest estate.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
First, I am sure that the House would like to join me in wishing the Bishop of Liverpool, who chairs the independent panel, a speedy recovery from his recent operation. As the panel is independent, it is important that its members, including the chair, enjoy complete freedom to produce their report, the scope of which extends beyond the public forest estate to include the future of all England’s forests.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
First, may I associate myself with the right hon. Lady’s comments about James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool? She will be aware that at least some members of the independent panel think that more of our woodlands should be in public ownership, not less, so will she give the House a commitment not to sell off any more publicly owned forests and woodland, and instead to seek to work with partners to find ways of adding to it?
Mrs Spelman
As I have said, the panel is independent, and I have had no separate conversations with its members to hear the views that the hon. Lady has expressed. The important thing is to wait for the panel to report to us with its recommendations. In the interim, Ministers have made it absolutely clear that there will be no further sale of the public forest estate.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State recall that in the 1990s John Major, as Prime Minister, launched an initiative in the national forest to develop a parliamentary area, where MPs could sponsor a tree? The aim of that voluntary activity was to encourage biodiversity and help the forest. Could the independent panel consider such initiatives, because I am sure that throughout the country there are groups of individuals who would like to do their bit?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is right, and I remember that extremely good initiative. We want to encourage not only parliamentarians but all individuals, and schools and places of work, to plant more trees. We aim to plant 1 million new trees within this parliamentary Session. I will certainly look at the parliamentary scheme as an opportunity to remind colleagues how important it is that we do our bit.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I supported John Major’s initiative, which was very good, and sponsored two trees in memory of my parents. If we care about our forests and woods, we must ensure that the next generation visits, enjoys and learns about them. The number of out-of-school visits is collapsing and we must do something about it. Will the Secretary of State join the initiative of the John Clare Trust, which I chair, in launching the “Every child’s right to the countryside” campaign, and give it a bit of support?
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the opportunity for our children to learn in nature is incredibly important, as we highlight in the natural environment White Paper, in which we have given an undertaking to remove the barriers to outdoor learning. The Department for Education wholly supports that.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
2. What recent discussions she has had on the delivery of her Department’s biodiversity strategy.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
4. What recent discussions she has had on the delivery of her Department’s biodiversity strategy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My Department has regular discussions with interested parties on the delivery of our biodiversity strategy. The Government’s vision for the natural environment, including biodiversity, is set out in the natural environment White Paper, the first in 20 years. The UK also endorsed the EU biodiversity strategy last week. We will shortly publish a new biodiversity strategy for England, which will build on this.
Christopher Pincher
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to biodiversity, particularly the idea of biodiversity offsetting set out in the White Paper, but will she confirm that the rules on offsetting that she will put in place will keep it local, so that any development affecting biodiversity in Tamworth must be offset in Tamworth, not in some other part of the country?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have given an undertaking in the natural environment White Paper that biodiversity offsetting should be in the local area, because local communities need to feel the benefit if they are to take the development. At present it is section 106 agreements that should deliver on biodiversity offsetting, but what happens is often so far removed from the community that the connection is not made.
Chris Skidmore
What plans does the Secretary of State have to include green belt land in the biodiversity strategy, to ensure that it is protected for generations to come?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is speaking to a Member of Parliament whose constituency is entirely in the green belt, so I can give him a strong assurance about the protection of the green belt. The Department for Communities and Local Government has given an undertaking on that, which will be repeated in the national planning policy framework. DEFRA’s strategy of course includes the protection of the green belt, but even within the green belt, communities will have the opportunity to designate green areas to provide extra protection and enhance biodiversity.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The wildlife crime unit plays an important part in protecting endangered species and preventing the trade in endangered species. How will the Secretary of State ensure that that continues, given that its budget is guaranteed for only two years?
Mrs Spelman
We have said this on a previous occasion, but it is worth repeating because it is important. We have secured the funding for the wildlife crime unit. It is an important part of combating the threat to endangered species from those who seek to do them damage.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State seen the concerns of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, based on a survey of businesses, that although the aims of the biodiversity strategy are laudable, there may be a skills shortage so that we cannot reach the required level by 2020? What steps will she take to assess the skills required and build the skills base to achieve the objectives?
Mrs Spelman
I am happy to share with the House the fact that I co-chair the green economy council, where businesses from all sectors of the economy come together on a regular basis to discuss with us how to green the economy. As part of that, we have a focus on improving green skills, precisely to ensure that we have people with the experience and training to deliver on our important commitments to protect and enhance biodiversity while growing the economy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
3. Whether she plans to introduce pilot projects to evaluate biodiversity offsets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
In the natural environment White Paper, we announced that we will establish a voluntary approach to biodiversity offsetting and test it in a number of pilot areas. We want local authorities to express an interest in taking part in the pilot, and to hear from developers, conservation and community groups and others who want to test offsetting.
Kerry McCarthy
In an earlier reply the Secretary of State referred to section 106 agreements. In Bristol there has been a scandalous failure to enforce section 106 agreements, and hundreds of thousands of pounds have not been spent on the projects they should have been spent on. When the Minister evaluates the pilots, will he ensure that new biodiversity schemes are actually realised?
Richard Benyon
I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. That is one of the attractions of this scheme, and is why it works well in other areas. We want to dovetail it into our planning system because it offers clarity. She is right to point out that section 106 negotiations can sometimes be a bit of a horse-trading operation and can result, in certain circumstances, in token biodiversity protection activities. This scheme offers a clear, understandable, auditable, accountable system. We are delighted by the response from a number of local authorities through the consultation process. More are now coming forward since the natural environment White Paper was published, as are developers. I hope that in the coming months we will be able to give her the assurance that she needs.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
There is, of course, an excellent pilot project that will bring enormous biodiversity benefits to Pickering, in the form of the slow-the-flow flood defence scheme. Will the Minister assure me that the guidance regulations under the Reservoirs Act 1975, which are preventing that project from going ahead, will be swept away?
Richard Benyon
I have just won my bet that my hon. Friend would raise that issue, and she is entirely right to do so. I share her concerns about the application of the Reservoirs Act and its implications for Pickering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site. We want to do all we can to ensure that the scheme goes ahead, because we think that it is a good example of how biodiversity, slowing up water, and flood protection can fit together in many areas. We want her constituents to know that the Government will look into any means possible to ensure that such schemes go ahead.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
5. What recent discussions she has had with representatives of supermarket retail chains on the effects of pricing on the pig industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I discussed the supply chain and the competitiveness of all those involved at the review meeting of the pigmeat supply chain taskforce in February. The taskforce meeting included the major retailers and pigmeat processors and producers. However, for competition reasons, Ministers cannot discuss prices directly with retailers.
Natascha Engel
I thank the Minister for that answer. When will the supermarket ombudsman be in place, and will he have the power to ensure that supermarkets pay a fair price for British pork?
Mr Paice
As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have published the draft Bill on the supermarket code adjudicator, and we hope that the real legislation will come forward very soon. The purpose of the adjudicator, as recommended by the Competition Commission, is to enforce the code, which has been in place since February 2010. He or she will not be able to intervene directly in prices or margins, but will intervene in issues to do with fair competition, and fair terms and conditions for suppliers.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Pig production standards and animal welfare standards in general are far higher in Britain than they are throughout most of the rest of the world, yet the consumer in the British supermarket has no way of knowing whether they are buying British bacon or pork or whether it is from somewhere completely different. How far have the EU discussions on allowing country of origin labelling progressed? We want to see a Union Jack on British pigmeat, so that we can buy it in the supermarket.
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is right. However, at the moment the Union Jack could appear on a product from a pig that was not reared in Britain, and that needs to be stopped. I can tell him that the whole meat industry has agreed a voluntary code on country of origin labelling, and we carried out a benchmarking exercise survey in April, against which we can judge progress. The EU food information regulations are making fast progress. It will be a little while yet, but we believe that within them there will be mandatory country of origin labelling for fresh meat.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
6. What steps she is taking in response to recent trends in food prices.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer this question with Question 10. [Interruption.] I think that they are grouped.
Mr Speaker
I think not. If I have missed something and the Secretary of State wishes to explain it I will be obliged, but I think not.
Mrs Spelman
Sorry, Mr Speaker. It has been withdrawn, I think.
The Government are committed to promoting better functioning of agricultural markets to help mitigate future price spikes. Last week I attended the G20 Agriculture Ministers meeting—the first time that Agriculture Ministers have been convoked under the G20. We unanimously agreed on measures to increase food production sustainably and provide better transparency and governance in order to regulate supply and demand. I wish to see further liberalisation of markets, which as the Government’s foresight report states, will help dampen price volatility.
Graeme Morrice
The United Nations and the OECD recently predicted that global food prices could rise by as much as 30% in the next decade. What action is the Secretary of State taking to tackle commodity speculation and rising food prices?
Mrs Spelman
There is no conclusive evidence that speculation is the principal cause of price volatility. Farmers would be the first to explain that they speculate—or hedge—in order to even out the highs and lows in their prices. The fundamental problem in world markets is that of tight supply and demand, so the most important thing we can do is increase food production sustainably. That is a priority for my Department.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is important not only to examine food prices but to ensure that people are buying the right product. There are likely to be a lot of low-standard eggs coming into Britain, because we will have met the standards for the new enriched cages by January but a lot of Europe will not. What are the Government doing to prevent such eggs from coming into Britain?
Mrs Spelman
As I have told the House before, I was the first among the EU Agriculture Ministers to spell out how important it is that all egg producers comply with the changes in the law that will apply from 1 January. I am delighted to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it will not be legal to market eggs in this country that have not been produced in enriched cages.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
We are all aware that external factors push up food prices, but another problem is the imbalance between the supermarkets and the producer, which is passed on to the customer. We have just had an unsatisfactory response about the adjudicator. What we want is a proactive ombudsman with real teeth, so that consumers and producers get a fair price.
Mrs Spelman
That is a bit rich coming from a representative of a party that was in government for 13 years and had the opportunity to introduce such an ombudsman, which is something that this Government are now setting about doing.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
7. What estimate she has made of the proportion of livestock slaughtered in England that was reared in the UK in the last year for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The vast majority of livestock slaughtered in England will have been reared in the United Kingdom. A small number, including some spent hens, are from the Republic of Ireland, and a very small number will be imported from mainland Europe for slaughter rather than for breeding purposes.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his response. The transport of livestock over long distances can cause unnecessary suffering and distress. Does he agree that where possible the slaughter of animals should be done locally, to avoid that distress and long transportation?
Mr Paice
I think that most people entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and certainly I do. We want to encourage the slaughtering of animals locally wherever possible. Not only is it good for welfare reasons, it is good for local employment and fits in with local food, which we all want to encourage.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
8. What steps she is taking to maximise the potential of rivers and inland waterways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
In April 2012, the Government plan to move British Waterways from the public sector to civil society, through the creation of a new waterways charity. This will give waterways users and the communities that live alongside them greater involvement in how waterways are managed, leading to a range of enhanced public benefits. It will also place the waterways on a more sustainable footing, as the charity will have access to new sources of commercial and charitable income.
Mary Macleod
We have more than 2,000 miles of rivers and inland waterways, including the Grand Union canal in Brentford in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the announcement of the proposed merger between the Waterways Trust and the new waterways charity will provide a good opportunity to boost the value of those national assets?
Richard Benyon
I am delighted to welcome the announcement of the merger that my hon. Friend describes. It will allow the cultural and heritage purposes of the new waterways charity to be fundamentally linked with all the other benefits arising from creating the new entity. The three museums that the waterways charity now owns will become part of the new charity, and will be a fantastic resource for it in future.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
9. What progress she has made in reducing the burden of regulation on farmers; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
In May I welcomed the report of the independent farming regulation taskforce, which has made more than 200 recommendations to reduce the regulatory burden on farmers without lowering our standards. The Government are now carefully considering those recommendations.
Sajid Javid
Farmers in my constituency and nationwide would welcome the efforts that the Government are taking to reduce regulation. Can the Minister give the House an idea of the time scale for implementing those recommendations, and say whether any might be taken forward immediately?
Mr Paice
Perhaps my hon. Friend will accept tomorrow as being close enough to immediately. I can tell him that as of tomorrow, dairy farmers who are covered as members of the assured dairy scheme will find their state inspections going down to once every 10 years, as they are regularly inspected as part of the scheme to which they belong.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
In two weeks’ time this House will debate the Public Bodies Bill, which abolishes the Agricultural Wages Board, which sets pay and conditions for 150,000 farm workers in England and Wales. If the AWB is abolished, every farmer in the country will become responsible for negotiating pay and conditions with their workers. Can the Minister tell the House what estimate he has made of the extra time and money this new regulatory burden will place on farm businesses?
Mr Paice
I have rarely heard such nonsense. The whole purpose of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board is to reduce regulation, not to increase it. The change has been sought by the industry, which does not see it as regulatory, so what the hon. Lady has to come and tell us that it will increase regulation I really do not know.
Mary Creagh
The Agricultural Wages Board guarantees farm workers other benefits, such as bereavement pay and sick pay. Without it, their sick pay will fall from roughly £180 a week for a grade 1 worker to the statutory minimum of £81.60 a week. The AWB also guarantees children under 16 who work on farms £2.98 an hour. The minimum wage does not cover children under 16, so when the AWB is abolished children on farms will have no wage protection. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has considered the impact of the change on the under-16s. Can he tell the House what protections he will put in place to protect child workers from exploitation?
Mr Paice
There are many other regulations that deal with young people in employment across the whole of industry. The reality is that the board has been in existence for 60 years and it is now well past its sell-by date. The industry has asked for its abolition and, as the Public Bodies Bill stands, we will have to consult on that. The hon. Lady will be able to make her views known at that point—but I must emphasise that the contracts of employment of everyone currently employed in the industry will remain in existence.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Looking to future regulation, if badger control is going to be part of DEFRA’s bovine TB eradication programme, will the Minister confirm that any regulations attached to licences will be proportionate and practical?
Mr Paice
I think my hon. Friend knows that we have not made any announcement about badger control yet. I hope that the conclusions of our consultation will be announced fairly soon, along with a wider package of measures to combat TB. Whatever steps we take will clearly need to balance the regulations that have to be in place for disease control with minimising their burden and using risk assessment as the basis for applying them.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
10. What her policy is on future levels of recycling of domestic and commercial waste.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I commend the right hon. Lady for her long-standing commitment to this issue. Our waste review set out our ambition to move from a throwaway society to a zero-waste economy. This includes maximising the recycling of waste that cannot be prevented or reused from households and businesses. We will work with local authorities and the waste management industry to make it easier for everyone to recycle, whether at home, at work or on the go.
Joan Ruddock
Just a year ago the Secretary of State said of recycling:
“We need to go faster and we need to go further.”
So is it the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who has crushed her ambition and vetoed a target for recycling in this country? Having won the battle over fortnightly bin collections, why does she not now adopt Friends of the Earth’s target of halving black sack waste by 2020, thus reducing costs and creating jobs?
Mrs Spelman
I support the scale of the ambition of Friends of the Earth’s target, and we are of course bound by an EU target to recycle 50% of household refuse, but if targets are too specific they can be distorting, driving councils to meet centrally imposed indicators instead of doing what is best for their local circumstances. A good example of that was the landfill allowance trading scheme, which led to the anomaly of disincentivising the recycling of business waste.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend might be aware of the problem of heavily soiled films used on farms being exported to China as clean waste, rather than being put into the recycling process in this country. What action can she take to stop these illegal exports?
Mrs Spelman
If it is illegal, it is important that we take legal sanctions to prevent it. Whenever possible, we want to see our own waste industry growing. At present it is projected to grow at 4% per annum, and there is no lack of ambition in the industry to deal more effectively with all forms of waste that we can treat in this country.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
The lack of ambition belongs entirely to the Secretary of State. The Sunday Times called the Government’s waste review a “sloppy, flyblown mess” hamstrung by Tory dogma. The Welsh Government have adopted a 70% recycling rate, which will create 50,000 new jobs by 2025, yet in England this Government have abandoned recycling targets. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she has scrapped recycling targets for England? Will she also publish an assessment of how many English jobs will not now be created, and how much investment in the waste industry will not now be made, as a result of her decision?
Mrs Spelman
That is a gross distortion of our waste review. The hon. Gentleman should not rely on newspapers to give him a guide to what is in it; he should take the trouble to read the real thing. Have I not just said that we expect the waste industry to grow by 4% per annum? We have not scrapped recycling targets; we are committed to EU targets for recycling. In addition, we have more ambition with regard to landfill, which exceeds the ambition of the previous Government and involves proposals not to bury metal and wood in landfill.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on reform of the common fisheries policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
As UK Fisheries Minister, I have had discussions with a range of people about common fisheries policy reform. These include the EU Commission, Members of the European Parliament and other member states. I continue to encourage fellow Ministers to support radical reform, most recently during this week’s Fisheries Council. I will continue to press our case for reform as negotiations develop over the next year.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am aware that the mackerel quota was discussed at the meeting earlier this week. Is the Minister aware of the widespread exasperation at the fact that in her comments afterwards, the Commissioner confirmed that no action would even begin to be taken until at least October—a full 18 months after the arbitrary action that caused the problem in the first place? There is now very real concern that this will have an impact not just on the sustainability of stocks but on the livelihood of fishing fleets. Will the hon. Gentleman urge his European partners to take action more quickly?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter; it is our most pressing problem, and our most valuable stock is at risk of crashing—probably within 18 months to two years—if the gross overfishing announced by the Faroes and Iceland goes ahead. I moved the issue forward at this week’s meeting by seeking to raise it to a political level. It has been dealt with by the Commission and by officials, but I believe it will take Ministers from the countries concerned to look each other in the eye and sit round a table, perhaps with an independent chairman, to negotiate. I do not care where we meet, but we have got to move this forward quickly. That is the proposal I made at the meeting, and I have followed it up with a letter. We made a number of other suggestions that highlight the urgency of this problem.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister were prepared to meet a delegation of fishermen from my constituency who are concerned about the Government’s proposals for the inshore fishery, as the consultation on that closes today. They are particularly concerned about what I suspect will be the unintended consequences that will be detrimental to this low-impact and sustainable sector.
Richard Benyon
I would be delighted to meet representatives of the hon. Gentleman’s local fishing community. The consultation on the under-10-metre sector, which, as he says, closes today, sought to find a solution to the level of perceived unfairness—I acknowledge it—that applies to this sector. I want to find a way forward that gives this sector more fishing opportunities and allows the local communities to invest in their local fleets, because we understand the social implications of the decline of the fishing industry in many places. I am not in the business of making life more difficult for any particular sector, and I want to ensure that this consultation feeds on the many enthusiasms we have encountered, while also setting to rest many of the fears expressed.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The European Commission is due to publish next month the new legislative text on the reform of the common fisheries policy. The best thing, of course, would be to abolish that dreadful policy altogether, but short of that, what specific actions have the Government urged on the Commission on regionalisation of the policy?
Richard Benyon
The right hon. Gentleman is right; we expect the paper to be published on 13 July and we will debate it at the next Council meeting on 19 July. We pushed very hard for regionalisation. He is absolutely right to say that the system is ludicrous. One of the many failures of the common fisheries policy is that factors such as net sizes are decided in Brussels, whereas they should be decided at least on a sea basin basis, if not at member state level. We are still pushing hard for regionalisation. There are counter-arguments about the legality and what other countries want, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are really pushing for this, as we believe it to be an important way forward.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
12. What recent assessment she has made of the spread of bovine tuberculosis in wildlife in the West Worcestershire constituency; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The most recent information we have is from the randomised badger-culling trial, in which badgers were culled annually in an area west of Malvern between 2002 and 2005. The average TB prevalence in badgers culled in that area was then 28%. We also know that TB in cattle is linked to TB in wildlife. I can tell my hon. Friend that there was an increase in the number of new herds disclosed with TB in Hereford and Worcester in 2010 compared with 2009, and a corresponding increase in herd incidence over the same period.
Harriett Baldwin
Wildlife in my constituency is suffering from tuberculosis, a lingering death. Cattle are being slaughtered, and farmers are lying awake at night worried that their herd might be next. Will the Minister update us on what further steps the Government could take to bring the disease under control?
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is right to stress the need for further policies to control TB. As I said earlier, we will make announcements fairly soon—before the House rises, we hope—on our proposals regarding badgers, and about wider cattle-to-cattle measures. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the status quo, do-nothing agenda is not acceptable. Calculations show that if we do nothing and things stay as they are, it will cost the taxpayer £1 billion over the next 10 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. The question is specifically about West Worcestershire, and Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire is a little distance from there.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
13. What steps she plans to take to reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour by dogs and their owners.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office to deal with the issue of antisocial behaviour on the part of dogs and their owners. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, on 7 February the Home Office issued a consultation paper on a new, streamlined framework of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. Subject to consultation, the new tools will replace 18 of the formal powers that are currently available, including those applicable to dogs. The consultation ended on 17 May, and the responses are being analysed.
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is reassuring to hear that discussions are taking place with the Home Office. Members of the all-party associate parliamentary group for animal welfare met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers last week, and they presented their evidence to the Department shortly afterwards. Will the Minister meet members of the all-party group to discuss ACPO’s information and the concerns it raised with the Department?
Mr Paice
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always happy to meet him and, indeed, any other colleagues. As he also knows, the issue of dogs is the responsibility of my noble Friend, Lord Henley. I will pass his request on to my noble Friend, but I assure him that if he cannot deal with it, I will do so.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
14. What her policy is on legislation to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Government will listen to the views of the House of Commons, and are sympathetic to the motion for a ban. We are taking active steps towards finding a way in which to introduce a ban and clearing the obstacles that prevent us from doing so now. In the meantime we have begun, as a matter of urgency, to develop a tough licensing regime which will stop circuses from using wild animals if they do not provide the appropriate welfare standards.
Mr Spellar
As the Minister acknowledges, the House made a clear decision to ban wild animals in circuses. As with so many other issues, would not it be a good idea for his Department to start listening to the electorate rather than the civil servants? Should he not just get on with it?
Mr Paice
I have just made it clear that the Government respect the view of the House and are sympathetic to the motion for a ban. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the specific measure mentioned in the motion constituted secondary legislation. All the advice given to us—and to the last Government—suggests that that is not the right way to proceed, which is why we are trying to overcome the obstacles.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the Minister’s response, but it appears that confusion still reigns at DEFRA. After last Thursday’s vote, an official in the Department said:
“Given that a ban is not an immediate possibility, we will proceed with a tough licensing regime”.
That prompts an obvious question: why does the Minister continue to frustrate the will of the House? Will he commit himself to introducing a ban during the current parliamentary Session?
Mr Paice
I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said. The fact is that it is unlawful for a Minister to legislate if he knows that it is unlawful to do so. According to all the advice that we have been given, using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be extremely likely to raise a judicial challenge, which would not benefit the position.
I have made it clear that we are taking the matter forward. We are exploring all avenues, both in the Department and more widely outside Government, in trying to find the best way of satisfying the desire of the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In addition, it has responsibility for animal health and welfare. Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to draw colleagues’ attention to the written ministerial statement and accompanying “Dear colleague” letter setting out the changes we are making to the pet travel scheme. I believe these changes strike the right balance between making it easier for people who wish to travel with pets and maintaining the protection people have a right to expect. They are consistent with our commitment to science-led, evidence-based policy making.
Dr Whitehead
Tomorrow, the League Against Cruel Sports will hold a national conference on wildlife protection with the support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other organisations. On the eve of that conference, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have dropped their plan to hold a vote to enable the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 in this Parliament?
Mrs Spelman
We have not dropped our plan to hold a vote. That is part of the coalition agreement and it is in our business plan.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
T3. The Secretary of State is aware of the recent UK National Ecosystem Assessment report, which Friends of the Earth has described as essential summer reading for all MPs. It estimates that the health benefits of living within view of green spaces are worth approximately £300. Given those economic benefits, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure we better value our national environment, in particular the green belt?
Mrs Spelman
The National Ecosystem Assessment report should be compulsory reading for MPs, not least because the Minister for policy at the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), described it as a game changer. The most important aspect of the report is the tool itself: 200 scientists from around the world came together to give us a scientific tool that enables us to estimate the true value of what nature provides for us for free.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
T2. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming Oxfam’s “Grow” campaign on sustainable farming and food? Has she met Oxfam, and what discussions has she had with Department for International Development Ministers on this issue?
Mrs Spelman
As I have said before, what came over very strongly at the G20 from the Agriculture Ministers of the world’s richest nations was the responsibility we have not only to grow more food sustainably but to aid developing countries to grow more food sustainably themselves. We have good relationships with all our stakeholders and key non-governmental organisations—I would count Oxfam as one of them—and with our DFID colleagues in order to make sure we play our part.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
T4. The Minister has already given a response on the inshore fishing consultation, but will he give my under-10-metres fishermen the assurance that all the responses will be carefully considered, including concerns about the suggested structure and the fact that there will still be people with quotas who no longer fish and have not done so for many years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will look at every response very carefully. We have had about 20 meetings around the coast, which were very well attended, and many of the areas of consultation were explained to the audience in such a way as to allay their fears. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), we want to make life better for the under-10s and give them a more sustainable future.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Only two weeks ago, a gamekeeper was convicted for illegally killing birds of prey in my constituency. Is it not time to think about introducing a vicarious liability offence to ensure that landowners and estate managers supervise their gamekeepers more closely and more effectively?
Richard Benyon
There are very good laws in place to punish the illegal killing of any animal. If they are not being enforced, they must be and we will take steps to make sure that happens. However, this is also a good opportunity to applaud gamekeepers for the wonderful work they do in providing excellent biodiversity across our countryside.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
T5. Further to the earlier answer to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the groceries adjudicator, the Minister will be aware that the proposal enjoys widespread support in the farming industry, but there are concerns that farmers will be reluctant to volunteer information for fear of reprisals. Does the Minister agree that trade bodies such as the National Farmers Union must do their bit by collating and publishing information from their members, to help guide the supermarket adjudicator to the right target and identify bad practice?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is widespread concern that individuals might be loth to make complaints because of the risk of being penalised by the retailer involved. As he will know, the draft Bill allows for third-party representations, but does not allow for representations from trade bodies. To give a precise answer, there is nothing to prevent the National Farmers Union or any other body from gathering information, publishing it and making things clear. Obviously, the adjudicator would then have discretion over whether to pursue the investigation further.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Given today’s worrying report from the Committee on Climate Change showing that the UK is in danger of missing its carbon reduction targets, will the Minister back plans supported by more than 100 organisations, including the Co-operative Group, WWF and the Aldersgate Group, and commit to introducing the mandatory reporting of corporate greenhouse gas emissions?
Mrs Spelman
We are consulting on that, but I would like the hon. Lady to know that my Department is responsible for climate change adaptation and we are completely committed, together with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to achieving our carbon emissions targets. We will do all that we can because this is such an important matter, as was outlined in the Foresight report. The challenge that we will face on food security if we do not tackle the combination of an increasing population and demand for food, hungry people and climate change means that we will be held to account.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T6. Given that the Government are in favour of animals being stunned before slaughter, when might we have some food labelling regulations that will mark kosher and halal products as such, so that those of us who object to ritual slaughter do not buy them inadvertently?
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend rightly says that the Government believe that all animals should be stunned before slaughter, but we respect the rights of religious groups. However, this practice should clearly be restricted, wherever possible, to food for those religious groups. We face serious challenges in labelling and ensuring efficient systems of traceability. The Government are examining the matter and, as I am sure he is aware, it is being discussed in respect of the food information regulations in Brussels, although he will perhaps not wish to take that option further, given his views on that place. I can also tell him that we will shortly consult on the introduction of the new welfare at slaughter regulations and we will be raise this whole matter then.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that it is morally repugnant and an environmental disaster that the bulk of male calves born in this country are immediately killed and incinerated? Is it not about time we did something to change the way people see veal, as it is a wonderful product to eat? Could we not rename it “spring beef”, so that we could get over the prejudices that mean that these poor animals get no life at all?
Mr Paice
Calves are born all year round, so I am not sure that the term that the hon. Gentleman proposes is quite right. That aside, I entirely share his view, although the number of bull calves being slaughtered at birth is now much lower than it was, because there has been a welcome increase in the consumption of veal. We need to make sure that this is UK veal and is what we call “rose veal”, whereby calves are reared in humane circumstances and not in some of the arrangements we see abroad.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
T7. I am delighted that Octink, from my constituency, has been named one of the UK’s greenest businesses for the third year running. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and with Will Tyler, its chief executive, who says that this approach is not only good for the environment, but helps his bottom line. What more can we do to promote the financial aspects and benefits of green business?
Mrs Spelman
I applaud the green business that my hon. Friend has described, and I hope that she will convey my support for it. The Government have set up a green economy council, which I co-chair, and it is very encouraging to see just how many businesses, in all sectors of the economy, understand the importance of having both a green economy and a growing one.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Everyone in this House and across the country wants to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. Although the matter is devolved, what discussions does DEFRA have with the devolved Administrations about the science-based evidence, as we need to exchange this information, get best practice and eradicate this disease once and for all?
Mr Paice
I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to eradicate this disease. I assure him that my officials were in regular contact with Welsh officials prior to the change of Government in Wales and that I had discussions with the relevant Minister at the time. I have not yet discussed this matter, although I have discussed others, with the new Minister. I look forward to doing so, and our officials will continue to be in close contact. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we need to make sure that, wherever possible, we are working in harmony on this.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
T8. Thames Water’s chief executive said last week that the previous costing of £3.6 billion for the Thames tideway tunnel was “simply an indicative 2008 price”that would “inevitably increase”. The Minister will know that under the existing pricing, Thames Water bill payers throughout the region will each have to pay £65 per annum in perpetuity for the tunnel. Will he assure me and 142 other Members of this House that our constituents will get value for money for this project?
Richard Benyon
I can—and I am one of them. I can assure my hon. Friend that my constituents and his are absolutely in our minds. We meet weekly with officials from Ofwat and Thames Water, the issue will be discussed at the DEFRA supervisory board this afternoon and I shall meet the London boroughs and the Greater London authority next week to discuss the project. I can assure my hon. Friend that its price is foremost in our minds.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
1. What recent reports he has received on the activities of the rural committee of the Church Commissioners.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
In the past 12 months, the rural affairs group has worked on a variety of issues including bovine tuberculosis, the Localism Bill, common agricultural policy reform, lay ministry in rural churches and vocations and training in rural ministry.
Miss McIntosh
I take this opportunity to congratulate the rural committee on the work that it does. Can my hon. Friend suggest ways in which we in this place can work more closely with the committee as it goes about its business?
Tony Baldry
The Church’s rural committee would certainly welcome a closer working relationship with my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which she so ably chairs. I encourage all bishops and suffragan bishops to take the opportunity of the parliamentary recess to get in touch with parliamentary colleagues from all parties to discuss how our colleagues can learn more from and work more closely with the Church, whether that is in rural areas, in urban areas or on any project.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Ben Bradshaw. He is not here, so I call Sir Peter Bottomley.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
3. Whether the Church Commissioners were consulted on the choice of Ministers to be invited to contribute to the edition of the New Statesman edited by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Sir Peter Bottomley
May I ask my hon. Friend to thank the archbishop for sending the magazine and his articles to all Members of Parliament? I also recommend, through him, that The Daily Telegraph and the BBC actually read those articles. The archbishop was aware that a reader might say that to give a page to the Work and Pensions Secretary and five pages to an interview with the Foreign Secretary might show too much establishment leaning. The criticism of the archbishop is, as Lucy Winkett put it, new
“like the waves, old like the sea.”
Tony Baldry
I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend’s comments to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I will also say to my hon. Friend, who has been in this House for some considerable time, that sometimes what is heard is as important as what is said.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
4. What recent assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effect of fuel prices on the financial position of the Church of England.
Tony Baldry
Fuel prices impact on clergy, and dioceses are aware of the Government increase in mileage rates from April 2011.
Robert Halfon
Does my hon. Friend agree that the high cost of fuel is having a huge impact on the community and charitable work done by the Church? Will the Church play its part in asking the Government to delay the 3p inflationary rise in fuel tax that is planned for January?
Tony Baldry
Rising prices impact on us all, including those who undertake charitable and pastoral duties in the community. The Church of England will increase the mileage rate for staff and clergy, but we try to encourage them to travel by public transport wherever possible. I am sure I speak for all Members of the House when I say that we hope that charities and religious groups will endeavour to maintain their charitable and pastoral provision despite the change in fuel tax.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
5. What plans the Church Commissioners have for the future of St. Paul’s church, Truro and its hall.
Tony Baldry
The commissioners are actively working to find a suitable new use for St Paul’s church. Preparations are under way for placing it on the open market. The commissioners are not specifically involved with the hall, which is on a separate site owned by the Truro diocesan board of finance.
Sarah Newton
The church hall is a valuable community resource that is much appreciated by the homeless people of Truro, who receive a warm welcome and freshly cooked meals from the Truro homeless action group. Will my hon. Friend work with me to enable community groups to have the opportunity to secure the hall for the continued benefit of the community of Truro?
Tony Baldry
I entirely agree that Church of England buildings, whether they be churches or church halls, should wherever possible be open to the widest possible use by the greater community. That is part of the Church’s national mission, and I think that before any church or church building is declared redundant or sold every possible effort should be made to see that it is retained for community use. I will most certainly convey my hon. Friend’s comments to the diocese of Truro.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
6. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to encourage marriages in Church of England buildings.
Tony Baldry
The Church of England values the sacrament of marriage, it is keen to encourage marriage in churches wherever possible and it has recently changed the rules to enable couples to marry more easily when they would like to marry in church.
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that this is not just about buildings, but that organists and musicians, of whom I confess to being one, make a valuable contribution, and that the Church should promote those aspects as a package to encourage church weddings?
Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend was a much-respected organist and director of church music, and I think that one of the glories of England is church music, choirs and organ music. One reason many people want to marry in Church of England churches is the contribution of the choir and the organist.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have married more people than, I think, anybody else in this House, and it was always great fun marrying couples in church, but the archbishop’s special licence system involved a lot of people, frankly, telling fibs about where they lived, so I hope that that will be reformed. Would it not help if the Church of England decided that it would like now to hold civil partnership ceremonies in its churches?
Tony Baldry
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was a matter of much debate during the passage of the Equalities Bill both in this House and in the other place. It was resolved that there would be no change unless the General Synod agreed, and that is where the position lies today.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
7. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to promote tourism focused on church buildings and church heritage.
Tony Baldry
The General Synod passed a motion encouraging all dioceses to support church tourism and to link with a wider national church tourism strategy. The cathedral and church buildings division of the Church of England encourages best practice, including opening churches, welcoming visitors and providing interpretation, and it works closely with partners including the Churches Tourism Association, Cathedrals Plus and the Churches Conservation Trust.
Laura Sandys
My hon. Friend and I share a great passion for tourism organisations and our churches working together more effectively. Does he recognise that in east Kent we have a set of 10th, 11th and 12th century churches marking St Augustine’s way, and will he join me in making a representation to the Church of England to ensure that visitors understand and enjoy those churches more?
Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend is fortunate in representing a fantastic constituency, which, among its other attributes, was the place where St Augustine landed. I could cite at least three good examples of church tourism in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but, as I was accused during the last Church Commissioners questions of loquaciousness, I will resist that temptation and simply say that I will encourage the Bishop of Dover and, indeed, other bishops to ensure that hon. Members know of the efforts being made in all our constituencies to promote church tourism, because it is very important to make sure that as many people as possible can enjoy the heritage of our church buildings.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
8. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support the teaching of religious education in schools.
Tony Baldry
Every diocese in the Church of England supports RE teaching in its schools, and most diocesan education advisers also support and provide materials for the teaching of RE in non-Church schools.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As I believe he knows, a petition with 140,000 signatures expressing concern at the exclusion of RE from the English baccalaureate was presented to Downing street yesterday. One unintended consequence of that exclusion is that the number of pupils applying to study RE at GCSE has dropped significantly, as have application rates for RE teacher training—by some 25%. What action can the Church Commissioners take to ensure that the study of RE is properly resourced, bearing in mind that it is still a statutory—that is, compulsory—subject for pupils in school up to 16 years old?
Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend raises a serious point about RE in the E-bac. She will know that the Bishop of Oxford, who chairs the National Society—in other words, he is the lead bishop on education in the Church of England—has, on several occasions, made clear the concerns of the Church of England, and indeed other faith groups, to ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education. I heard the Minister with responsibility for schools say in a debate in Westminster Hall that he would reflect on those representations, and we look forward to hearing what decisions Ministers take in respect of RE in the E-bac.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
9. How many diocesan synods have voted (a) for and (b) against the proposed legislation on women bishops.
Tony Baldry
Notification has been received from six diocesan synods, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that so far all the dioceses that have voted have voted to approve the legislation.
Diana Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Given the overwhelming support for women bishops, may I urge him to introduce legislation at the very earliest opportunity so that we can enshrine in law equality between men and women as bishops?
Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady knows that I share her aspiration. Let me explain this process to the House, because I look forward to the support of all Members of the House when the Measure comes before Parliament in due course. Every diocese, of which there are 44, has to vote. Six have voted; colleagues can work out the maths on the rest that still have to do so. Once they have all voted, there will be a meeting of the General Synod, which I hope in due course will approve the measure so that it can come before Parliament to enable the consecration of women as bishops. I certainly hope that in the lifetime of this Parliament, Parliament will approve that measure.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
10. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of recent trends in the proportion of Church of England congregations that are (a) from black and Asian minority ethnic groups, (b) women, (c) disabled people and (d) from low-income groups.
Tony Baldry
The latest figures collected in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s question were part of a 2007 national parish congregation diversity survey. They show that about 5% of Church of England core congregations are from minority ethnic backgrounds and about 65% are women. Figures for disabled people are kept by dioceses individually and are not held centrally.
John Robertson
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that things have moved on somewhat since 2007 and that, particularly in the more deprived areas, there will be a hardening of the problems of meeting the cuts that are going to hit them. I believe that there is a very strong place for the Church in those areas in particular. Will he ensure that the Church does the work that it should be doing in trying to attract these people through its doors?
Tony Baldry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to make the position clear. The Church Commissioners have £5.5 billion under investment, of which we disburse about £100 million every year to the Church. Much of that goes to poorer dioceses with inner-city and deprived areas so that the Church can fulfil its mission to such areas and to those who need the greatest support. We see that as a very important part of our role and of the Church’s national mission.
Ninetieth Birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh
Mr Speaker
On Wednesday 8 June, the House resolved that a message be sent to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to offer His Royal Highness the warmest good wishes of the House upon the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. This morning I waited upon His Royal Highness, with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, to convey the said message. We were graciously received by His Royal Highness, who responded in these terms:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons. I received your kind message of congratulations on my ninetieth birthday with the greatest pleasure. I have derived much satisfaction from the many years that I have been able to help and support the Queen. Few others, if any, have had the satisfaction of witnessing the affection and respect that so many people around the world have shown for the Queen since the beginning of her reign. I acknowledge that the position that I have held has made it possible for me to support and encourage a great many valuable and worthwhile organisations in this country and further afield. It has been a particular pleasure to be associated with so many organisations that have encouraged the development of the younger generation in this country and in the wider world.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have a further statement to make. Members will recall that on 4 May, I informed the House of the Clerk of the House’s intention to retire with effect from Friday 30 September 2011. A trawl for Sir Malcolm’s successor has now been held. There were five applicants, all of whom were interviewed by a panel consisting of myself, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, and Sheila Drew Smith, an independent assessor.
The unanimous recommendation of the panel was that Mr Robert Rogers, at present Clerk Assistant, should succeed Sir Malcolm Jack. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating Robert Rogers on his appointment. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] There will be an opportunity at a later date to pay the traditional tribute to the retiring Clerk.
BSkyB
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the News Corporation acquisition of BSkyB.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Earlier today, I placed a written statement before the House outlining the next steps in my consideration of the potential merger between News Corp and BSkyB. In it, I explained that I have published the results of the consultation on the undertakings in lieu offered by News Corp, together with the subsequent advice I have received from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading.
As I outlined, the consultation did not produce any information that caused Ofcom or the OFT to change their earlier advice to me. I could have decided to accept the original undertakings. However, a number of constructive changes were suggested and, as a result, I am today publishing a revised, more robust set of undertakings, and will be consulting on them until midday on Friday 8 July.
Significantly, those changes strengthen further the arrangements for editorial independence and business viability of the newly spun-off Sky News. In my view, they provide a further layer of very important safeguards. As amended, I believe that the undertakings will remedy, mitigate or prevent the threats to plurality that were identified at the start of this process. If after this next consultation process nothing arises that changes that view, I propose to accept the undertakings in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission. Before coming to such a view, however, I will of course seek once again the advice of the independent external regulators.
Mr Watson
In the end, it comes down to believing a promise. The Secretary of State has chosen to accept the assurances of News Corp, when it has breached previous assurances on the takeover of The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and the News of the World.
The Secretary of State could have chosen to disregard those assurances to protect plurality, or asked whether the acquirer has shown evidence of bad practice in its other media companies. Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 provides for specified considerations, including
“the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of the standards objectives set out in section 319 of the Communications Act 2003”,
yet the chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, openly and brazenly, and without any sense of irony, admitted to a parliamentary Committee that News International paid police officers for evidence.
The Secretary of State has granted the acquisition to an organisation that is currently the subject of three separate police inquiries, and an organisation that a parliamentary Select Committee found guilty of “collective amnesia” of criminality at one of its newspapers. There is emerging evidence that News International conspired with convicted criminals to pervert the course of justice by hacking the phones of serving police officers and detectives, their families and the families of the victims of serious crime. At least one senior executive even collaborated with at least one career criminal while he was serving time in prison. And, most appallingly of all, while the nation grieved, the criminals who were contracted to News International illicitly targeted a parent of the children who were murdered by Ian Huntley in Soham.
Today the Secretary of State has chosen to take these people at their word. No wonder he tried to avoid answering colleagues in the House this morning! Did he or the Prime Minister meet or talk to Rupert Murdoch when he was here last week? Is it true that the Sky News spin-off, NewCo, will have no equity value and no realistic chance of making a profit? How much tax will the newly acquired BSkyB pay in the UK? Does this decision enjoy the support of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Does the Secretary of State think it unusual that BSkyB has organised a party at the Foreign Office tonight? How can people realistically take part in a consultation that is to last only eight days? Has he taken advice from the Cabinet Office on how to conduct proper and effective consultations? The ultimate owner of the newly acquired company will be registered as a shareholder in Delaware, USA, but there is no obligation on the company to publish the shareholder register. Will he undertake to oblige the company to do this in the public interest before he finally signs off the deal? We have to know who will be the new owners of 40% of the country’s media estate.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will get his reward for this decision, but he will pay a very high political price. This seedy deal would shame a banana republic.
Mr Hunt
Let me first address the hon. Gentleman’s final comment, which was beneath what he is capable off. I am perfectly well aware that on such an issue no one will trust the motives of politicians, which is why, at every stage, I have sought independent advice from Ofcom, the independent regulator, and the Office of Fair Trading. I have done it even in areas I did not have to. For example, I did not have to ask Ofcom’s advice on whether these undertakings were robust and I did not have to ask it whether it would address concerns about plurality, but I chose to do so, and I have published its advice. I have tried therefore, at every stage, to strengthen the confidence of the House and the public in the integrity of the process.
I shall move on to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. First, he talked about past assurances given by News Corps in respect of previous media assets that it has purchased. This is not an issue of trust. These undertakings are legally binding and legally enforceable. Moreover, one of the undertakings particularly addresses the concerns that I think are shared in many parts of the House about broadcasting impartiality, which is enshrined in the broadcasting code. Under the undertakings that I published on 3 March and am publishing again today, the code will form part of the company’s articles of association. Under the strengthened undertakings that I am publishing today, News Corps will not be allowed to attempt to get the new company to breach its own articles of association, so the editorial impartiality for which Sky News is valued will be better protected than it is for any other media organisations in this country.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has campaigned— I think very honourably and impressively—on the phone-hacking issue. At root, I agree with what he says: no company should be above the law. But just as no company should be above the law, no Minister should be above the law. I have to follow due process, and due process under the Enterprise Act 2002, which was put in place by his Government, says that I have to consider this on the basis of media plurality—a very important issue—to make sure that no one person has too much control over our media. That is why James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch will have less control of Sky News after this deal goes through than before it because of the undertakings in place.
On the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, I cannot speak for the Prime Minister but I have had no contact with the Prime Minister over this deal. I am deciding this deal on a quasi-judicial basis, but I have not met Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch in recent weeks, and all the meetings I have had with them have been minuted and done through official channels. On the tax issue, obviously, like all companies, News Corp will be subject to UK law, but this issue has been decided on media plurality grounds.
On the consultation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I could have chosen to conclude this issue today, but I have not. I am launching a further consultation. This issue has been in the public domain since last summer, but I want to make sure that this House and the public have every possible opportunity to comment on what is being proposed. Not only that, but I have listened to them. In fact, I think we have made the undertakings more robust and stronger so I am confident that what I am proposing to the House will protect plurality of the media, which I know is highly valued in all parts of the House.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the meticulous care that he has shown in his handling of this matter? Can he confirm that every single concern that has been raised by the regulatory authorities has been addressed? On the wider question of impartiality, does he agree that the value of Sky News is not because it makes money—it does not—but because of the benefit to the overall reputation of BSkyB that comes from the integrity, objectivity and the quality of its news gathering, and that it would therefore be madness for any new owner to seek to change that?
Mr Hunt
I completely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The regulatory authorities have both confirmed, both on 3 March and today, that they are satisfied that the undertakings I am putting before the House address the concerns that were raised about media plurality. I have taken that advice very seriously indeed.
My hon. Friend’s second point about Sky News is particularly important today because in the revised undertakings that we have published there are two things that particularly strengthen what the public value about Sky News. First, News Corp undertakes that it will not do anything to cause Sky News to contribute less to media plurality in this country if this deal goes through. Secondly, it agrees that it will continue to cross-promote Sky News on the Sky platform at the same level it currently does. In terms both of financial viability and of that all-important contribution to media plurality I am satisfied that if I proceed with the undertakings as published today, we will continue to have a free and plural media.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State could have made different choices. He could have chosen to appear before the House today and make an oral statement rather than be dragged kicking and screaming to the House. He could have chosen to refer this acquisition to the Competition Commission for an independent inquiry to remove any doubts about the objectivity and transparency of the process. Will he answer the following questions? In view of the fact that this process has now taken six months, why did he not follow Ofcom’s original advice and refer this deal to the Competition Commission? How can he say that he has delivered greater independence for Sky News when it will be almost entirely dependent on News Corp for both distribution and funding? Will he publish in full the independent legal advice he has received on all aspects of this acquisition?
In relation to media issues, the Secretary of State has responsibility for media policy in this country, and it is therefore very disappointing to say the least that he has had so little to say about the phone-hacking scandal. The current police investigation must, this time, lead to full disclosure of all evidence, with those responsible brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State agree that once that investigation has been concluded there should be an independent inquiry into the conduct of the British press? The issues go further than one newspaper group. We have made it clear that we support self-regulation, but self-regulation must be accompanied by responsibility and accountability. It is surely time for lessons to be learned and reforms to be put in place so that such unlawful practices can never happen again.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the shadow Secretary of State that we are on the subject specifically of the proposed acquisition, so I feel sure that the references that the hon. Gentleman has made to another issue are now at an end. I think that we are clear about that. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to complete his remarks?
Mr Hunt
I am quite bemused by what the shadow Culture Secretary is saying. He has said that the phone-hacking issue is not linked to the BSkyB merger. Those were his words. Now he is telling the House that there is a link. He says that I could have chosen to refer this to the Competition Commission but have chosen not to. Would he have chosen to refer it to the Competition Commission, because he has not said so? If he is now saying so, that is a big change in the Labour party’s position. Let me tell him that it is the Enterprise Act 2002, introduced by the last Labour Government, that gives the Secretary of State the right to accept undertakings in lieu instead of a referral to the Competition Commission. I am following precisely the process that was set up in law by his Government. I am doing so after expert, independent advice by regulators who understand the market extremely well—Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading—and I am publishing that advice so that people can see the basis on which I have made the decision.
The hon. Gentleman also raised issues of the dependency of the new company on News Corp for its funding. He is right: the financial resilience of Sky News is central to the sustainability of the deal. That is why, as part of the undertakings, we have reached agreement on a carriage agreement, which will give financial security to the new company for a 10-year period, which addresses those concerns. The company is able to develop its business outside Sky during that period, which will make it less financially dependent on Sky, but even if it does not do that, it has the security of a 10-year funding agreement, which is considerably greater than that of the BBC, for example, in the licence fee settlement.
I am publishing more advice than any Secretary of State has ever published on any comparable deal. We are being completely transparent about the processes because we want to ensure that the public have confidence, and it would be good if the shadow Culture Secretary could at least acknowledge that transparency.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State has rightly said that this is an issue about plurality in news and current affairs. Does he recall that in 2002 the Labour Government opposed a general plurality test, and that it was only because of the efforts of Lord Puttnam and others in another place that one was included in the Enterprise Act? Given that that was a watered-down test, does he believe that the time is now right to set up an independent commission on plurality so that it can inform the future communications Bill?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The process that we have gone through has revealed that both he and I would like to make sure that there are better protections for media plurality, not in situations such as this—we have a process that involves exhaustive public scrutiny—but where someone might develop a dominant position in the media, and the public might not be as protected as they should be. That is why the coalition Government have said that we want to do something that the last Labour Government did not do: look at whether plurality protection can be strengthened, which we will do in the new communications Bill that we will be putting to the House in the second half of this Parliament.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Is not the Secretary of State in this position because of the acts of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? The Enterprise Act was very clear that difficult decisions such as this should be taken out of the hands of politicians and given to the Competition Commission.
Mr Hunt
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have often wondered why the Act specifically gives the duty of deciding an issue such as this to an elected politician when in, for example, competition law, such decisions are taken out of the hands of politicians. That is the way the law operates at the moment under that Act. Hon. Members will want to take a view as to whether that is the right way for the law to operate, and we have said that we will look at all these issues in our communications Bill.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the procedure in the Enterprise Act puts him in the position of judge in these circumstances, and he therefore has a clear duty to be extremely measured in his remarks, to be meticulous in what he does, and to ensure that he has independent advice, including legal advice? Does he agree that that is what he has done in this case, and one of the great lessons of the whole affair is how important it is to follow such an approach?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend, who understands these issues very well. There is a legitimate question as to whether it is appropriate to give elected politicians the responsibility for arbitrating on a decision for which many members of the public will inevitably question their motives. That is why I have tried to be completely transparent and have sought, published and, after careful consideration, followed independent advice at every stage. We can debate in the House whether the law is right to insist on the procedures that it does, but I know that hon. Members feel passionately that due process must be followed, and that is why I am doing that in this case.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
How on earth did we—and I mean all of us, not just the Minister—become so spineless as to allow a company whose directors not only failed in their fiduciary duties to prevent criminality at the News of the World, but actually participated in its cover-up, to hold dominion over such a vast swathe of the media in this country? No other country in the world would allow somebody to have so much power.
Mr Hunt
Phone hacking is incredibly serious, and the police must follow their inquiries wherever they lead. The fact that we are having those inquiries at the moment and that they have been as extensive as they are demonstrates that no company is above the law, and no company should be.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State comment on how the new undertakings from BSkyB will strengthen the operation or financial viability of Sky News?
Mr Hunt
I can reassure my hon. Friend on that front. There are two particular revisions to the undertakings that will strengthen the financial viability of Sky News. The first is a requirement that the operational agreements entered into between Sky and Sky News are fair and reasonable, and the second is a requirement that Sky will continue to cross-promote Sky News across the Sky network at the levels that it currently does. That, combined with a 10-year carriage agreement, which gives guaranteed financial income for 10 years—a very long time in the media marketplace—means that this will be a very financially sustainable and resilient model, which of course it needs to be.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Why is the new consultation period that the Secretary of State has announced so short, and how can it be meaningful?
Mr Hunt
This is a fairly short consultation, the primary purpose of which is to give people a chance to look at the amendments to the undertakings that were published on 3 March. The core undertakings have been in the public domain since 3 March, and indeed the wider issue of the merger has been in the public domain since last year. This is the conclusion of a long series of consultations, and I will listen to all the submissions that I receive before making my final decision.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Secretary of State previously stated that he was content with the proposals to keep Sky News independent from the rest of Sky. He has today announced further safeguards. Are those safeguards that he had pushed for, or were they proposed by the regulators?
Mr Hunt
I suppose the answer is a combination of both, because I have been absolutely clear that I want the independent regulators to be satisfied that the final package on the table addresses their concerns about plurality, not least because of the concerns raised earlier about the objectivity of politicians making the decision. I did not make the specific proposals; they arose from the public consultation and were what members of the public suggested as sensible changes. We then analysed them in the Department, and with Ofcom and the OFT, and arrived at the strengthened set of proposals that I have published today.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I do not doubt for a moment the Secretary of State’s integrity, but I do believe that he is wrong, morally and politically, on this issue. He is propping up a crumbling empire. Murdoch is the Gaddafi of News Corporation. How will Sky maintain independent news when most of its editorial content will come from News Corporation?
Mr Hunt
It is not the case that most of Sky News’s editorial content will come from News Corporation. Sky News, under today’s proposals, will be hived off as an independent company that will source its news from the multiplicity of sources that all good news organisations use. The big picture is that News Corp, in order to acquire full control of Sky, is relinquishing a degree of control over Sky News. There are things that happen today that will not be possible under the new undertakings. For example, it is possible today for James Murdoch, the non-executive chairman of Sky, to fire the person in charge of Sky News. Under the undertakings published today, if they proceed, that would not be possible. Adherence to the broadcasting code is mandated in the new company’s articles of association. That is not the case at present. Broadcasting impartiality, adherence to the highest editorial standards and independence of the editorial process will be much stronger under the new arrangements than it is at present. I hope that that will reassure at least those Members who are prepared to look at the matter objectively.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
For the sake of clarity, will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new, strengthened undertakings any future chairman of Sky News, and the current chairman, will be truly independent and impartial?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has announced a consultation this morning, albeit a very short one. Will he give us a commitment not to make the final decision during the recess and to bring the matter back to the House for a debate when we reconvene in the autumn?
Mr Hunt
I will certainly bring the decision back to the House when it is made. With regard to timing, I am trying to do this as quickly as possible, while ensuring that we have proper consultation processes and a proper amount of time to consider the responses to the consultation. The fact that I have today strengthened the undertakings that were published on 3 March reflects the fact that we are taking the consultation very seriously.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State address the concerns that have been raised on the publication of the shareholder register for the new company? Surely transparency in this respect is central to the confidence we can have that the arrangements meet our concerns about plurality, in substance as well as in form.
Mr Hunt
For the purposes of the decision I am making, I have assumed that Rupert Murdoch is fully in control of News Corp and the dominant controlling shareholder. Because this is a decision about media plurality, it is not necessary for me to consider other shareholders in News Corp in order to come to a decision.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The Secretary of State has correctly indicated that these new, legally binding and strengthened undertakings will be enshrined in the new company’s articles of association. He will of course be aware that a shareholder resolution can change the articles of association of any company, wherever it is registered, so what additional protections will be put in place to stop that happening?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right; that is the procedure for changing the articles of association. First, under the strengthened undertakings that we are publishing today, the Secretary of State must approve the articles of association before they go ahead. Secondly, under undertaking 3.1(i), News Corp is not allowed to increase its shareholding above its current level, which is well below the level that would be necessary to change the articles of association. Thirdly, under the strengthened undertakings it is not allowed to do anything that would cause the new company to breach its own articles of association. I think that we have as many protections in place as one could imagine to ensure that News Corp honours this deal and the public continue to get the benefit of what they value Sky News for.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I note a paternal interest, Mr Speaker? As BSkyB has been de facto controlled by News Corp since it was founded, are not these arrangements making it more independent, and some might say more impartial, than the state broadcaster, and therefore is not this row somewhat synthetic?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right that, contrary to many people’s concern that this will give the Murdochs more control over Sky News, they are in fact relinquishing a significant degree of control over Sky News in order to purchase shares in the rest of Sky. My concern is not with competition law, which is being considered by the European Commission, but with media plurality and ensuring that no one person has too much control over any aspect of our media. I am confident that these strong undertakings will ensure that that is the case.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given the disappointing comments of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to News Corp for saving The Times, producing The Times Educational Supplement and providing an excellent broadcasting service in the form of Sky TV? Does he not agree that those who are so concerned about the alleged monopoly of BSkyB should also be concerned about the monopoly of the BBC, which controls more than a third of our television and which we are forced to pay for?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend branches out into media policy more generally, but I will resist the temptation to follow, except to say that the Government have always believed that what is good about the media in this country is that we have a strong BBC and strong competition to it. However, this decision is about media plurality and ensuring the diversity of voices in the media, and that is what I am seeking to protect with the undertakings we are publishing today.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Having watched Sky News in some fairly remote parts of the world, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would agree with me that its broadcasting must not only be impartial, but have a considerable degree of morality and humanity?
Mr Hunt
I think it does. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is what the public value in Sky News and what we are seeking to protect. It is worth reminding the House that Sky News was the first 24-hour news broadcaster in this country and that it has contributed massively through the competition and choice that it has added to the news landscape, and we should value it for that.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May I take the Secretary of State back to financial viability? Is he satisfied that Sky News will be able not only to survive for 10 years, but to invest in high-quality news gathering for that time?
Mr Hunt
I am completely satisfied. My hon. Friend is right that the first time the undertakings were proposed to me, my concern was about financial viability. Sky News has a secure financial platform for a long period, which is the envy of all other broadcasters. That will allow it to do precisely what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that with an independent board led by an independent chairman, it will want to diversify its sources of funding, which would give it even more money to invest in news gathering, which is its core strength.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Did Ofcom or the Office of Fair Trading change their initial advice about whether the undertakings addressed their concerns about plurality?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that under the Enterprise Act 2002, his decision is quasi-judicial and he can take into account only relevant considerations, not irrelevant considerations such as whether one thinks that Murdoch is brilliant or like Gaddafi, or one’s personal view on the organisation as a whole?
Mr Hunt
I can absolutely confirm that. To strengthen public confidence that that is the way in which I have approached the decision, I have taken independent advice at every stage and I have published it so that people can take their own view on how I have come to this conclusion.
Business of the House
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 4 July—Continuation of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 3) Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 5 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance (No. 3) Bill (day 3).
Wednesday 6 July—Estimates day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on the “Prevent” strategy followed by a debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: The Prevent strategy: 6th Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee of Session 2009-10, HC 65, “Preventing Violent Extremism”. Afghanistan and Pakistan: 4th Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 2010-12, HC 514, “The UK’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan”; and the Government’s response CM 8064.]
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 7 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, followed by a debate on use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and Committees. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 11 July will include:
Monday 11 July—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Union Bill, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to civil law.
Tuesday 12 July—Motion relating to the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill [Lords].
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 7 and 14 July 2011 will be:
Thursday 7 July—A debate on intellectual property and the Hargreaves report.
Thursday 14 July—A debate on “The Future of CDC”, the International Development Committee’s fifth report of session 2010-12, HC 607.
Further to your earlier announcement, Mr Speaker, the whole House endorses what you said in congratulating Robert Rogers on his appointment as Clerk of the House and wishes him well in his new responsibilities.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I associate myself with the congratulations to Robert Rogers on his appointment. We look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role.
We are about to have a statement on police detention following the court ruling. We stand ready to assist with emergency legislation if that is what is needed to deal with the problem. The Leader of the House did not refer to the possibility of such legislation in his statement. Will he tell us the latest position?
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised the problem of questions addressed to the Minister for Women and Equalities being transferred to other Departments. Has the Leader of the House made any progress in looking into that? Can we have topical questions on this important area of the Government’s responsibilities?
Next Monday, Andrew Dilnot’s report on social care is due to be published. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be an oral statement? Will he also undertake to find time subsequently for the House to debate these important matters? Talking of which, in view of today’s industrial action, may we have a debate about the Government’s mishandling of the public sector pensions negotiations?
The Business Secretary said recently that he wanted a resurgent manufacturing sector. Therefore, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on why he awarded a £1.5 billion contract for 1,200 new train carriages to a company in Germany, when it will put some 3,000 British railway manufacturing jobs in jeopardy?
Has the Leader of the House seen the e-mail that was released this week from Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat Member? In discussing the changes to the Health and Social Care Bill, he wrote:
“There is a view that we should keep quiet, say we had a victory and hope no-one notices this stuff—but I think that is not realistic. The plans remain bad for the NHS”.
May we have a debate so that we can sit back and discover whether those views are shared by the coalition Liberal Democrats who still have their seats or whether they are doing what they do on occasion, which is to face in several different directions at once?
Last week, the newspapers reported the Deputy Prime Minister’s plan to give away shares in the publicly owned banks. No sooner had it hit the front pages than a source was briefing that it was back-of-the-envelope stuff:
“He…should know better. This is not the way you make policy.”
A few days later, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the localisation of business rates, again outside the House of Commons. Here are two major policy announcements. In one case, it seems that the Cabinet has not even had the chance to question him, let alone the House of Commons. In the other, we are still waiting for a statement.
May we have a debate on Camnesia? That is not a previously undiscovered Polynesian island, but a previously undiagnosed condition that affects the Prime Minister’s ability to recall the detail of his own policies. As we saw again at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, he seems to know nothing about the huge increase in the number of NHS quangos that he is creating.
After all the remarkable U-turns we have seen in the last few weeks, the very special humiliation of last week’s vote on wild animals in circuses took some doing. The issue was extremely clear: it is not right for the entertainment of others to make big beasts do things that do not come naturally to them, which is why we have all felt great sympathy this week for the Justice Secretary. As we have heard, first thing in the morning, there was a hard three-line Whip in a desperate attempt to defeat the motion, but by 4 o’clock in the afternoon it had vanished, along with the Government’s courage, because the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) had made it clear that he would neither be induced nor bullied by the Prime Minister into withdrawing his motion. Can we have a debate to praise the hon. Gentleman—others are trying to bury him—or at the very least to save him from being taken round the back of the bike sheds for a good hiding, as one colleague has apparently suggested? I assume that he did not mean it—perhaps it was just a job application to be a Tory Whip.
Finally, as yet another policy bites the dust, does this not all reveal the fundamental truth about the current occupant of No. 10 Downing street? Unlike his much more resolute predecessor—[Interruption.] Unlike Baroness Thatcher, this Prime Minister is for turning.
Sir George Young
As always, we enjoyed that, but there was a slight absence of questions about the future business of the House, from which I take it that the Opposition are perfectly happy with the way in which this Administration are managing the business of the House.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about police detention and bail. We will have to await the statement that is to follow to discover whether emergency legislation is necessary. I am grateful for his offer of support should that be the outcome.
Turning to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I will share with my right hon. and hon. Friends the right hon. Gentleman’s request to extend topical questions to the Government Equalities Office, which at the moment does not have them because it has a relatively narrow slot. The procedure for transferring questions has not changed at all under this Administration. A question is transferred to the Department that is best able to answer it.
On Dilnot, this is an important issue. That is why one of the first things we did on taking office was to ask Andrew Dilnot to chair this commission, which I understand will report on Monday. It is an issue that should be debated by the House in due course, but I cannot promise a statement by the Government on Monday, which is the date of the publication. It may be some time before the Government come up with their response.
We would welcome a debate on our approach to industrial action and strikes, and I hope that the Labour party might clarify its own views. I see that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the Leader of the Opposition was under some misapprehension as to what was going on. However, I am grateful to the him and many other Members for making it into the building today.
The matter of train carriages was dealt with in Transport questions. The contract was awarded under exactly the same procedure that the previous Government used to order new rolling stock, and there has been no change whatever.
I was in the House when the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) raised the issue of local government finance, and I refreshed my memory about the coalition agreement, which committed us to
“promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a review of local government finance.”
The terms of reference for that review were set out in a statement on 17 March. The review is ongoing, and a consultation document will be published in due course. There has been no dramatic change in Government policy.
The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the events of last Thursday and talked about the vote, but there was no vote at the end of that debate. The Government accepted the motion. He might at some time pay tribute to the coalition Government for setting up the Backbench Business Committee. There would have been no such debate had his party remained in power, because it refused to set up the Committee.
Finally, I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s acting ability in keeping a straight face in his final remarks about the former Prime Minister.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May I warmly welcome the announcement of the business for next Thursday based on the Procedure Committee’s report on the use of hand-held devices in the Chamber and in Committees? Does he agree that that is a very important matter, on which it is desirable that an early decision is made? Will he therefore bring forward a business motion to ensure that the House can reach a decision next Thursday one way or the other?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and his Committee for producing that report. I think some hon. Members have anticipated the House’s decision by already using hand-held devices, but it is important that we regularise the matter.
The Government are anxious not to create a precedent of routinely timetabling Backbench motions, but I will consider my right hon. Friend’s request. Subject to the agreement of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and indeed of the House, I will be prepared to table an appropriate motion to protect the business on Thursday.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Monday the House will devote considerable time to debating, and voting on, an amendment to tackle the problems caused by legal loan sharking. Given that, may we have an urgent statement on the Government’s plans to cap the cost of credit? As part of that, will the Leader of the House investigate a meeting that I understand took place on Wednesday, at which it was agreed that the Government would vote against the amendment on Monday, delaying action to relieve the misery caused by high-cost credit, purely so that an announcement can be made at the Liberal Democrat party conference? We need to know that when MPs vote on Monday, they are not putting choreographing coalition dividing lines ahead of the interests of vulnerable consumers.
Sir George Young
May I say by way of preface that I commend the action that the hon. Lady is taking, in conjunction with others, to tackle excessive interest rate charges on credit cards and other means of credit? She asked for a debate, but answered her own question by saying that there would indeed be a debate next Monday. I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my colleague at the Treasury who will be replying to that debate. I am sure that nothing underhand has taken place at all.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
May I draw the House’s attention to the real concerns, particularly in Norman Shaw, about the proposal to transfer the postal delivery from the Attendants to the postmen? That is causing great concern among the Attendants, many of whom have worked for the House for 20 or up to 36 years. Are they going to be made redundant? What is going to happen to them if that change is made?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I share his appreciation of the work that the Attendants have done. As he will know, this is a matter for the House of Commons Commission rather than the Government. You, Mr Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission, will have heard the comments, and I will ensure that the Commission addresses the issue at its next meeting.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that the Business Secretary constantly hints that he is going to introduce some sort of legislative curb on the freedoms of the trade unions, despite the fact that we already have some of the most restrictive labour laws in the western world. Is the Business Secretary finally going to come to the House and make an announcement, or is this just going to lurch on for a few more months?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman must have been listening to different speeches by the Business Secretary from the ones that I have heard, in which he has consistently said that he has no plans to change industrial relations legislation. I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman got that idea from.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Education, following the latest appalling figures released by my local district council? They show that a total of 28,000 children in the district do not speak English as their first language, representing 43.5% of primary school children and one in three secondary school children. For clarification, I believe that more than 90% of those children were born and raised in this country. There is a clear responsibility on parents, who are failing our children. How are we going to hold them to account?
Sir George Young
I understand the challenges that face teachers in educating children who do not have English as their first language, and the consequential issues for other children at their schools. My hon. Friend will know that in April, the ethnic minority achievement grant, which currently stands at just over £200 million, was mainstreamed into the wider dedicated schools grant. He will know also that the coalition Government’s priority for children with English as an additional language is to promote rapid language acquisition and include them in mainstream education as soon as possible. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I make my usual declaration of an indirect interest in the interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).
Will the Leader of the House consider asking the Minister for Housing and Local Government to make an urgent statement to the House, preferably this afternoon, on the regional growth fund? There is a real contradiction between what he has been saying in the House and the evidence given by Lord Heseltine to the Communities and Local Government Committee yesterday. The Minister says that housing is definitely part of the regional growth fund, but Lord Heseltine says, “Oh no it isn’t”. Will the Leader of the House please encourage the Housing Minister to come and clear this mess up?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern that areas that benefited from the housing market renewal grant may not benefit from the regional growth fund. She will be pleased to know that two authorities have already received money under the regional growth fund for projects that include a very large element of housing. They are two areas that were previously getting funds from the housing market renewal programme, so the situation is not quite as dire as she has just implied.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
In a written parliamentary answer, the Lord Chancellor confirmed that his Department had provided information to a journalist from The Daily Telegraph on the Government’s new policy on legal aid prior to his written statement to the House on 21 June. It was published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph prior to the statement. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on the Government’s views on statements, and could they be heard first here, not on the front page of The Daily Telegraph?
Sir George Young
The ministerial code is absolutely explicit that important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance to the House. I would regret any breach of that part of the code. This Government have made roughly one third more oral statements per day than the previous Administration, so we take that responsibility seriously, and the Prime Minister has made more oral statements in his first year than his predecessors.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the way in which we pay our respects to the fallen, particularly in Afghanistan? The practice of Back Benchers reading out the names of the fallen in the House is now forbidden, and on two occasions the announcement by the Prime Minister of their names has been moved, to a Monday and a Tuesday.
There is now great concern that the moving tributes paid by the people of Wootton Bassett cannot be paid under the new arrangements at Brize Norton, because the hearses are taken on a route that does not allow the public to line up and pay their tributes in order that we as a Parliament can be reminded of the consequences of our decisions and the country can be reminded of the true cost of war.
Sir George Young
It is important that this House has an opportunity to pay the sort of tributes that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, although some of the issues that he raised at the beginning of his question fall more appropriately to you, Mr Speaker. I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has a constituency interest, and see whether there is any way that what used to happen in Wootton Bassett can take place under the new arrangements for repatriating those who have fallen.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we please have a statement on when the driving test centre in Bury, which has already been closed for over six months, will reopen? Its continued closure is causing enormous inconvenience to both driving school instructors and their pupils in Bury and the surrounding area.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Driving Standards Agency is committed to reopening the driving test centre in Bury, which suffered from extensive flooding damage in late 2010. Feasibility studies have now been obtained and the building works will be subject to a competitive tender exercise. The planned reopening is scheduled for late 2011, and I hope that my hon. Friend is invited to do the honours.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May we have a statement about what the Government are going to do about the treatment of the two classes of Members in this House—those who turn up and do their work here in Parliament, and those who refuse to take their seats, but who, scandalously, will still get paid an estimated £3 million to £4 million over the course of this Parliament, not only in constituency money, but in Short money, which they, unlike us, can use for non-parliamentary, political party activities? When will the Government deliver on their promise that it would be inconceivable that MPs would continue to allow that to happen in this Parliament?
Sir George Young
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Government’s view is quite clear: those who are elected to the House should take their seats in the House like everybody else. As he may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is discussing this very issue with the political parties, and I will remind him of the continuing need to find an appropriate solution.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In an answer that the Minister for Immigration gave me yesterday, it was confirmed that we could extend to 2013 the transitional arrangements for migrant workers from new accession countries who have access to our job market. I would like to protect British jobs for British workers where possible, so may we please have a statement from the Minister on why we are not taking advantage of that extension of protection for our labour market?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. There will be an opportunity at Home Office questions to cross-question the appropriate Minister, who I believe was before the House during Home Office questions earlier this week. In the meantime, I will share my hon. Friend’s concern with him and see whether there is any possibility of changing the date that she has mentioned.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to make a statement on the serious situation facing the Liverpool retailer T J Hughes? Some 4,000 jobs across the country are under threat, with the company going into administration this week. Will the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills use all its efforts to find a buyer, so that the company’s jobs can be protected and the service to local people continued?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the prospective loss of jobs in his constituency and elsewhere. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will want to do all that his Department can, either to protect those jobs in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined, or to assist in every practical way those who may lose their jobs.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Can consideration be given to holding a debate on the way BT treats its elderly and vulnerable customers? I have recently dealt with a case in which a widow in her 70s was without a domestic telephone service for a month, despite many efforts to resolve the problem.
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear about the inconvenience caused by BT’s failure to restore the service to my hon. Friend’s constituent. I will raise the issue with BT. Speaking as a constituency MP, I can only say that I have found the liaison officer, Clova Fyfe, to have been enormously helpful in addressing such issues when they have arisen in North West Hampshire.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
May we have a debate on standards in the production of wills and possible regulation? I have been approached by a number of constituents who have had difficulties ensuring that their partner’s will is delivered and executed correctly, where it is clearly against their partner’s wishes, as expressed to them before their death. We need regulation in this important area, so may we have a debate?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to raise the issue either on the Adjournment or, if the Backbench Business Committee so decides, in the series of Adjournment debates that we normally have on the last day before the recess. In the meantime, I will inform the Justice Secretary of his concern and see whether he has any plans to sort out the uncertainty that arises in the situations that the hon. Gentleman has set out.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I very much hope that we can have a debate on public sector pensions, on whether it is fair that those in the private sector should have to work longer and pay more so that those in the public sector can retire earlier and receive more, and on how we achieve a pensions system that is fair to all.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right: we have to get the balance right. We have to be fair to those who are entitled to public sector pensions and to the taxpayers, who fund a large part of that. If he has read the Hutton report, he will see that there is a strong rationale for rebalancing the current arrangements, as the cost to the taxpayer has increased by about a third in the last 10 years, to some £32 billion. We want public sector pensions to remain the best. We do not want a race to the bottom, but we must find a sustainable way of funding them in the long term.
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the Government’s upcoming cuts to provision for ESOL—English for speakers of other languages. He will also be aware that the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has promised an equality impact assessment. Can he guarantee that that impact assessment is published before the recess and that there is a debate on its findings on the Floor of the House?
Sir George Young
The first of those two requests may be easier to deliver than the second. I cannot promise a debate on the Floor of the House, but I will see whether publication will be made promptly, as the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
May I return to the thorny issue of IPSA? I recently submitted two duplicate invoices to IPSA by mistake. Despite having the same supplier name, the same date and the same reference, and despite being for the same amount, those receipts were paid by IPSA. The first that IPSA knew about it was when I turned up in its office with a cheque. Not only was I advised by an IPSA member of staff that there was no system in place to pick up such duplication, I was also advised that the system ran by “trusting Members”. Given the urgent importance of reassuring the public about the way our expenses system operates, may we have an urgent debate about what we are spending £6 million of taxpayers’ money on?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend has not used the fifth amendment to protect himself from self-incrimination. I hope that there will be no dire consequences from his double claiming for the same item. He will know that there is a liaison group between the House and IPSA. A number of my hon. Friends sit on it, and he may like to raise the matter with them. The House has just approved the estimates for IPSA for the current year. If he looks at the suggestions that were made alongside that, he will see that SCIPSA, the committee that gives money to IPSA—[Laughter]—I am sorry: the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—has made some suggestions about IPSA continuing to raise its game and improve the quality of its performance.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will know that there is increasing evidence of economic and financial warfare being waged against companies in this country—indeed, against Governments—involving the manipulation of interest rates and currencies. The Government are aware of this, but there is no joined-up reaction to it. Are we coping with it and doing our best to combat it? May we have an early debate, so that we can enlighten some Members on just how worrying this economic warfare is?
Sir George Young
We are debating the Finance Bill for two days next week, including on Third Reading. It may be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to raise the subject in those debates. However, in the meantime I will alert my Treasury colleagues to his concern and see whether we can take any additional action to prevent the sort of manipulation to which he refers.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the lack of transparency in the annual accounts of many arm’s length bodies? For example, the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust increased its management costs by 23% in its last accounts, but when I asked for an explanation, I was told that I would have to submit a freedom of information request. Can my right hon. Friend look at how we better hold to account senior executives for the spending choices that they make?
Sir George Young
I am sorry that my hon. Friend has had that problem. His request sounds perfectly reasonable, and it is one that someone charged with safeguarding the taxpayer’s interests is entitled to make. I would hope that we can get the information that he has asked for without going down the FOI route, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to see whether he can make some progress on it.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will recall that, last week, I raised the issue of the proposed takeover by B&Q of a Focus store in my constituency. He very kindly offered to speak to the Office of Fair Trading that day about what appeared to be its tardy decision making. He did so, and I am grateful to him. The OFT has now told us that a decision will be reached by 5 August, but that will be too late for the employees who will be made redundant on 18 July in my constituency, and in the constituencies of 30 other Members including the Prime Minister, at a cost of £4.5 million in unnecessary redundancy and welfare payments. I realise that I am being greedy with the Leader of the House’s time, but will he speak again to the OFT and ask if it could possibly move the decision forward, so as to avoid unnecessary heartache for the employees and unnecessary costs to the public purse?
Sir George Young
Of course I understand the concerns of those who might lose their jobs, and the hon. Lady’s anxiety to bring the matter to a swift conclusion. I was pleased to hear that last week’s exchange produced results. Without making any promises, I hope that she is on a roll and I will have another go this week.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate or a statement on the effect of entrepreneurs’ relief, particularly on manufacturing firms in my constituency, in encouraging those who want to expand their businesses and invest in growth?
Sir George Young
That is indeed an important engine for growth, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. He will know that we have raised the lifetime limit on capital gains qualifying for entrepreneurs’ relief to £10 million, and I hope that that will make the UK a more attractive location for entrepreneurs by encouraging those who want to expand their business and reinvest in growth to do so here.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a statement on Ministers’ replies to Members’ correspondence? I have received an e-mail from the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), in which he says that it is not the policy of the Department for International Development to respond to “similar items” of correspondence that MPs send to it, because
“this places a burden on DFID’s resources which would be better directed towards the poor.”
I do not recall the code of conduct on Ministers replying to Members’ correspondence containing that kind of provision, and I would be grateful if we could have a statement and perhaps some consultation on this matter, to clarify the extent to which Ministers can pick and choose to which MPs’ letters they reply.
Sir George Young
Every Member of Parliament is entitled to a prompt and courteous response from Ministers to the letters that they send, but if a Member sent 1,500 identical cards to a Minister, for example, it would be reasonable for the Minister to send one reply and ask the Member to notify the constituents who had sent all the cards to him. It does not follow that every single identical letter sent to a Minister is entitled to a personal reply, but each individual subject should certainly get an answer from the appropriate Minister.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Earlier this week, I accompanied my constituent, Karen Kannair, to meet officials from the Department for Education, to whom she gave a harrowing description of the treatment that she and her son had received after he had been excluded from school some two and a half years ago. Could we find time for an urgent debate on the performance of local education authorities in dealing with excluded pupils?
Sir George Young
It is important that pupils who are excluded from school should not lose contact with mainstream education, and that they should get back into it as soon as possible. The experimental statistics published today show that pupils in alternative provision perform significantly less well in GCSEs than those who are in mainstream schools. These are vulnerable children, and they need the support to which my hon. Friend refers. We set out in our White Paper last year our plans to increase the autonomy, accountability and diversity of alternative provision in order to help to drive up standards.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May we please have a debate on the effect of the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday about business rates? It seems to me that the better-off areas of the country will become still better off, and that the poorer areas such as my constituency will suffer even more.
Sir George Young
We have not come to a final decision on business rates, as I said earlier. However, if local authorities decided to keep the business rate, there would still have to be a system of equalisation to ensure that those local authorities with fewer than average businesses did not suffer unduly.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
May we have a debate in the House on bureaucracy in the NHS, and a statement about the reduction in the number of managers since the general election?
Sir George Young
I would welcome such a debate because, since the general election, we have reduced the number of managers in the NHS by 4,000, reversing the record of the previous Administration, under whom the number of managers increased at six times the rate of the number of nurses.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Home Secretary about her failure to answer named-day questions? The shadow Home Secretary has tabled 15 questions over the past couple of weeks, only two of which have been replied to. Is not that a distressing return on the number of questions tabled, given that the convention is that named-day questions should be answered on the named day?
Sir George Young
I will raise that matter with the Home Secretary, who might possibly be in the House quite soon. It is indeed the objective of every Minister to reply to questions on the named day, and if that is not possible, they will send a holding reply, but I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend to see whether we can get a prompt response to the outstanding questions.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Small and medium-sized enterprises in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are working hard to pull together with the local enterprise partnership to put forward a bid for an enterprise zone in our area. Bearing in mind all the work that they are doing, may we have a debate in the House on what small and medium-sized enterprises are doing for the economy and what the Government are doing to assist their development?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s advocacy of an enterprise zone for his constituency, and I commend his zeal in bringing it forward. There might be an opportunity on Monday and Tuesday next week to discuss the incentives that we have produced, including a moratorium on domestic regulations, abolishing the jobs tax, the small business rate relief, the enterprise finance guarantee, the growth capital fund and many similar initiatives.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Following the announcement by Scottish Power of its price increase of up to 20%, consumer organisations have said that, should other utility companies follow suit, 4 million households in the UK could be driven into fuel poverty. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on electricity market reform, so that we can address the vertical integration of the companies and the lack of transparency, and ensure that that does not happen?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity a week today, on 7 July, to address those specific questions to my hon. Friends in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We have retained a number of measures to help to tackle fuel poverty, including cold weather payments and winter fuel payments, and a Bill is going through Parliament that will enable people to insulate their homes without having to dig into their pockets. There will also be a statement in due course on electricity market reform.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
May we have a debate on Tuesday’s higher education White Paper? Yesterday, I welcomed representatives of Drexel university, one of the leading universities in the United States, to my constituency. They are looking to set up an operation in the United Kingdom with a UK institution. Is not the Government’s policy of freeing up institutions to expand and allowing new entrants into the market the best way to ensure that students get value for money in higher education?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps he was in the House on Tuesday, when the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) made a statement—which was well received, certainly on this side of the House—offering a sustainable future for higher education, giving more power to students to choose their university and rewarding those universities that perform well. Also, looking ahead, we will strike a fairer balance between taxpayers and students.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently met Frankie, a Whizz-Kidz ambassador in Liverpool, who told me about the situation that he is facing. He finishes school this year, but he still does not know whether the course that he has applied for at the local college will be made available. He will not find that out until August. His travel to the youth club has been cut, and his opportunities to socialise have been significantly scaled back. Frankie and his family face an uncertain future. May we please have an urgent debate on how the Government’s cuts are specifically affecting disabled older teens?
Sir George Young
In taking the difficult decisions that we had to take to get the deficit under control, we have sought to protect vulnerable members of the community—people who suffer from disabilities, the elderly and the sick; we protected the NHS budget—and in our reforms to welfare, we are also seeking to protect people such as Frankie. Inevitably, some reductions in public expenditure have had to be made and it would help if the hon. Lady’s party would at some point indicate how it would have responded to the fiscal challenge that we inherited.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
From today, victims of the Equitable Life scandal—in Tamworth and around the country—begin to receive justice as the compensation scheme begins to pay out. Following years of vacillation from previous Governments, may we have a statement or a debate to mark that milestone?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right. In 13 months we have done more for Equitable Life pensioners than the previous Administration did in 13 years. It is indeed the case that, as we said, the first payments would be made in the first half of this year. Those first payments are now going out, so we have honoured the commitment we made to providing a transparent and fair system of compensating those who lost money in Equitable Life.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Government have now confirmed that £115 million will be made available to schools and colleges to disburse through discretionary learner support awards and bursaries rather than the £180 million that was originally promised. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement on why those amounts have changed?
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education did indeed make a statement when he announced the transfer from education maintenance allowance to the discretionary learner fund, so we have already had that exchange. There might be an opportunity at questions on Monday 11 July to press the Secretary of State even further on the matter.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the training of hon. Members in matters of procedure, which can be confusing and difficult not just for new Members like me? I noticed on Report of the Finance Bill that there were starred amendments and new clauses from more senior Members of the House, so a general refresher might be worth while.
Sir George Young
We are debating the Finance Bill again next week and I hope that there will be no repetition of this week’s inexplicable incident. The official Opposition failed to table an amendment in time on their flagship policy; they then refused to vote on an identical amendment tabled by another party, only to vote for some anodyne alternative. I hope that there will be no repetition of that embarrassment from the Opposition Front-Bench team.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
May we please have a debate on the funding of political parties? At a time of industrial action, it would be useful to tease out the influence that trade unions can have on some parties’ policies.
Sir George Young
As my hon. Friend knows, Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life are looking at the important issue of party funding. My own view is that it is unhealthy that one political party is dependent for about 87% of its funding on the trade unions.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May we have a debate on the reform of the laws relating to industrial action? The nation is clearly opposed to the teachers’ unions going out on strike when only one third of their members voted.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend reminds us that less than 20% of the overall PCS membership voted for strikes, which is less than 10% of the civil service. Only two teaching unions have a mandate for strike action and the turnout in both ballots was low. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have no current plans to legislate, but we are keeping the matter under review.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
My constituency carries the unenviable burden of having one of the highest rates of empty shops. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate on what measures could be introduced to encourage local authorities to provide free car parking, which would be a fillip not just to city centres, but to high streets and small independent retailers?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The coalition Government are very committed to localism and devolving decisions such as whether to extend free local car parking to local councils and local authorities, which are best placed to take such initiatives forward. If he has not already done so, my hon. Friend should get in touch with his local authority to see whether it will take the action that he advocates.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Following my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, may we have an urgent debate on petrol prices and how they are hitting public services? Last year, the police spent £78 million on motoring fuel and it could hit £90 million this year—money that could have been spent on policing. The Royal College of Nursing says that 60,000 nurses now subsidise NHS petrol bills out of their own pockets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that high petrol prices are becoming a real threat to front-line services?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right. Our petrol prices have begun to come down over recent weeks, and we all hope that that initiative can be sustained. The coalition Government have taken action to help. As he knows, average pump prices are approximately 6p a litre lower than they would have been if we had continued with the previous Government’s escalator.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of the food and drink manufacturing sector to the UK economy, which would enable Members to explain the importance of the sector locally and allow me personally to trumpet the quality and value for money of Thorntons products?
Sir George Young
If my hon. Friend is ingenious, he might be able to get into the debate on the Finance Bill next Monday or Tuesday to draw attention to the importance of the food and drink sector to the national economy. Alternatively, he could put in for an Adjournment debate on our last day, which, if the Backbench Business Committee so decides, would give him more time to amplify his point.
Mr Speaker
Order. We come now to a statement by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
Mr Speaker
Order. Points of order come after statements.
I really must encourage better timekeeping by those on the Treasury Bench. Ministers should be here in time to make their statements; this is a serious matter, not a laughing matter.
Police Detention
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the recent High Court ruling on police bail. The Home Secretary is in Madrid at a G6 meeting.
Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect in January 1986, the police, the Government and the courts have all agreed that the time suspects spend on bail does not count towards the maximum permitted period of detention without charge. For more than 25 years, this sensible and uncontested way of working has enabled the police to investigate crimes and keep the public safe.
On 5 April, a district judge refused a routine application from Greater Manchester police for a warrant for the further detention of a murder suspect, Paul Hookway. On 19 May, Mr Justice McCombe confirmed the district judge’s decision in a judicial review. Mr Justice McCombe’s written judgment was made available on 17 June. Since then, Home Office officials and lawyers have been working with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others to evaluate the scale of the problem that the judgment presents.
When the scale of the problem became clear, Ministers were alerted on 24 June. If any suspect is released on bail, the judgment means that they are, in effect, still in police detention. That means that time spent on bail should count towards any maximum period of pre-charge detention. The judgment goes against a quarter of a century of legal understanding and accepted police practice, and as the Home Secretary said yesterday, it causes us grave concern.
The police believe that the judgment will have a serious impact on their ability to investigate crime. In some cases, it will mean that suspects who would normally be released on bail are detained for longer. It is likely that there will not be enough capacity in most forces to detain everybody in police cells. In other cases, it risks impeding the police to such an extent that the investigation will have to be stopped because the detention time has run out. The judgment will also affect the ability of the police to enforce bail conditions.
We cannot, must not and will not ask the police to do their work with one hand tied behind their backs, so they have our full support in appealing the decision to the Supreme Court. With about 80,000 suspects on police bail around the country, however, we cannot afford to wait for a Supreme Court ruling. That is why the Association of Chief Police Officers has today advised the Home Secretary that new legislation is needed.
We agree with that assessment, so we will urgently bring forward emergency legislation to overturn the ruling. That emergency legislation will clarify the position and provide assurance that the police can continue to operate on the basis on which they have operated for many years. We are also seeking urgent further advice on how to mitigate the practical problems caused by the Court’s decision in this interim period. I welcome the support that the Opposition Front-Bench team have already promised for this action.
There must be proper rules governing the detention of suspects before charge, which was what Parliament intended more than 25 years ago. This judgment upsets a careful balance that has stood for a quarter of a century and impedes the police from doing their job. That is why it must be reversed, so I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
That was an astonishing statement from the Minister. I do not even have a copy of more than two pages of it, which I was given as he walked into the Chamber, and I believe that other Members do not have copies at all. I was advised by the Minister’s office that lawyers were still checking it. He was very lucky that an urgent question was asked this morning, because otherwise he would not have had a statement to give on what is a very serious issue, six weeks after the original judgment. What has the Home Office been doing in the meantime?
As the Minister said, this is a deeply serious situation for the police, prosecutions, and, ultimately, justice for victims. Twenty-five years of police practice and legal interpretation have been overturned. We understand that the ruling has immediate effect, and we agree with the Minister that the previous position must be restored at the earliest opportunity. The ruling affects 80,000 suspects who are currently on police bail, but prosecutions and trials could be put at risk if the police have not acted in line with the current law.
I have been advised that Home Office officials were informed of the judgment soon after it was made on 19 May. Can the Minister confirm that? He said that they had the written judgment on 17 June, 13 days ago. What have the Government been doing since then? Why is it still not clear what this means for the police? Some forces believe that it affects custody but not bail conditions, while others fear that it means that bail conditions no longer apply. That could include bail conditions affecting whether or not a suspect can interfere with witnesses. Has definitive guidance been circulated among the police? If not, why not?
During the 13-day period since the written judgment was made available, has the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General even looked at the legal position or sought legal advice, rather than simply leaving it to the police to take a view? The police need to know what to do 43 days after the original judgment was delivered. What has been done to get the judgment suspended in the meantime? I understand that this morning the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. Has it been able to introduce a stay of judgment? Did anyone apply to it for a stay of judgment? Was it asked to conduct an expedited hearing in order to introduce a stay of judgment? Was an appeal made to Mr Justice McCombe to stay his initial judgment pending further appeal from the Supreme Court? It is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the police, because it has implications for justice throughout the country.
Why did it take so long to conclude that emergency legislation was needed, and why has no work been done to sort that out? The Leader of the House has just stood up and given the House the business for the next two weeks. Will he have to stand up again and tell us what the business for the next few days will be so that the Government can get the emergency legislation through? We have had no discussions with business managers, and I have seen no draft emergency legislation. Why was legislation not drawn up 43 days ago as a contingency measure to deal with these extremely serious circumstances?
Will the emergency legislation be retrospective? How will it deal with the cases that are currently being handled in police custody centres and police stations across the country? What guidance are the police being given on whether they are jeopardising prosecutions through decisions that they are making in custody cells every day and every hour across the country? When will we see the legislation? I have already told the Home Secretary that we will support emergency legislation to restore the previous position, and we will seek to do that as soon as possible.
I know that the Home Secretary is in Spain today, but she was not there yesterday, and she should have made the decision at a time when she could come to the House and announce it. There has been considerable chaos in the Home Office, not just this week but for the past few weeks. The situation is ludicrous: someone whom the Home Office tried to ban from the country has sauntered in, while people whom it is trying to put in custody are sauntering out. There is a worrying level of carelessness, drift and incompetence. Justice for victims and protection of witnesses are too important to be handled in this way, and the Home Secretary should get a grip.
Nick Herbert
My understanding is that there is widespread agreement and concern about the impact of the decision, and that we should proceed on the basis of sensible discussion. We are grateful for the Opposition’s support in that regard.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Home Office’s role since the judgment. Mr Justice McCombe delivered his judgment in the divisional court in Manchester on 19 May, but it was an oral judgment. The Greater Manchester police forwarded a copy of it, but only when we received the written judgment, on 17 June, were we able to begin to ascertain the extent of its effect, and, in particular, only then did it begin to become clear that its implications went beyond the issue of warrants of further detention. Since then the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Office and officials of the Association of Chief Police Officers have been engaged in a constant dialogue in an attempt to understand the detailed implications, which are complex. On 24 June—-last Friday—the leaders of ACPO met senior Home Office officials, and at that point Ministers were informed. ACPO then commissioned advice from a leading QC. The right hon. Lady asked about the guidance issued to police officers; ACPO issued interim guidance to all chief constables at that point.
Last Wednesday ACPO commissioned additional advice from Steven Kovats QC, which it received this morning. I hope to explain some of the circumstances to which the right hon. Lady referred. It was this morning that ACPO presented its case for urgent legislation to Ministers, and it was therefore this morning that it was appropriate for us to come to the House to say what would be the right thing for us to do. We will seek to put the legislation before the House as soon as possible, following discussion through the usual channels. The matter is of concern to the police, but it is appropriate for us to continue to work carefully with them in relation to the guidance that will need to be given to forces following the further advice received from the QC.
There seems to be general agreement that this was an unusual judgment, which overturned 25 years of legal understanding. We cannot wait for a Supreme Court decision, and emergency legislation is therefore sensible and appropriate. I am glad that that is also the view of the official Opposition, and we are grateful for their support in expediting it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There is a clear and urgent need for emergency legislation. Does the Minister expect permanent legislation to be included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill? Pending the implementation of emergency legislation, what emergency measures are being considered, such as the creation of additional temporary cell capacity?
Nick Herbert
We expect the emergency legislation to be the last word on the subject. We do not believe that it will be complicated to return to the status quo ante, which, after all, was the basis of legal understanding for 25 years. We do not think that it would be possible to leave the matter to an amendment to one of the Bills that are already before the House, because we would not secure that legislation soon enough. It is therefore appropriate for us to consider introducing legislation much more swiftly.
As I said in my statement, we are urgently seeking further advice on how to mitigate the impact on the police. We will do everything that is lawfully possible to ensure that they can conduct their business and deal with the interviewing of suspects, and that is the subject of ongoing discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. These must be busy times at the Home Office, but I am disappointed that there has not been a statement on the Sheikh Raed Salah case as the implications of that are equally important.
The Minister is absolutely right that there must be emergency legislation, and it would be useful if copies of the draft legislation were sent as soon as possible to the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and the Home Affairs Committee, so that we can all help the Government to get this legislation through. There is one issue, however: what happens in the next eight or so days? Do we accept the ACPO guidance, or are we saying that individual forces might act differently—I understand that the Met and West Yorkshire police are proposing different responses to this situation—so may we have a clear and definitive statement on the steps the police should take? The Home Secretary will appear before the Committee on Tuesday, so perhaps we can explore these matters with her then.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for introducing emergency legislation, and we will, of course, discuss that as fully as possible with him and with the shadow Secretary of State, as that is the right way to proceed. The Metropolitan police has issued interim guidance on the basis of the judgment, and that is available to other forces. However, we will have further discussions with ACPO about what the appropriate guidance should be for all forces in this interim period, so that it is consistent with our and their obligation to comply with the law as now stated by the High Court. We will do everything possible to mitigate the impact of the judgment, because we want to ensure that the police are not impeded in going about their business and in dealing with criminals.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the relative roles of himself, Home Office officials and ACPO in respect of the advice just given to the House, and will he agree to publish the legal advice that has been provided—through ACPO in this instance, it appears? Will he also reflect on the development in the use of police bail over the past 25 years? Clearly, it has been accepted practice, but is there any evidence of a trend of suspects being put on police bail often for many months, or even years, when the police might instead be taking a more expeditious approach to their cases?
Nick Herbert
I am not aware of any such trend, nor am I aware of any concern in this House, or more widely, that gave rise to the decision. The judge’s decision in this instance was based on the narrow case that was before the court. So far as I am aware, there has not been any wider debate suggesting concern about the way police bail has been operated over the past 25 years. That is why we feel that it is appropriate to introduce emergency legislation. I doubt that it would be proper for ACPO to publish its legal advice, which it has received from two Queen’s counsels, but I can confirm that ACPO has written to the Home Secretary to confirm its view that emergency legislation is required. It has given a summary of counsels’ advice, which was given to it since 23 June, and that summary was sufficient to persuade it and us that it is necessary to move forward in the way I have suggested.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
First, why did it take six weeks for Home Office officials to make the Minister aware of the judgment? Secondly, will the legislation be retrospective? Thirdly, will he advise police authorities, including mine in north Wales, that are currently mothballing police cells—such as in Mold in my constituency—on what action to take in respect of maintaining operational police cells in case he does not provide the legislation or win any appeal?
Nick Herbert
I have answered questions about when it became clear that this case was of concern. There was undoubtedly increasing concern among ACPO representatives and, when they met Crown Prosecution Service and Home Office officials, the full implications of the judgment became clear. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not do more, but, as I have explained, Ministers were not alerted to this by officials until 24 June, which was last Friday, and that followed deliberations that officials had been having with ACPO after it, in turn, had received its written advice. I am confident that ACPO has been working properly both in talking with officials in order to understand the implications and also in taking formal legal advice not once, but twice, about what those implications were. I am also confident that it was right for us then to come to the House once we had established a course of action, so that we could inform the House of the right way to proceed.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister’s comments have revealed an extraordinary degree of complacency in the Home Office about this very serious situation. Did Home Office officials know about this judgment in May? If so, why did they not alert Ministers, and when Ministers first found out about the judgment, why did they not immediately come to this House and make a statement and talk to the Opposition about how to get emergency legislation through to rectify the situation? Why has the Minister waited for so long?
Nick Herbert
I answered those points in terms in my previous answer, and I have nothing to add. It was important for us to establish what the implications of the judgment were first at official level, working with ACPO, and then on the basis of proper legal advice. It was only when officials received the written judgment of the High Court that it became clear that the original judgment might have an implication beyond that which was initially understood. There have been discussions during the course of the week about the appropriate way to proceed, and I have sought to update the House once we knew the course of action, so as to bring clarity. I repeat that I do not regard this as a matter for partisan difference. We are grateful to the Opposition for adopting a sensible approach to this matter and for supporting emergency legislation. We do not need to disagree on this.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank both my right hon. Friend for the statement and the Government for their prompt response in terms of the emergency legislation. Will he ensure that when this legislation is passed it will give a clear signal to judges such as the one who made the decision that we must be on the side of the victim, not the criminal?
Nick Herbert
I will not comment on the specific points in that question, for reasons I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, but, of course, in general it is important both that we have a criminal justice system that properly reflects the interests of victims and that justice is done. The police bail system had been operating for 25 years in a manner with which, as far as I am aware, everybody was content, and this judgment alone has, effectively, sought to undo that. That is why we think it right to bring forward this legislation.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Although the emergency legislation is welcome, police throughout the country are faced with the problem of administering the current law. What advice have the Minister or the Home Office given to police authorities about reviewing the availability of police cells and what estimate has been made of any additional costs? If there are additional costs, will the Home Office give additional grants to the police so that they can cope?
Nick Herbert
We are seeking to bring forward legislation to deal with the problem sufficiently swiftly to avoid any such impact that may be caused in the interim. We will also seek to mitigate the situation to the greatest possible extent, and I will discuss that with ACPO. Clearly there are implications in respect of resources and also for defendants, because as I said in my statement, it is possible that people will be detained in custody for longer, so the judgment’s practical effects will have implications for both civil liberties and the sensible operation of police bail.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that judgments such as this, which fly in the face of common sense, run the risk of bringing our justice system into disrepute? How can someone who is free possibly be judged to be inside? At this rate, all our prisons are going to be empty.
Nick Herbert
I think that the best way that I could respond would be by quoting the legal expert Professor Michael Zander QC, whom my hon. Friend may have heard on the “Today” programme this morning. He said:
“The only justification for the ruling is a literal interpretation of the Act which makes no sense”.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
For the third time, was the Home Office advised of the oral judgment in May, yes or no?
Nick Herbert
For the third time, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have explained the timeline in detail. When he looks at the record, he will see that I said—I am happy to repeat this—that Greater Manchester police approached the Home Office in May, but we received the written judgment from the court only on 17 June. Therefore, action was taken as soon as possible to understand the effects and seek advice once that written judgment was taken.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This is an important point, and information from the House of Commons Library suggests that Home Office officials did know in May. Will the Minister give a clear answer to the House on whether that is the case, yes or no?
Nick Herbert
I do not understand why Labour Members are trying to pursue a point that I have already answered on a number of occasions. I am happy to repeat that officials were informed in May about the oral judgment, but it was only in June that we received the written judgment of the High Court judge. Officials then began to appreciate that the implications extended beyond that which was originally understood from the oral judgment. I am happy to go on repeating that timeline to hon. Members for as long as they seek to ask these questions.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I am sure that we all appreciate that these legal judgments can be complicated and that their full implications can take some time to work through, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of concern about how long this took to reach Ministers? Is there perhaps scope for reviewing the interaction between his officials and ACPO to see whether a better process can be put in place to deal with the unlikely event that something as horrible as this ever happens again?
Nick Herbert
I note my hon. Friend’s point, but I think that officials wished to ascertain, with ACPO and in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, what the full implications of this judgment were before they came to Ministers with advice, because they needed to be able to advise Ministers properly on the extent of the implications. We will continue to work very closely with ACPO to do everything we can to support the police in doing the job that they have to do.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I think that what hon. Members are trying to get at is this: when the Home Office knew in May why could action not have been taken right away to set something in motion?
Nick Herbert
I say to hon. Members that it would be better if we dealt with the substantive issue, because I have repeated on a number of occasions the timeline and the reasons why. In particular, I have discussed the need to take legal advice to understand the implications of a complex judgment that was simply not expected. That is why ACPO has taken two sets of legal advice, and it was this morning that ACPO formally asked us for emergency legislation. I hope that that explains to the hon. Gentleman the sequence of events and why we have come to the House today to explain what we want to do.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Our criminal justice system costs about 10 times more than similar criminal justice systems in similarly sized countries, yet judgments such as the one yesterday, which are perverse and self-regarding, are causing this sort of reaction by Government. When are we going to consider more structural reform of a system that is barely fit for purpose?
Nick Herbert
Without commenting on the specific judgment, I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that we do have one of the most expensive criminal justice systems in the world, and that is why we seek reform of the system across the piece. It also explains the important reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has introduced in his Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and the reforms that we seek on enhancing the accountability of the police. We will have more to say in due course about the efficiency of the criminal justice system and how we seek to drive forward on value for money and a more effective justice system.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
The House of Commons Library advises that the Supreme Court has not stayed the judgment this morning and that nobody applied for a stay. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Nick Herbert
I understand from the Solicitor-General that that was the case this morning, but I should say to the hon. Gentleman that every effort has been made by Greater Manchester police to appeal against this judgment—the force did this from the original court of first hearing to the High Court—and that the Government are now making every effort to overturn this judgment. That is precisely why we wish to introduce emergency legislation; we do not think that a recourse to further legal process will give sufficient certainty or will deal with the issue in the time that we think is necessary.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As the Minister has described, some 80,000 people are affected by this judgment. No doubt many of them will be consulting their Member of Parliament this weekend and in the future, so can we have some urgent clarification and guidance from the Home Office about what to say to these people?
Nick Herbert
As I said in my statement, we are urgently seeking advice so that we are able to update the police, through ACPO, on how we intend to mitigate the impact of this judgment. I am happy to ensure that the House is updated as well.
Points of Order
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My constituency has in the past year enjoyed a number of visits from other Members of the House—that is understandable because Lincoln is a beautiful city with many beautiful people. Visitors have included: the right hon. Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham); my right hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Dr Fox), for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) and for Witney (Mr Cameron); and my hon. Friends the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for Aldershot (Mr Howarth). Although I was notified of some ministerial visits—on one occasion this occurred at 10.30 pm on a Sunday evening for a visit that was to take place less than 12 hours later, which was timely perhaps but not within the lexicon of due diligence—I, like many colleagues, do not always receive such a courtesy from Members from all parts of this House.
I recognise that, in response to a point of order raised in 2008 by the then right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the previous Speaker drew a distinction between “ministerial business” and “party activities” in relation to constituency visits—Opposition Members are quick to quote that to me. I am also aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred to this matter in a similar point of order, although I note that he was lukewarm in his welcome for 50 Members from our coalition partners visiting Shipley. However, I feel that such a courtesy to any Member of this House should be extended to include all visits from every Member of the House, regardless of nature, unless undertaken in a strictly private capacity. On a number of occasions I have attended constituency events, business visits—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have got the message. Members are supposed to keep points of order short and we are in danger of having an Adjournment debate on this. My ruling from the Chair is that, as the House is well aware, it is convention that right hon. and hon. Members allow Members in those constituencies being visited due notification before the visit takes place. That has always been the case and I hope that convention will be the norm.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, in response to my question on the planned changes to vetting and barring in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the Prime Minister claimed that
“anyone who has criminal convictions”—[Official Report, 29 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 953.]
will be barred from working with children. However, I have checked clause 66 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which clearly removes the current procedure of automatically barring someone who has, for example, raped a child. Given the concern in the country about that loophole, may I seek your guidance on how to correct the record?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady has already put that information on the record and I am sure that she will find other ways to ensure that the necessary correction takes place.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today, we have had a statement from the Home Office and a business statement. It is clear from the few answers that the Home Office Minister was able to give that the Government were not ready to come to the House and would not have done so had we not asked an urgent question this morning. Is there provision for the Home Office Minister to come back to the House at the end of the day, once he has clarification from the lawyers on the position for the police as regards the situation under which they must operate, and is there provision for the Leader of the House to come back and make another business statement now that we know that emergency legislation will definitely be needed and will need to be timetabled as a result?
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is up to the Government whether they wish to come back, but that would have to be with the permission of Mr Speaker. I am sure that the right hon. Lady’s message has been heard.
Civil List
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) new provision be made for, or in connection with, the financial support of the Sovereign and of the heir to the throne;
(2) any sums payable in respect of provision so made should be payable out of money provided by Parliament;
(3) provision be made enabling the continuation, in the reigns of Her Majesty’s successors, of the payment of the hereditary revenues of the Crown as directed under section 1 of the Civil List Act 1952;
(4) provision be made about allowances and pensions under the Civil List Acts of 1837 and 1952;
(5) any sums payable in respect of such allowances and pensions by virtue of any provision so made should be charged on the Consolidated Fund;
(6) it is expedient to amend the law relating to the financial support of members of the Royal Household.
The Queen’s Gracious Message yesterday invited Parliament to consider the provision of support to Her Majesty, her successors and other members of the royal household. That reflects a simple fact: the current civil list arrangements are no longer sustainable. They are inflexible, less than transparent and, critically, rely on a reserve of public funds that has steadily been run down and is about to become depleted.
As I explained to Parliament last October, we have been working with the royal household to design a new funding arrangement. It will take the form of a new sovereign grant that balances the public interest in our Queen being properly funded to carry out her official duties with the legitimate interest of the taxpayer in proper accountability and value for money. If we approve the motion, the Bill to establish the sovereign grant will be published later today and the House will have an opportunity for a longer and more detailed debate in two weeks’ time, or thereabouts, on Second Reading.
We must start our discussion today by recognising the Queen’s long service and immense contribution to public life in our country. I was firmly put in my place on taking office when I was reminded that I was the 19th Chancellor of the Exchequer to serve under Her Majesty. In the 59th year since her accession to the throne and the 86th year of her life, Her Majesty still took part in 440 public engagements. Her visit to Northumberland last week reminds us of the work that she and other members of her family carry out week in, week out to celebrate the achievements of communities across Britain. The royal family also conduct official business on behalf of the Government, leading 2,700 engagements and 150 official overseas visits last year. More than 41,000 people were invited to events at one of the palaces.
The monarchy is also a powerful magnet for international tourism, worth, according to one recent estimate, some £500 million to Britain. There is little doubt that our monarchy is a source of great national pride and constitutional strength that is widely admired around the world. As has been recognised for centuries, however, the official duties of the monarch cost money. That is why in the 18th century an historic arrangement was reached between the Government and the monarch. Until then, the monarchy was indistinguishable from the state and both were funded from the income the mediaeval Crown collected from its estates, as well as duties, fines and other charges.
In 1760, George III agreed to surrender for his lifetime the full income of the Crown Estate to the Government in return for a civil list. That arrangement has been in place ever since and a clear demarcation has long been established between the private income of the royal family for their private expenditure and the publicly funded income, derived from the civil list, for the royal family’s public duties.
At the beginning of each reign, Parliament passes a new Civil List Act setting out a fixed annual amount for the whole of that reign. That was done in 1952, when Her Majesty was proclaimed Queen. By 1972, high inflation had so eroded the value of the civil list that the system had to change and this House agreed to set fixed annual amounts for 10 years at a time, but this system, too, had its weaknesses. As inflation was hard to forecast accurately over a 10-year-period, the civil list ended up being too generous at the beginning of the period and too meagre at the end. We are living with those weaknesses still.
In 1990, the annual civil list amount was set at £7.9 million. Additional support was provided to the monarch in the form of two grants in aid, one for travel and one for maintenance of the royal palaces, but inflation in the 1990s was falling faster than forecast and much of the funding was not spent. Instead, it went into a reserve, which by 2001 had grown to more than £37 million. At the beginning of the last decade, it was decided that rather than set a new civil list, the royal household should run down that reserve to fund its official duties.
That means that over the past three years, the royal household has on average spent about £35 million a year. Let me set out how the spending breaks down for 2009-10, the most recent year for which there is out-turn data. There was £7.9 million from the civil list, £6.5 million from the reserve—that was, of course, public money that had been provided earlier—£3.9 million for travel, £400,000 for communications, and £15.4 million for royal palace maintenance. It should be made clear that over recent decades the royal household has done a huge amount to cut costs and improve the effectiveness of its spending. Indeed, total spending has come down from £45.8 million in 1991 to an expected £35 million in 2010-11. That is a real-terms cut of more than 50% in 20 years. No other Government Department can claim to have achieved anything like that.
Those efficiencies have continued in recent years. For example, visitor income to the palaces has almost doubled, commercial lettings at Hampton Court and Kensington palace are up 30% and a two-year pay and recruitment freeze on the royal household has been imposed. I want to take this opportunity to thank the current Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Alan Reid, and his predecessors for doing such a good job.
Despite such impressive efficiencies, however, there are problems with the current system. It is very inflexible. For example, money saved in travel cannot be used to undertake an urgent repair of a property. It is opaque, as the National Audit Office’s access to official spending is limited and, although it has carried out value-for-money studies, it has no audit function. Critically for today’s discussion, it was clear by April 2010 that the royal household’s reserve, which had provided a key component of its annual income, was running out.
The previous Government took the decision, which I completely understand, to leave it to the incoming Government to fix that situation. This is how we propose to do it. We will introduce a new sovereign grant that provides appropriate resources for the Queen to do her job with dignity but balances that with fairness and accountability for the taxpayer. It is designed around three principles. First, it provides the monarchy with sustainable long-term financing free from annual political interference, by which I mean the budget can be set for the long term and automatically uprated without an annual political argument. Secondly, it provides flexibility, so that the royal household can manage its funds efficiently to deliver best value for taxpayers. The third principle is that, alongside more sustainable finances with greater flexibility, we will ensure greater accountability and transparency and establish proper checks and balances to prevent the sums provided from becoming too excessive. Those are the three principles underpinning our approach.
[Official Report, 5 July 2011, Vol. 530, c. 13-14MC.]Let me now turn to some of the detail, recognising that in a fortnight’s time or so people will have had a chance to study the legislation and we will have a longer debate on Second Reading. First, we need a funding mechanism that prevents the sovereign from coming to Parliament each year for resources, and that provides funding broadly in line with the growth of the economy. There is such a mechanism at hand, through the historical connection with the Crown Estate, so I propose that from 2013-14 the royal household receives 15% of the profits made by the Crown Estate in the two years prior. That is an average.
As the House will know, the Crown Estate is a large commercial property portfolio comprising £6.7 billion of assets, and 15% of the profits is estimated to provide a sovereign grant worth about £34 million in 2013-14—in other words, broadly in line with the latest data on grant and reserve spending for 2009-10, which was £34 million.
Each year, as the economy grows, the revenues of the Crown Estate will grow, and the monarch will eventually receive 15% of those revenues using that formula. There will be a cash floor to protect the monarch from cash cuts, but basically the monarch will do as well as the economy is doing. We will see how the Crown Estate performs, but the current estimate is that the 15% formula will mean that by 2014-15, the last full year of this Parliament, the monarch will receive about £35million. In cash terms, that is broadly in line with what it has spent in recent years; in real terms, it is about a 9% cut over the Parliament.
We are also preparing a further important improvement to the current system. Historically, extending funding arrangements to new monarchs required primary legislation within six months of their accession. That arcane process made it difficult for the royal household to plan for the future, and for each new monarch to achieve a smooth transition at the beginning of their reign when so much else needed to be done. So I propose that the new legislation should be a permanent arrangement that outlives the sovereign. It will require only an Order in Council, rather than a whole new piece of legislation, to extend the sovereign grant to a new monarch, and I hope that Members agree that this is a sensible arrangement.
We will also use the Bill to remove an historical anomaly about the Duchy of Cornwall. The revenues of the duchy are used to fund the Prince of Wales in his official duties, but they are available to him only because he is the Duke of Cornwall, and only the eldest son of the monarch can be the Duke of Cornwall. So if the heir to the throne is female or, indeed, a second son or a grandson, they cannot be the Duke of Cornwall, which means that they would not get the revenues of the duchy.
We propose to correct that anomaly by making it clear that in future Duchy of Cornwall revenues will in effect go to the heir, whether or not they are the Duke of Cornwall. There will also be a provision in the Bill to deal with the situation in which the heir is not yet an adult.
We will also bring to an end another anomaly by which certain members of the royal family receive statutory payments from the Exchequer only for the money to be reimbursed to the Exchequer by the Queen. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Keeper of the Privy Purse on this matter, copies of which will be made available in the Library after my speech. The new sovereign grant will replace all statutory payments and annuities to other members of the royal family, with the exception of the Duke of Edinburgh.
The second principle behind our proposals is flexibility. As I have said, under current arrangements, the Queen receives three different blocks of money: a travel grant from the Department for Transport; a royal palaces and communications grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; and the civil list from the Treasury. That is very inflexible. It means that the royal household cannot set its own priorities and flexibly manage its resources in the course of each year, as any modern organisation would want to do.
I propose abolishing the three separate blocks and merging them into a single grant from the Treasury. As has been the case for many decades, any underspent public money will go into a reserve. This is a sensible arrangement that will allow the royal household to provide for contingencies and to invest in one-off capital projects.
Unlike previous years, however, we are going to have a maximum target on that reserve, so that it never rises above about 50% of the annual grant. This means, for example, that if the annual grant is £34 million, the reserve will be limited to £17 million, which is very much lower than the £37 million that was accumulated in the reserve 10 years ago.
The third principle of our approach is an incredibly important one: accountability to Parliament for the spending of public money, and value for money for the taxpayer. I think that we get excellent value for money from our monarchy. It amounts to 51p per year per person in the United Kingdom, but it is right and proper that Parliament should exercise oversight.
For many years, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been allowed to conduct value-for-money studies in some areas of royal business, such as travel or palace maintenance, but not to conduct full audits as they do with other Departments. The Bill proposes to change that. From now on, the NAO will have full access and become the statutory auditor of all the royal household’s official business and of the sovereign reserve. It will also be able to audit the assets used by the royal household in carrying out its official business. The National Audit Office will not become the financial auditor of the Queen’s private business, including the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which remain private funds.
To ensure accountability to Parliament, the sovereign grant accounts will be laid before the House. The Public Accounts Committee will also be able to conduct hearings on the royal finances, with the royal household itself providing evidence at such hearings. That is a big and historic extension of parliamentary scrutiny, and I should like to thank Her Majesty for opening up the books.
We also propose checks and balances on the size of the sovereign grant and the reserve. As I said, the sovereign grant will be set at 15% of Crown Estate revenues, and that percentage will be reviewed every seven years to determine whether it remains appropriate. The review will be conducted by the three current royal trustees, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and every seven years we will come to Parliament with the proposed review and a recommendation on what it should be.
There cannot be an increase without agreement from Parliament through the affirmative procedure. The royal trustees will also act to make sure that the reserve remains within its 50% cap by reducing the annual grant as required, and of course the Treasury has a responsibility each year for ensuring that the sovereign grant is spent on the official duties that it is supplied to be spent on.
Those arrangements also deal with the potential situation, which some people predict, of an increase in Crown Estate profits from offshore wind activity. Currently, those revenues are running at about £2.5 million per year, but some forecast that they could increase substantially in the 2020s. The 15% formula will be reviewed before that may come about, and we will not allow revenues from offshore wind to lead to a disproportionate rise in revenues to the royal household. We will shortly also set out proposals, unconnected to this legislation, to make sure coastal communities can benefit from the development of the Crown Estate’s marine activities.
Today, we recognise the value of the monarchy and we put its finances on a sustainable long-term footing. I have put forward the principles behind our proposed new sovereign grant, and we will debate those in detail next month. Our aim is to ensure that the sovereign can carry out her official duties effectively and with dignity, while ensuring accountability to Parliament and value for money to the taxpayer. I hope that our proposals receive all-party support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I, like other Members, have not yet seen the Bill that we are debating today, I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for giving me a briefing a full 48 hours in advance of today’s debate. That allowed me to spend yesterday preparing my response and the Chancellor to spend the afternoon at centre court, Wimbledon. I know that he was in a box; I do not know whether it was the royal box, but there we are.
We are debating a very important reform today. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it is the most significant reform to the financing of the royal household since the accession of King George III in 1760, when building upon the Civil List Act 1697—see, my day yesterday was well spent—tax revenues and Crown land revenues, which were hitherto under the independent control of the sovereign, were surrendered to Parliament in exchange for a civil list then of £800,000.
This is the first time that Parliament has had the chance to debate those matters from first principles since the Civil List Act 1972, and, as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Anthony Barber, told the Committee of the Whole House:
“I do not believe that the British people want the work of the Royal Family to be cut down. I believe that they want it to be continued and performed by the Royal Family.”—[Official Report, 19 January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 551.]
He had already reminded the House that in debating these matters,
“we are taking decisions about an institution which, just as much as Parliament, is an essential part of our history, our constitution and our way of life.”—[Official Report, 14 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 292.]
Almost 40 years on, that sentiment will find widespread support across all parts of this House. Replying for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was right also to point out:
“The acceptance and the appreciation of the Monarchical function does not preclude proper consideration by this House of how financial provision should be made.”—[Official Report, 14 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 383.]
Again, that is a sentiment that will command support from all parts of this House.
Reading back over those debates from the early 1970s, it was clear that not everyone in the House supported the changes. Indeed, I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)—he is not in his seat today—voted against the changes in 1972. I looked for his contribution to the debates, but the Hansard record does not record a speech by my hon. Friend, just a series of documented comments from a sedentary position; some things do not change. At one point, the Member for Chelmsford, a future Leader of the House of Commons, Norman St John-Stevas, remarked that
“criticism of the Monarchy, just as of this House, should be fair and temperate not unfair and prejudiced.”—[Official Report, 21 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 1357.]
Hansard shows that the newly elected Member for Bolsover simply shouted out, “Why?” It was a relatively tame intervention. My hon. Friend was just at the foothills of what has turned out to be a very fine parliamentary heckling career.
The world, the monarchy and the House have all changed a great deal since the early 1970s. The global demands of the royal household have grown significantly, with all that that entails in security and admin burdens. The monarchy has changed greatly—it is now much more open and more scrutinised than ever before—and Parliament, as the Chancellor said, now has a greater role in scrutinising the finances of the royal household than in the 1970s. Of course, the one unchanging rock across all those turbulent decades has been Her Majesty the Queen herself, whose grace, wisdom and dedicated service to our country are second to none.
I agree with the Chancellor about this. I know that not everyone in this House will agree with what I am going to say, but it is the view of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as it is the view of the Government, that the monarchy continues, and must continue, to play a vital role in the affairs of our nation in the new century, but that to play this role and to command public support, the royal household must, as the Chancellor said, be financed in a proper, open and fair way, which means fair to the royal household and, as the Chancellor said, fair to the taxpayer too. There is a balance to be struck, as there has been for over 250 years since the 1760 settlement. It is the job of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Government, with the royal household, to strike a fair and workable balance between the legitimate needs of the household and the interests of the taxpayer. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government to make sure that it is done in a fair and proper way, and it is the job of this Parliament to oversee these matters.
I thank the Chancellor for giving me advance notice of the details; as I said, I have not yet seen the legislation. I want to assure him that although we have questions to ask, it is our intention to support him in reforming the current arrangements. However, it is very important that he seeks to establish a consensus not only across the Dispatch Box but in the country as a whole in support of these reforms. At a time when many families and businesses are under real financial pressure, the Chancellor will need to provide, today or on Second Reading, some more clarity, detail and reassurance on four particular issues that I will set out today in advance of those debates: the level of the sovereign grant; the costs of royal security, which, while not covered by the sovereign grant itself, are material to these matters; the mechanism for uprating the sovereign grant; and how Parliament scrutinises these new arrangements.
On the first issue, the Chancellor and the Treasury will need to provide some more analysis in advance of Second Reading to explain why, in choosing the figure of 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate, they believe they have set the sovereign grant at the right level. I understand that, adjusting for the issue of the drawing down of the reserves, this new arrangement is expected to maintain the current level of spending broadly over the course of this Parliament.
It is right that we ask whether this is the right level of expenditure given the costs, pressures and demands on the royal household. On the one hand, the Queen has managed to deliver a 50% reduction in the total expenditure of the royal household over the past two decades, but has this process of efficiency savings come to an end, or are there further savings that can and should be made? On the other hand, the wonderfully successful wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who start their visit to Canada today, has thrust the younger members of the royal family into the limelight: they are in demand in this country and all round the world. Meanwhile, Her Majesty the Queen’s historic visit to Ireland and the Duke of Edinburgh’s recent birthday celebrations have seen their popularity reach new heights, and this can only increase as we move towards the diamond jubilee next year. This necessarily raises issues of resourcing and security.
The demands on the newly extended royal family are higher than they have ever been, and it is right that we ask whether the level of the royal grant is commensurate with the high tide mark in the royal family’s responsibilities and public appearances. This necessarily raises security issues too. It has been reported that a number of members of the royal family have had their security support downgraded, or in some cases removed. We should ask whether the Chancellor, as part of this process, has examined the impact of these changes on the royal family and on the public purse, and whether they may have gone too far. Does the current security budget meet the needs of the wider royal family in this more demanding environment? At a time when the Home Office and security budget is very stretched and under pressure, it is important that we ask that question.
That takes me to the third issue: the arrangements for the uprating of the sovereign grant. The Chancellor’s proposals imply that the total expenditure of the royal household will fall in real terms from the beginning to the end of the Parliament, but the proposals also imply that spending will, from next year, be rising in cash and in real terms, alongside a 3.2% real-terms rise in the total sovereign grant between now and the end of the Parliament. I understand, too, that the Chancellor is proposing to put a cash floor on the finances of the royal household into the future, by however much the profits from the Crown estates fall. I have to say that this is a generous proposal which suggests that the Chancellor thinks that the efficiency savings have come to an end. We also know that the profits of the Crown Estate could rise. If they rise markedly in future, the House and the country will need an assurance that proper and responsive arrangements are to be put in place.
It is unclear at this stage whether the Chancellor is saying that any increase in revenues over and above the levels that he is currently predicting will automatically be passed into the reserves or could lead to higher expenditure by the royal household. The arrangements that he set out appear to suggest that if expenditure were to rise alongside income, there would not then be an automatic review of the percentage of income allocated through the sovereign grant. If revenues are higher, then rather than waiting a full seven years for a review and risking upward pressure on spending or a repeat of the accumulation of reserves that we saw in the 1990s, is there not a case for a more automatic and immediate formula to return those excess revenues to the taxpayer?
As the Chancellor said, this issue is particularly relevant because the Crown estates are set to see an increase in their income from the exploitation of wind and tidal energy in the coming years. Crown Estate income from the renewables sector grew by 44% to £2.6m in 2009-10 alone. The annual report of the Crown Estate describes current growth as “exponential” and growth over the next 10 years as “significant”. Given the potentially significant change in income from renewables in the coming years, it is important that we ensure that the proposals are robust as regards a significant rise in Crown revenues.
The final issue is parliamentary oversight.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I certainly support the comments of the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor. Is the right hon. Gentleman at all interested in asking for an assurance or some information on whether the proposals are likely to influence the investment strategy of the Crown Estate, and what that might involve? How much income or growth are required are often quite important parts of an estate’s strategy.
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. It is good that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise the proposals in the coming weeks or months. We are in an unusual situation. This debate is not a statement, so it is inappropriate for me to ask questions of the Chancellor today and expect him to respond. The debate is also on a Bill that we have not yet seen, which is obviously awkward. I am in a stronger position to ask detailed questions than everybody else, because I knew some of the content of the proposals in advance, but I do not know all the detail.
Today we are setting out questions and issues on which the Government might want to provide more detail between now and the debate on Second Reading. We will certainly expect more detail and debate then. I am sure that in reaching that deal over past months, the Chancellor and members of the royal household scrutinised the kind of issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. However, we need to find out the detail of that scrutiny, what analysis was looked at before that agreement was reached, and the impact of the proposals on a number of things. I mentioned security and the uprating formula, and the hon. Gentleman asks the very important question of whether the measures will enhance the Crown Estate or deter it from seeking to make new investments. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a good issue for debate.
Mr George Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman is right: this is not a statement. It is a rather archaic procedure, but if it is any consolation, it is a lot less archaic than it was in the early 1970s—through discussions with the Chair, we managed to reduce some of that procedure. I am unable to respond to the points that he makes, but I shall use this intervention to say that I thank him for the support in principle that he has given to the measure. He has asked some good questions, to which I hope to respond on Second Reading, and other hon. Members will raise other issues. I was not able to publish the Bill until this resolution has been passed by the House. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s approach. The debate on Second Reading will be an opportunity for hon. Members to go into the detail of the Bill after they have studied it.
Ed Balls
I was in no way criticising the approach that has been taken. I was simply noting the rather odd situation that we are in: I am able to say some things that, potentially, nobody else fully understands because they have not had the briefing from the Chancellor that I had, but I totally understand the Chancellor’s position.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
As this announcement has been described as “important”, a disappointingly small number of Members are in the Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when he first heard that this announcement would be made today?
Ed Balls
I do not want to say anything inappropriate, but I believe that it is appropriate for me to say that the Prime Minister briefed the Leader of the Opposition on these matters a week ago. The Chancellor requested that I meet him, and we met on Tuesday. The clear view of the House authorities, the Government and the royal household—I do not know exactly who makes such decisions—was that the first public knowledge of the proposals should be the making of the gracious request, which happened yesterday. It was then a matter for the Government to respond the next day, which is where we are. That is the fullest answer I can give, so there we are.
It is welcome that, for the first time, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will have the same powers to audit and scrutinise the royal household as any other Government Department. I am sure that the Chair of the PAC will speak in this debate about that in greater detail. However, there are important issues of detail in respect of how the proposals will work in practice. Will the reports be frequent and timely? Will all necessary information be disclosed to the PAC and Parliament? Who will give evidence to the Committee on those matters?
In June last year, the Chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), said:
“If there is to be serious assessment of efficiency and economy and effectiveness (of the monarchy), one has to look at the total income and expenditure. It is difficult to look at just a part.”
That has been our situation in recent years. As the Chancellor says, even before today’s Bill, our situation is a substantial advance from where we were 40 years ago. It is true that the original debate was opened by the Prime Minister and that the Chancellor represented the Government in a Committee of the whole House, but it is also true that that was pretty much the only opportunity for scrutiny of such matters in the previous 40 years. We are therefore in a better place, but the Chair of the PAC is right to say that we need to go further and to do so in a proper way. I hope that we hear from her today, but it is vital that Parliament has the proper information so that it can properly and fully scrutinise such significant sums of revenue.
In conclusion, the Opposition will support the Chancellor in making necessary reforms, but my advice to him is that there is more work to do on providing more detail and reassurance in advance of the debate on Second Reading. It is necessary to build a consensus not only in the House but in the country. The case needs to be made that the reforms represent a secure, balanced and fair way forward for the royal household and the taxpayer in the years to come. We look forward to playing our part in those debates and that scrutiny in the coming weeks and months.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I want to put this debate in the context of Her Majesty’s life of service to this country. As we are all aware, the Queen fulfils a number of duties as Head of State, including her constitutional duties, such as the state opening of Parliament, giving Royal Assent to legislation, carrying out state and royal visits overseas, and receiving state and official visitors. However, the Queen, and indeed the whole royal family, play a much greater role in our society: that of providing a focus for national identity, unity and pride. They recognise success and contribute to our nation through their public service and support for the voluntary sector, which includes many of the unsung heroes in our local communities. The Queen and the royal family also support the vulnerable and highlight the need to help in challenging areas of society.
We need only cast our minds back a couple of months to the royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for an illustration of how much the monarchy means to everyone in this country, and indeed across the world. The royal family is a hard-working institution, and we are rightly proud of it in this country. As we heard earlier, the Queen entertains almost 50,000 people per year, not to mention the many thousands of people she visits around the country and the world.
It is difficult to quantify the full benefit of the royal family, not just to tourism and our country’s status abroad, but to our national identity, history and traditions—the things that make us proud to be British. They also support our values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and equality.
More specifically on the motion, the Queen and the royal household currently receive funding from several sources, as we have heard. However, following the agreement made in 1760 in return for the fixed annual payment, Crown lands are managed on behalf of the Government, and the surplus revenue goes to the Treasury. In the last financial year, that amounted to more than £210 million. Let us be clear about this. In the last financial year, the Queen and the royal household received £38.2 million in total from the Government, and paid back to the Treasury £210.7 million in surplus revenue from the management of the Crown Estate. In other words, they contributed a net sum to the Government of £172.5 million. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Regardless of that net contribution to our economy over the past decade, the Queen and her staff have made significant efforts to make the royal household more efficient, as the Chancellor said. Head of State expenditure has more than halved during that time from the £87.2 million in 1991-92, to £38.2 million in 2009-10, and the projected spend this year of £35 million.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor outlined in the Chamber today, a new sovereign support grant will be introduced to cover funding for the Queen and the royal household. The grant will combine all the sources of funding into one sum covering all the monarchy’s official expenditure, not just the expenditure currently covered by the civil list. This will simplify an overly complex process for allocating funding—one that is haphazard at best. The level of funding will be linked to the Crown Estate’s surplus and will provide levels similar to those currently received. Surpluses and funding will be held in reserve for future years and levels will be protected from falling significantly from previous years. As we heard, full parliamentary scrutiny and audits of all expenditure will continue. The proposals will provide for continuity in the event of the succession of a new monarch so as to ensure certainty and stability for the royal family and household. I believe completely in and support the three principles that the Chancellor outlined.
In summary, the sovereign support grant will give the royal household greater control to manage its funding and continue its efficiency measures. It will also provide clarity, flexibility and longer-term planning, and will make it much easier to communicate the finances of the Queen and the royal household to members of the public. The sovereign grant Bill is consistent with the Government’s quest for greater transparency of funding, which we are trying to get across government, together with increased accountability and focus on achieving value for money for taxpayers. It also, importantly, continues to support the sovereign in the long term in the outstanding contribution that she makes to this country on a daily basis. I therefore support the motion.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I join others in welcoming today’s announcement and the motion put forward by the Chancellor with the agreement of the royal household. Like others, I recognise the fantastic contribution that the Queen and members of the royal family make to the United Kingdom, and acknowledge the respect and warmth that the Queen commands among the British people. Most recently, as others have said, the royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge gave us all an uplifting moment of joy, allowing us to celebrate with the royal family on an occasion filled with happiness at a time when so many families are facing difficulties and insecurity in their daily lives.
Clearly, if the Queen and the royal family are to carry out their constitutional duties effectively, they need appropriate funding. Some of this funding comes from the taxpayer, so we need to have in place an open and accountable system. The Chancellor’s announcement today puts the direct support from the taxpayer to the royal family on a transparent footing, which will enable both Parliament and the public to understand how much taxpayer money is being spent annually by the royal family and what it is being spent on. This is undoubtedly an important change for the better, and as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, charged with following the taxpayer’s pound, I warmly welcome it.
I also recognise the historic significance of the changes proposed, and believe it is hugely important for the future stability of the monarchy and its role in our constitutional settlement that we should modernise our structures so that they are fit for purpose in today’s world, and properly meet the legitimate expectations of the taxpayer and the general public. As others have acknowledged, the Queen has acted sensitively and prudently in managing her finances over the past two decades. That is right and proper, and she should be applauded for doing so. She has cut her real-terms expenditure by more than 50% in the past 20 years, and at a time when we are asking every family to tighten their belts, people will be heartened to see that she is playing her part.
The powers proposed in the legislation, as outlined by the Chancellor, are hugely significant for Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General will be appointed by statute to audit the sovereign grant accounts and he will be empowered to prepare value for money reports that the PAC can consider. This puts, for the first time, those parts of the royal finances that come directly from the taxpayer each year on a transparent basis, consistent with other public expenditure. The PAC has a long and well-established history of effective public scrutiny, and we will, I am sure, approach these new responsibilities in our traditional way, working objectively and thoroughly on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer.
We will show no fear or favour. On the one hand, we will not give this new area of our work special treatment, but on the other hand, we will take the issues seriously and ensure that we hold the appropriate accounting officers to proper public account. In our approach, we will examine critically both how the Government allocate funding to the royal family and how the royal family then spend that allocation. As right hon. and hon. Members know, we have a reputation for being straightforward, direct and clear in our recommendations, and I hope that both the Chancellor and the royal household will welcome the new accountabilities and the implications for them. You never know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we might, in years ahead, end up praising the royal household for providing value for money and criticising the Treasury for its meanness. Time will tell.
In this instance, I expect us to take evidence from the Keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to the Queen, Sir Alan Reid. Although the incorporation of the civil list into the new sovereign grant gives us new powers, with new audit and access rights for the Comptroller and Auditor General and new areas for public scrutiny of this expenditure by Parliament, the PAC has in the past examined areas of expenditure by the royal household covered by the grant for royal travel from the Department of Transport and the grant aid for the royal palaces from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
As the Chancellor said, in 2010, £5.4 million was granted for royal travel and £15 million for aid to royal palaces. When the PAC reported on the occupied royal palaces in 2008-09 we found that, although the royal household claimed a £32 million backlog of maintenance work, that figure was not supported by rigorous analysis. We said then that in the absence of a consistent approach to assessing the condition of the Crown Estate and calculating the backlog, and without an assessment of the practical consequences of the backlog, the Department and the household could not be sure how big the problem was or what to do about it. We said that the household should define the criteria for inspecting the condition of the estate, agree with the Department the basis for calculating the maintenance backlog and, before the end of 2009, set out a plan for managing it.
As a result of that recommendation, the household adopted a new system for monitoring the condition of its estate to better manage prioritisation of the maintenance work. In the same report, we noted that the Royal Collection Trust received more than £27 million from visitors to the occupied royal palaces, of which just £1.8 million was passed to the royal household to top up the resources available to maintain the palaces. The report found that the arrangement by which money paid by visitors to the palaces went to fund the trust dated from 1850. Clearly times have changed. More palaces have opened to the public and hundreds of thousands of tourists visit them each year, yet only a fraction of the income generated has, in the past, been used to maintain the palaces. The amount paid to the household is at the discretion of the trust, but some staff of the household are also involved with the trust and have potential conflicts of interest.
We said that the Department should work with the household and the trust to revise the arrangements for the collection and distribution of visitor income to reflect the fact that visitors come to see the palaces as well as the works of art in them. In response, the royal household announced a new arrangement under which, in 2009-10, the trust started paying an amount to the royal household in respect of visitors to Buckingham palace, which again helps offset public funding.
To give another example, following a visit by the then Public Accounts Committee to Kensington palace on the back of a report on maintaining royal palaces, the Queen agreed to pay rent—initially £60,000 a year, rising to £120,000 a year—for the Prince and Princess of Kent’s apartment at Kensington palace from her own income. We understand that from 2010 the Prince and Princess of Kent will remain at their apartment but will pay the rent from their own funds.
Those have been our past successes. In future, we might well want to look at a new range of issues, such as whether the royal estate is being used in the most cost-effective and efficient way, with the royal household maximising the potential for income from commercial lettings, and whether maintenance work is being properly prioritised given the backlog. On travel, we might also look at the cost-effectiveness of the options chosen by the royal household—for example, between road, rail and air—to ensure that best value for taxpayers’ money is secured.
On the former civil list, we might want to examine procurement, staffing costs or expenditure on receptions and entertainment. Having listened to the Chancellor’s welcome statement, I would appreciate it if he dealt with a number of issues that I believe arise. He has said that the sovereign grant will be reviewed every seven years. As I understand his statement, he will be taking new powers to reduce the sovereign grant year on year if the income from the Crown Estate exceeds his expectations. I understand that such a power does not exist at present and I would be grateful if he confirmed that it will be a new power. A similar issue arises on the income that the royal household receives from opening the palaces and the royal art collection to the public. How in those circumstances will any increase in income be treated in determining the sovereign grant?
Finally, today’s proposals deal with the annual income received by the Queen from the taxpayer, but we need to ensure that the public interest in all the assets and estates held by the monarch on behalf of the public is accounted for in a transparent and consistent way. This is particularly important in these stringent times when we are asking so much from hard-working families. I would be grateful if the Chancellor addressed this issue in his reply.
I warmly welcome today’s announcement by the Chancellor. This is a truly historic occasion. For the first time ever, we are placing the royal expenditure financed by the taxpayer on a proper footing—transparent for all to see and consistent with all other public expenditure. This is a sensible act of modernisation that I am sure will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House and by the general public at large. It will help to ensure continuing admiration and support for the Queen and for the role she plays in our constitutional arrangements.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who is the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Under my chairmanship and hers, the Committee has for many years fought a relentless campaign on this issue, but I never thought this day would come. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has risen to such distinction, but I remember his being a member of our Committee when he was a very new, young Member of Parliament, and he may recall a visit we made to Kensington palace together. The trouble with dealing politically with royal family matters—I know this from my many years of chairing the Public Accounts Committee—is that whereas an incredibly worthy report about tens of millions of pounds, or even hundreds of millions of ponds, being wasted in the Department for Work and Pensions will end up only on page 15 of the Financial Times, if we are lucky, something involving the royal family gets much more interest. I think that the visit we made to Kensington palace was on pages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Daily Mail. There is enormous public interest where the royal family is concerned.
My right hon. Friend is to be commended for being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the guts to take this issue on and deal with it. As I said, I thought this day would never come. When we started this campaign and really tried to gear it up, we were looking at three areas in which we thought that parliamentary accountability was absolutely vital: the royal family and all aspects of royal finances, the BBC and the Bank of England. Those three great institutions stand without Parliament and we were told for all sorts of reasons why it was quite inappropriate for the National Audit Office to crawl all over their accounts. It has been like pushing water uphill, but I think that after many years and many bloody battles we are going to drag the BBC to full accountability—and not a moment too soon. That is quite right. Again, I commend the Chancellor for what he is doing. The Bank of England is a more difficult issue and we are still struggling on that, but we have a great victory today. For the first time since this modern settlement was made in 1760, Parliament will, through the Public Accounts Committee, be able to scrutinise all aspects of royal finances.
Although there has been great resistance to this proposal, I have to say that in all my many conversations with the royal household I never detected any resistance from it. I think it has been Governments who have worried about certain republicans on the Public Accounts Committee crawling over the royal finances. I should like to pay tribute to a great and wonderful parliamentarian, who has not been mentioned yet and who is a personal friend of mine—Mr Alan Williams, a former Father of the House, who served with great distinction for many years on the Committee. We all know that he gave the royal finances a good going over. Unfortunately, another personal friend of mine, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), is not here, but I am sure that if he were still on the Committee he, too, would be giving the finances a good going over.
This will be tough for the royal household—there is no doubt about that—and there will be strong questioning in the Committee, as there is on all these subjects, but that is absolutely right because that is what we are about: accountability. I think they have absolutely nothing to fear. As the shadow Chancellor made clear—we do not need to labour this point, because we all know it so well—the Queen has throughout her reign acted with incredible grace and wisdom and with such enormous constitutional propriety. We know all that, but what is not so well appreciated—certainly not by the general public and perhaps not by many Members of Parliament—are the enormous strides that the household has made in delivering efficiency savings and cutting costs. I am pretty confident that when the Committee, working with the National Audit Office, is allowed to crawl over the accounts, it will find a first-rate, modern institution.
It is unfortunate that up to now the Committee has been able to deal only with royal travel and palaces and not with the rest. That seemed a strange state of affairs. We managed to save the royal train, by the way, which is, in terms of modern accountability, a fantastically wasteful but noble instrument of royal travel. [Interruption.] It is necessary. It is so old that it can only travel at night.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend and his colleagues saved the train but unfortunately not the yacht. Is there any chance that for the diamond jubilee we will get the yacht back?
Mr Leigh
Well, some stingy previous Government, whom I will not mention by name, got rid of the royal yacht. What a tragedy. It is not the working part of the constitution but it is an important part. As for the royal train, it is quite right that this wonderful elderly lady should sometimes be allowed to sleep on the royal train so that when she visits Newcastle or Manchester she can wake up and perform her duty refreshed, and not be forced out of bed at 5 am to take a plane. We saved the royal train; that, I think, is something that the PAC achieved.
The PAC, then, will not cause any unnecessary trouble. Although I cannot speak for the new Committee, I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Barking, and I know that she will handle the matter in an effective and completely non-partisan way. I am sure that the Committee will do a wonderful job.
Before I finish, I want to say something about royal palaces. We paid that visit to Kensington palace, and we visited Buckingham palace. We found a lot of peeling wallpaper there—there was a lot of under-investment.
Mr Leigh
Yes. This is the Head of State. She should not be in a palace that is falling down, and we should not be mean and stingy about that. I think that the Government had been a bit stingy. Perhaps these new arrangements will allow her to look after her palaces better.
There is one scandal that I want to raise: Frogmore, the royal mausoleum. It is falling down. As I understand it, under the new arrangements there will be an opportunity for the royal household to have greater control of its own affairs so that it can rehabilitate Frogmore, which is an important national monument and in an appalling state. It is a national scandal that the mausoleum for Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort is in such a derelict state that the public can no longer be admitted. That shows some of the problems with the royal finances. The Queen and her household have been making enormous strides in creating efficiency savings, but they simply have not had the independence or the resources to try to maintain the whole of the estate. It is vital for the nation that they be allowed to do so.
In conclusion, I warmly commend the Chancellor, and say well done for finally getting parliamentary accountability. We now want to continue doing battle with the BBC and the Bank of England, and make sure that this Parliament can audit all aspects of our national finances.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I, too, broadly welcome what has been said today. It is a credit to Her Majesty that she has agreed to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said is a revolutionary change, bringing openness and transparency to the royal accounts. Having tried to get the expenses of BBC executives and certain producers made public, I totally agree with him about the BBC. It resists freedom of information tooth and nail. If it is good enough for the palace, I am sure that it is good enough for the BBC.
I accept that today’s statement is a strange way to proceed and that the debate will come later, but there are questions that need to be asked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said that if the royal accounts are to have full transparency, we have to look at them in total, not only at the civil list as it is now or at the new sovereign grant. As the Chancellor said, it is ridiculous that we pay the royal household money and then pay it back to ourselves, which is very inefficient administration.
If we are to get an idea of the full costs, we need to see what Departments pay the royal household in other ways. I give an example from the Ministry of Defence, which rents certain properties from the royal household, including the Chief of the Defence Staff’s current apartments in Kensington palace, which costs the MOD £108,000 a year. There is also military support for the royal household. That, too, comes from the MOD budget, but is vital to the workings of the household and to supporting Her Majesty in her duties. If we are to have full transparency we need to know what that costs. There is an argument to be had about whether some of the costs that fall on the MOD should come out of that budget. If we are to have a look at expenditure overall, it is important that that is taken into account. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor mentioned security, which should also be included.
The general point of the proposals is to get consensus both in the House and across the country that not only are we getting good value for money from the expenditure, but we are accounting for it all. Certainly, it is very welcome that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will be looking at the entire issue.
Something that will come out in the Bill is the way the fund will work in practice. I am not quite clear how the 15% formula will work. In some years the amount will go up, and in others it will go down, and I accept that there has to be a floor; we do not want the royal household suddenly to find that it does not have enough in-year money. I am, however, a little concerned about the idea of allowing it to build up a surplus. It was reported today in The Daily Telegraph that the Treasury is looking at a yearly cap on that figure, which I think would be better than allowing the royal household to build up a surplus over the seven-year period, which many people would criticise. I ask the Chancellor to look at an annual cap on the investment that comes from the Crown Estate, because otherwise the current efficiency drives might not continue.
I accept that giving the royal household more flexibility in how it spends the money is sensible, but there must also be some debate on who benefits from the current civil list and who will benefit from the new sovereign grant. Will it just be left to the royal household to decide which members of the royal family benefit? That will need to be clarified in the Bill, because there is clearly a public perception that some people on the civil list do not deserve the support they receive, and that needs to be looked at. Having said that, I know from my time at the Ministry of Defence that many of the minor royals do a lot of work to support armed forces charities and others. They do not get a great deal of publicity but should be commended, and it is important that that should be allowed to continue.
I broadly welcome the proposals and look forward to the Bill, but if we are to have proper scrutiny of what the royal household costs, it should include everything. I ask the Chancellor to look carefully at the MOD’s budget, which I know he is already doing, and to consider whether it is realistic that we pay it money that is then paid out to the royal household for something that is not a core military task but which is important to the household.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Much of what I wish to say has already been said. I congratulate the Chancellor on what seems to be the beginnings of an elegant solution to a difficult problem. I wish to make three quick points for him. First, on the matter of principle, it is extremely important that the process does not become a formula that is reviewed annually which puts the whole of the household's finances into play on an annual basis. Whatever method is used for the calculations, it must be robust enough, as the previous debates that the shadow Chancellor cited made clear, to allow the dignity of the Crown across a period of time. That is an important principle.
Secondly, as other Members have suggested, we should consider exactly what we mean by the profit, because students of the Crown Estate’s annual finances will know that that is a highly variable figure, depending on the point at which we decide to look. It depends on whether it is the operating profit and whether there are movements in surpluses. There is one number that we might look at, which is not necessarily a profit but relates most closely to what might be regarded as the surplus cash within the Crown Estate: the annual remittance to the Treasury, which last year was £200 million or so. That is the figure that the Crown Estate remits to the Treasury, having considered what it wishes to withhold for future investment and having regard to the various discrepancies that come in the statement of total recognised gains and losses. The Chancellor might wish to look at that percentage, rather than a particular profit figure, and perhaps it could be made clear whether the grant is intended to be supplemental to that £200 million or part of it.
My final point relates to the Chancellor’s comment on the potential income from marine renewable energy, including wind, tidal and wave energy. It is rather curious that that sits within the Crown Estate at all. If we look at the precedent of the Forestry Commission, which was created in 1919, and to which the Crown Estate forests were transferred in 1923, we will see that it might be worth considering whether the marine estate should be transferred in its entirely out of the Crown Estate and possibly given to all the local authorities on the coast that could benefit from what is going on. That might be an interesting way of giving a direct benefit to local authorities on the coast, where marine energy could form the bedrock of a future economy, without having to trouble the Chancellor. I leave that little thought with him and again congratulate him on what looks like the beginnings of a very elegant solution to an old problem.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The sight of the British Head of State bowing her head in respect at Croke park to those who had been murdered by the British Army was a symbol of profound potency. She also paid her respects to the many thousands of soldiers from the Republic who died in the first world war. She visited the English market in Cork, which a number of us have visited recently, and that has had a practical benefit for the area. I believe that that visit will help to heal the deep wounds between the Republic and ourselves. The Queen has a splendid and unblemished record of service as the Head of State, and I do not want to stray into saying that she does not. She has rightly earned the respect of us all. However, some of the hyperbole this afternoon, which we always have on these occasions, goes a little too far.
Last year, Prince Charles increased the amount of taxpayers’ money he spent by 18% and his personal spending went up by 50%. That was at a time when his 159 staff had their wages frozen. We must look carefully at the royal finances. I found it an Alice-in-Wonderland concept for the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) to say that one of the great achievements of the Public Accounts Committee was to save a bit of money on transport that he described as fantastically wasteful. I think that we must apply the same financial discipline to the royal family that we apply to the poorest in society.
There should be a distinction, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), between the way we treat the monarch, because of her role, and other members of the royal family. Perhaps we could be a bit more critical in the way in which we work out the benefit of visits from minor members of the royal family to charities and set that alongside the security and military costs that are incurred. That does not happen now.
It is not true to say that support for the monarchy as an institution is universal in this country. I come from a constituency where the last insurrection that tried to set up a republic took place in 1839. The 20 people who died in that insurrection are honoured every year. There are people in this country who are happy to describe themselves as republicans, although the figure varies. It was about 45% at the time of the death of Princess Diana and it goes down to about 25%. Those people have a credible view that should be heard.
We had little prior knowledge of this debate. I had no idea that it was happening today. There seems to be an acceptance of this matter without a knowledge of the fine details. I urge that we find a simpler solution, because the one we have seems to be very complex. There is income from various sources, some of which are controlled and some not. Perhaps we could apply a system similar to the one that I urged hon. Members to use for ourselves some years ago in supporting a motion tabled by Chris Mullin, which was that the salaries of hon. Members should be linked to changes in the basic state pension, so that if there was an increase in the basic state pension, our salaries would increase, and if it was frozen, our salaries would be frozen. I believe that a simple mechanism of that type would be acceptable to the country as a whole, and it would be beneficial to the House because it would give us a greater interest in the level of the basic state pension. It would be interesting to put a cap on future payments for the civil list, and if it was linked to a mechanism like that, whether based on the retail prices index or the consumer prices index, it would be possible to understand it. It is essential that the royal family should face the same financial discipline as every other family in the land.
Of course the royal family have done many beneficial things recently, particularly raising money from the royal palaces. However, it is worth remembering that the most profitable royal palace in Europe is Versailles, and they have had rather a different attitude to royalty in France from the one that we have had here. However, that is not essential.
The royal family are in the position that we cannot attack them or say anything critical. That is the rule in the House, which we accepted some seven centuries ago. We know the recent history, with the behaviour of certain members of the royal family having been widely criticised in the press, but it is impossible for us to make any derogatory remarks about them here. I believe that we should remove that gag, not because we wish to criticise the Head of State but so that when minor members of the royal family are extravagant or outrage the public by their standards of behaviour, we in the House have the freedom to be critical of them.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I personally commend and congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for taking the initiative in this matter, which has been pressing for many years, but for making excellent and historic improvements to the current arrangements, which have been unsustainable for some time?
The royal family are one of the few departments of Government—just about the only thing that the Government funds, I would suggest—that make a profit for the taxpayer. They brought into the revenues of the Treasury something in the region of £200 million than was paid out last year. That was a profit for the taxpayer in raw figures. It has also been estimated that one weekend, the weekend of the recent royal wedding, brought hundreds of millions of pounds into the Revenue in tourism, merchandise sales and the like. That profit for the taxpayer is well worth sustaining.
Mr Kevan Jones
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about tourism and other matters that provide a net contribution, but surely under the settlement of the 1760s we cannot really consider the Crown Estate as still being owned by the royal family. It was given up so that it could produce the money for the state that it currently does. I would not look at it in the same terms as the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman may not, but others may choose to do so. In fact, I happen to think that the 1760 arrangements were an historic injustice to King George III and his heirs and successors. There is every reason to say that if the hon. Gentleman is not happy with the arrangements being proposed, perhaps the royal family could sustain having 100% back.
John Thurso
The hon. Gentleman has tempted me. Part of the 1760 settlement was that the Crown no longer had to pay for the Army. Would it be equitable for it to take back the Crown Estate and the entire Ministry of Defence Budget?
Michael Ellis
Now my hon. Friend is tempting me.
It is important to bear in mind, as Professor Vernon Bogdanor has stated in one of his treatises on subject—“The Monarchy and the Constitution”, I think—that it costs about the same to run the royal family as it does to run the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. I venture to suggest that the royal family attract far greater support from the British public than most institutions.
The issues at stake are important, and they are: fairness, accountability and transparency, and the necessary flexibility, which has not been built into the system to this point. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, the previous system, although not that old, was quite frankly archaic, bureaucratic and burdensome. It was also inflexible, so that if money was saved in one department—for example, in travel arrangements—it could not be spent on, say, repairing a leaking roof. The previous arrangements were unnecessarily bureaucratic, and they urgently needed reform to save taxpayers’ money and to save time. They also needed to be more accountable and transparent, which is what these necessary reforms will achieve.
If we take the trouble to look at how the money is spent, we see, for example, that £400,000 is spent on communications. I venture to suggest that much of that money is spent on communication with members of the public who write in to the palaces, and on other necessary duties, such as inviting to garden parties the tens of thousands of people—and it is, in fact, tens of thousands—who enjoy and appreciate visiting the royal households by invitation every year. This money is not spent on trifles; it is spent for the general public’s enjoyment.
The same thing goes for the palaces. Much of the expenditure goes on the maintenance of royal palaces. I venture to suggest that not even the few republican diehards whom we might find in this House would propose that the royal palaces be knocked down after the abolition of the monarchy and car parks built in their stead. Even in the absence of a monarchy—may God forfend—those palaces would have to be maintained. They might be museums or something similar, but they would still need the maintenance that they need now. In fact, they have been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair because of the lack of funds, which only makes it more expensive to repair them.
I also support the modernising arrangements as they relate to the Duchy of Cornwall. That is welcome, because in future the heir to the royal house will be able to secure funds and revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall without necessarily being male—that is, without being the Duke of Cornwall. That is important and follows other reforms, in the tradition of the Demise of the Crown Act 1901. Formerly, offices of the state were cancelled on the demise of the Crown. However, the various Acts that Parliament has seen fit to pass over the past 100 years or so have meant that such positions—ministerial positions, judicial appointments and the like—could continue. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s further reform, making it necessary only for an Order in Council after the completion of one reign and the beginning of another, simply follows in that historic tradition.
I commend these measures, and I support them in full. I congratulate the Chancellor on bringing them forward, and I invite Members of this House to consider supporting Her Majesty in her 60th jubilee gift, which the House is currently considering.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
This has been a most enjoyable debate. With the need to refurbish some of the royal households with up-to-date wallpaper, we have learned that the fortunes of Osborne & Little might now increase. We heard from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor some historical evidence of our hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) making interventions from a sedentary position when this issue was last discussed in the 1970s. People listening to this debate from outside this place might have felt that some of the speeches by right hon. and hon. Members were delivered not so much from a sedentary position but, as it were, from a kneeling position, if that were possible in the House. I would say gently to the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) that some of us think that the land in this country that is not in specific private ownership belongs to the people. For us, the notion that the royal family is signing generous cheques to the taxpayer sits a little oddly.
I want to raise one substantial point today. The Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor said that we needed to look back to 1760, but if my history—learned from Linda Colley and other historians of the period—serves me right, it was actually a cunning manoeuvre by the late King George III that substantially increased royal revenues, rather than the act of generosity that it is sometimes presented as. One part of the motion, which I think the House will support, that worries me conceptually is the notion that the time of transition from one monarch to another is not the time for reflection on the arrangements that we want for our Head of State. The notion that we are going to write down a settlement that cannot be debated for another 200 years might therefore need some reflection on Second Reading.
I respect the Queen and I have travelled with other members of the royal family, although I hate the term “minor royals”—it is offensive to the very hard-working men and women who give a lot of their time to public service. If I can, I always welcome in person any of them who come to my constituency, because they are always well received and well liked. Her Majesty came to the Advance Manufacturing Centre in Catcliffe with Prince Philip last November and stood for an hour asking good questions. I was amazed at her stamina and her presence; the visit really cheered up all the people there. This just goes to show that 85 really is the new 55.
None the less, how does one justify 159 butlers, valets, cooks, dressers, housekeepers and the rest for Prince Charles? [Interruption.] We are all reading the memoirs written by the father of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in The Times, and there is a lovely entry today about how he and Rupert Murdoch managed to cheer up the Queen at a lunch back in the 1970s; I would not have minded eavesdropping on that. But why on earth, when we keep a royal flight, is Prince Charles taking a jet trip from Mr Joe Allbritton, who is not British at all but some kind of American oligarch and millionaire—
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary or kneeling position, asks why not—
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It seems a little bit mean to object when the royal family employ someone, and then object when they save a bit of money by taking a free flight. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have it both ways.
Mr MacShane
I am trying to choose my words carefully, because this is a serious matter. Serious questions would be asked if any Government Minister, acting on behalf of the nation, were to start hopping around in oligarchs’ planes—
Mr MacShane
I do not think that right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) was a Government Minister at the time of that yacht trip—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of straying into—
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, I will finish. Individual names are being attached to what is being said, and that is not what we should be doing. This is a general debate on the civil list, and we should not refer to individual members of the royal family or to individual amounts spent.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will go on to the next speaker if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept it.
Mr MacShane
I said that I accept your ruling fully, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will not say another word, save that—[Laughter.] If it is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that it is not right for this debate to take place in the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent but not on the Floor of the House. That is all.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. There are clear rules for this House that we have to abide by. The right hon. Gentleman might not like it, but that is the case.
Mr MacShane
I actually believe that a plane should be made available for the use of senior Government Ministers, including the PM. He had to scrounge a lift from Prague to Brussels with the Czech President the other day. He got something out of it, but frankly, every senior Minister in most democracies has that mode of transport available to them. Our planes are continually available to any member of the royal family, while elected Ministers come second.
We then have the problem of explaining why the present monarch and the next one are such giant landowners. Is that an issue that we might be able to debate, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Of course we all enjoyed the royal wedding celebration this year and we will enjoy the diamond jubilee next year. Roman emperors promised their subjects panem et circenses: the current Government are doing their best to reduce the quota of panem with their cuts and cruelties imposed on the poor and handicapped, but they are increasing the availability of circenses through the royal shows.
I do not believe that there is any kind of republican mood in the country. It was interesting to hear the oleaginous loyalty, if I may put it that way, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who had a tremendous enthusiasm for the monarchy, which has surprised many of us. I remember the silver jubilee in Rotherham in 1978, when I am told that 41,000 Union Jack flags were sold in the socialist republic of South Yorkshire.
If we look at the European Union, we see that the states that are monarchies—Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and even, with all its troubles, Spain—enjoy less partisan and less conflictual politics. When it comes to growth, distribution and a fair social settlement since the second world war, we find that the EU’s monarchies generally have a much better record than the EU’s republics. The royal families, however, are also much cheaper there. In Spain, with its King, Queen and wonderful royal palace where I had the privilege and honour of having dinner with the Crown Prince of the Asturias and the lovely Princess—and Prince Charles—a few weeks ago— [Interruption.] The food was free, but I paid for my own air fare. The total cost of the whole Spanish monarch is €8.4 million, while the Queen of the Netherlands gets by on €828,000.
I ask only that we do some comparative analysis before simply continuing with an arrangement that, even with the Chancellor’s proposed modernisations, remains deeply anachronistic.
Mr Leigh
Surely we should make a comparison with other major countries. In fact, the cost of the Queen bears favourable comparison with the cost of the Italian and the German Presidents—and who has ever heard of them, and what do they do for their country in comparison with our Queen?
Mr MacShane
I do not really want to get into discussions about German lineages. I recall a previous German President who actually walked the length and breadth of Germany in his summer holiday, and he did not receive anything remotely like what we pay our official Head of State.
It is interesting to note that Scotland’s First Minister, Mr Salmond, has ditched his party’s original republicanism and now asserts that an independent Scotland—if that unlikely event were to take place—would keep the monarch as its Head of State. However, I would like to see any future monarch living a lifestyle in tune and in touch with that of the nation. We can see the Duke of Cambridge, who serves with RAF officers, and his wife living a lifestyle much closer to that of the rest of the nation.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to people who have ditched their republicanism. Will he join me in welcoming the decision of the Sinn Fein mayor in the Irish Republic who welcomed Her Majesty and shook her hand—despite Gerry Adams’s advice to do otherwise—showing an increasing acceptance of the monarchy everywhere?
Mr MacShane
A law throughout my entire life has been that if Mr Gerry Adams advises anybody to do anything, they will be on the safest ground if they do the opposite.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, or the Chair of any other Select Committee could examine the high levels of expenditure that we have discussed this afternoon. I am sure that the Bill will go through without opposition, but if the monarchy is to continue in future years—after the time of Her Majesty—some things will have to change.
I welcome the Bill and the way in which it is being presented, and I think that the Opposition are handling the matter as they should, but a wider debate is needed. Let me say again—not on my knees—that there is nothing that can be discussed in our newspapers, pubs and meeting rooms that cannot also be discussed, in full detail, in this our House of Commons.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Unlike the shadow Chancellor, I have not spent the last 48 hours carefully considering what to say in the debate, so I shall keep my remarks short. I have not been enjoying the tennis either; my mind has been occupied with other matters.
I welcome the approach that the Chancellor has outlined, and the prospect of the longer debate that we shall have on Second Reading when the Bill has been published. I want to place on record, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the affection and esteem in which Her Majesty the Queen is held throughout the country. Every time I visit a primary school in my constituency, two questions are entirely predictable, and have been asked throughout the last decade. They are “Do you know the Prime Minister?” and “Have you met the Queen?”. There is a subtle but profound difference between those questions, which shows that young children can be very perceptive about the relative influence of Members of Parliament and the Queen. The Queen has visited the city of Bristol many times throughout her reign, and has always been warmly received.
Although I welcome the Chancellor’s approach, I think there is an important point to be made about the future finances of the monarchy. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said about the importance of transparency. The reformed system of financing the Head of State—and this may be the first major reform since the accession of George III —must be transparent and open to scrutiny. Three years ago we discovered in a very painful way that resisting transparency does no institution in our land any good, and I believe that the institution of the monarchy will be enhanced by transparency over its financing.
Both the right hon. Member for Barking and her predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee referred to the royal palaces. Thanks to the initiative of Mr Speaker, this palace is now open on more occasions during the year so that members of the public can come and see the place with which we are so familiar, but Buckingham palace is still only open for one month a year, except to those who are fortunate enough to be invited there for a formal occasion. I hope that consideration will be given to whether it would be possible for grand places such as, in particular, Buckingham palace to be open to the public on more days during the year. That would both enhance the income of the royal palaces and the royal arts collection and enable more people from all over the country to see what is probably the most famous building in the world.
I look forward to our Second Reading debate and to perhaps making a longer contribution on that occasion.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I speak as—I hope—a radical democrat who really believes that sovereignty resides with the people and should be only cautiously delegated to Crowns and perhaps even Parliaments. Nevertheless, I declare myself a monarchist, not just for sentimental reasons but because I believe that the monarchy performs an important role as an impartial focus for national sentiment at a time when public confidence in other public institutions, with which we are of course familiar, may be seen as being at an all-time low. Moreover, it is clear—certainly from the celebrations of the royal wedding day in my constituency—that royal occasions provide a terrific excuse for a party which will make people feel good, and that must be a good thing at a time when we are increasingly measuring national well-being as well as simple economic indicators.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) that I consider those to be rather better justifications for the civil list and the spending of public money on the monarchy than the fact that monarchy offers better value for money than the DVLA, which I think is a dangerous road on which to embark. Obviously affection for, and confidence in, the monarchy has been reinforced by the conduct of the current Queen, who has performed her role over many decades with enormous dignity and professionalism. It is important that the monarchy has also moved with the times, not least by responding appropriately to the recent austere financial situation in which this country finds itself. I am therefore very supportive of the Chancellor’s announcement.
Michael Ellis
As the hon. Gentleman is so eloquently expressing his support for the monarchy, will he be contributing towards Parliament’s gift for the Queen’s diamond jubilee—the window?
Martin Horwood
I think that is a rather inappropriate question actually, but I was strongly inclined to do so, although it might be a rather expensive window, so if we can bring the cost down a bit, that might be appropriate.
I was making the important point that it is entirely right to bring greater audit and transparency to the arrangements for the Head of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) said that too, and he is also absolutely right that public money and public confidence must go together. However, some issues remain to be tackled if we are to maintain that confidence over future generations for the Queen’s heirs and successors.
I am pleased that the Minister for Equalities is sitting on the Front Bench as well as the Chancellor, because I want to discuss the issue of absolute cognatic primogeniture. I am not referring here to the situation of Catholics in the succession, which is simple in terms of equalities but rather complicated in terms of the role of the Church of the England as the state Church; that raises all sorts of issues. The issue of succession to the Crown by women in order of birth is important, however. Without wanting to cause any embarrassment to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, it is an issue on which we have a window of opportunity that may close in a year or so.
This was an issue in Sweden in the 1980s, when the birth of an infant daughter following the birth of the young Crown Prince Carl Philip meant that it became a question of disinheriting a young heir to the throne. It would be unfortunate if we were to go down that path in this country, so if we want generally to modernise the monarchy, now would be a good moment for this issue to be addressed alongside the financial issues. We could then look forward to future generations of the monarchy enjoying the same affection and confidence as Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I gave you a bit of latitude there, Mr Horwood. I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I know there is a great wish to debate Epping forest, a matter of enormous interest, so I will try not to be unduly long-winded.
So far in the debate, we have missed a crucial point. We have just focused on the cost of the monarchy, but our sovereign represents the greatest institution in our land; it is that bit that makes us British, and we do not want a mean monarchy. We want a proper and well-funded monarchy, not a bicycling monarchy, even if riding the Mayor of London’s bicycles.
The subject of this debate encapsulates the connection the monarchy gives us to our history. What did the Commons spend its time debating in the 16th century? It spent its time debating that the King should live of his own: that the King—Henry VIII for much of that era—should be able to use his own resources to provide for all he needed to spend. This debate returns us to that same principle.
The Crown Estate provides an extraordinary link with our history. We could probably find some acre of the Crown Estate somewhere—probably in Somerset—that was the property of Alfred the Great, but we would certainly find that there was property in the Crown Estate that came with William the Conqueror and from the dissolution of the monasteries. St James’s palace started as a leper colony founded by Queen Margaret in, I think, 1118. It was then part of the endowment of Eton college, which was, very tactfully, given back to the Crown by Eton when Henry VIII said, “If you don’t give it back, I’m going to dissolve you.” [Interruption.] That was a missed opportunity, I think some on the Labour Benches are saying. The Crown Estate is an extraordinary link with our history, which is what makes us the country—the United Kingdom—that we are. Some attack that and say, “We want a good value monarchy.” That makes Her Majesty sound as though she is something to be bought off the top shelf at Tesco, and it really cannot be how we wish to approach our constitution. The Crown is an essential element of that constitution; everything of importance that happens is done in the name of the Crown.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said that he wanted the royal family to be treated as any other family but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) pointed out, if they were any other family they would not be paying such a high tax rate. Given the 15% provision, Her Majesty will be expected to pay an 85% tax rate, which is more than the 50% tax rate that many of us hope will go over the course of this Parliament.
Paul Flynn
Over the years we were kept in ignorance of the royal tax rates and it was only as a result of a campaign in this House about 12 years ago that we were given any information at all about this. I would welcome it if the hon. Gentleman is asking for full transparency on the royal taxes, but I am not sure that that is part of the suggestion before us today.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I clearly have not asked for full transparency on the royal tax affairs. Indeed, I would argue for the precise opposite, because I do not think it is particularly sensible to be investigating in close detail how the royal family spend their money. I recall a line about motes and beams; we have had quite a problem with our own expenditure in this House and I am not sure that we have got things entirely right. Before we start criticising the monarchy and looking over every biscuit that the Queen buys, we should make sure that we have our own house in order.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman would not be suggesting that a way of controlling the royal household would be to have the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority running it, would he?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I would most certainly not be recommending that IPSA comes anywhere near our sovereign.
When the Crown Estate was granted in 1760 by George III, at the same time as he gave up his claim as King of France, the monarchy was in deficit and it needed extra money to fulfil the functions that were being fulfilled. Some of those functions were greater than those now paid for by the civil list. That is all certainly true, although Parliament would vote excess resources to pay for things such as the Army, so my hon. and noble friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) was not entirely fair on the point about paying for the Army.
Now the Crown Estate is in substantial surplus and I think that the Chancellor, in his proposals, which in many ways are very good, may be being somewhat canny, because the next sovereign would be able to cancel this arrangement and say, “I should like £200 million a year, thank you very much.” There is no requirement on a new sovereign to agree to hand the Crown Estate over in return for a civil list. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that this is taxpayers’ money and not the Crown’s money, but it really is the Crown’s money because, on becoming King, the Prince of Wales or any other sovereign could simply rescind the agreement and claim it back. The Crown Estate is the sovereign’s property, which the sovereign gives to Parliament to help to pay for the costs of the nation; it is not taxpayers’ money that is being handed over. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) want me to give way?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
No, he is going to let me carry on. As a result of what I have described the Queen is paying a higher rate of tax than anybody else. We should remember that and I hope that the Chancellor will be generous. I would like the 15% provision to be increased because we want to have a glamorous monarchy that befits the status of our nation. We are a great nation, a noble nation and a nation that has had power across the globe in the past. We have one of the finest histories of any country in the world. When I see the coronation coach being pulled through the streets of London, I want to see it being pulled by the finest horses that money can buy and I want to see it gilded with the finest gold that can be bought. I want Her Majesty to have as a jubilee present the finest window that can be funded by Members of Parliament. That is the status of monarchy that we want and I urge the Chancellor to remember that. Even though I know that we are in this time of austerity, that we are all in it together and that the Opposition spent all the money, maxed out the credit card and so on, we should look after Her Majesty.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
How on earth do I follow that, Mr Deputy Speaker?
We have had an interesting debate and, as has been said, this is just the start of the process. It is an unusual process, given that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that this is a preliminary debate. The debate has ranged from yachts, trains and the prospect of the monarch taking out a Boris bike for the day to other important issues that are perhaps slightly off-topic, such as primogeniture, succession and whether first-born females and Catholics will one day be able to take precedence in succeeding to the throne. We heard from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that St James’s palace was once a leper colony that was given to Eton. By the time the Bill goes into Committee—I very much hope that he will be a member of that Committee—I might have worked up a gag about that. I am still working on it at the moment.
As we have heard, the demands on the royal household are vastly different today from when the House last discussed the issue. The financing arrangements are largely unchanged since 1760. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made clear, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the new sovereign support grant, which we feel will be better equipped to meet the royal household’s needs. We will support the Chancellor in reforming the arrangements although, as he would expect, we will ask questions and will want to know in detail how the arrangements will work.
Efforts have already been made to ensure that grant support to the royal household is fair to the taxpayer in the context of wider Government spending and we welcome them, too. Last year, the Chancellor announced in his spending review that support for the royal household would be frozen at £30 million in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the new arrangements are put in place. That will necessitate a 14% reduction in royal household expenditure in 2012-13.
We have also heard from a number of speakers about the significant efficiency savings made by the royal household in recent years, although the hon. Member for North East Somerset also expressed the view that the monarchy should not go down the Tesco value route, which led my hon. Friends to ask about the Lidl—or Aldi—monarchy. I suspect that that those are not places where the hon. Gentleman often shops.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asked whether the efficiency savings would be a continuing process or whether the end of the road had already been reached, with all the savings being made that could be made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) highlighted some points where further savings could be made and I hope that that will be addressed when the Bill goes to Committee.
As hon. Members have said, the Treasury’s choice of a level of 15% of the revenues of the Crown Estate needs proper scrutiny. The Chancellor said that that figure was chosen to maintain the current level of expenditure, or something in that ballpark, to the end of this Parliament. It has been estimated that 15% of the Crown Estate profits would provide some £37.5 million a year, 25% higher than the total grants that are currently provided. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, we need to consider the appropriate level of expenditure for the royal family. There might be a case for increasing that amount and we must consider carefully how demands on the royal household have changed. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in his opening speech, the pressures on the royal household from issues such as security have increased greatly.
There could also be a case for reducing the royal grant if, for example, there were further efficiency savings. I note that the Chancellor is proposing a cash floor to avoid real-terms cuts to the royal grant in future, which is a significant commitment in the context of wider Government spending cuts, but we should, however, also consider whether there is a potential need for a cap on the amount raised. We should consider the proposed mechanism for uprating the royal grant each year, too.
As has been said, profits from the Crown Estate could rise significantly, particularly because of its links with wind farm developments, which could bring in substantial revenues. The rise is described as exponential in the short term and significant in the longer term, so we need to consider whether a cap might be appropriate.
Parliament must also be certain that any new arrangement will be stable and work in the long term. If the royal grant or reserves fluctuate significantly, that could, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, lead us into the unwelcome situation of an almost annual review of the finances. We will need to strike a balance when building flexibility into the formula, and some might say that seven years is too long a gap to leave between reviews, but we will need such flexibility if Crown Estate revenues rise significantly.
One fact that has come to light, as Members have already said, is that the Crown Estate owns 55% of the foreshore around the United Kingdom and all the seabed up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Although I do not think that the House will go down the hon. Gentleman’s suggested path and transfer ownership of the foreshore to coastal communities, despite some in the south-west facing high water bills because of the extra costs associated with being on the coast, I think that we need to look at the issue in the context of the UK being the world’s leader in offshore wind power.
Opposition Members and Members in general very much support further investment in renewables, but is it appropriate that increased Government investment in such technologies should directly support the royal household? Indeed, that goes for private and public investment. The Government have made available some £200 million of public funding for investment in renewables, a proportion of which could end up accruing to the royal household via the sovereign grant, so what flexibility can be built into the new grant to deal with such situations?
There is a need to ensure the appropriate parliamentary oversight of the sovereign grant and of royal household expenditure, and we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), as the current Chair. She described the measures as a sensible act of modernisation, and both Members said that they look forward to getting their teeth into scrutinising the process and making it more transparent.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must start by looking at everything, the total expenditure, including not only, as I said, support from the military, but, for example, the cost of the lord lieutenancy service? If we do not do so, we will not be informed or really understand what the monarchy costs.
Kerry McCarthy
As I have already said, security is a big element of spending on the royal family, but other elements need to put into the mix, and the Chancellor’s announcement of the merger of the three separate funding pots will help with transparency and with looking at everything in the round.
We very much welcome the agreement that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will audit royal household funding, but as the Bill goes through the House, we will seek clarity on when and how often those audits will be carried out, clarity on what disclosure there will be of the information and evidence used in the process and, indeed, clarity on the Committee’s remit to look at issues such as those that my hon. Friend has just raised.
In conclusion, we support the Chancellor’s initiative, but we will seek clarity on the level at which the new grant is set, on the arrangements for uprating it each year and on whether there will be flexibility on that and on the level of parliamentary oversight. We hope that by the time the Bill reaches its final stages there will be cross-party consensus on the new arrangements.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The last time that the House substantively debated this issue was during proceedings on what became the Civil List Act 1972, and, as the system that the Act implemented comes up for renewal, it is only right that we debate its merits and potential for reform.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for, in particular, a lively and informative debate about reforming the sovereign grant. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), the royal family contributes a tremendous amount to our country, and they paid fitting tributes to its work on behalf of the nation. We also heard from other Members their thoughts about the royal family and how they should be funded in future.
Of course, the last time we had such a debate was back in 1972. I have not yet had time to read that debate; I am not sure whether it would have been as entertaining as the one we have had today. We heard suggestions about whether we should have a biking monarchy. I am sure that Members will be interested to know that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were given a tandem Boris bike by the Mayor of London; I am sure that they will use it frequently.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we believe that the system is in need of change. I greatly appreciate the support of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) for the measures that we are bringing forward. We want to reform the system so that we can put the grant funding on a sustainable, long-term footing and, as we have said, open it up to full parliamentary scrutiny. I think the colleagues I mentioned appreciate the objectives that we have in mind. In addition, we want to take the opportunity to modernise and simplify some peripheral elements of the current legislation.
As the Chancellor set out, we have been guided by three principles: first, ensuring that we have sustainable, long-term financing for the royal household, free from annual political interference; secondly, ensuring that it has some flexibility so that the royal household can manage its finances efficiently; and thirdly, ensuring accountability by establishing proper checks and balances to prevent sums from becoming excessive. Following those principles, we have arrived at the proposals that we are debating—initially, although we will have a Second Reading debate shortly—for a new sovereign grant.
These are genuinely significant reforms that are designed to last. Linking the sovereign grant to Crown Estate profits means that arrangements will be durable where the old system was not. As we have heard, 15% of Crown Estate profits is the starting point for deriving the grant amount. It will be based on 15% of profit in the year two years prior—so, for example, the grant for 2013-14 will be 15% of the profit for 2011-12. That will provide an amount that should keep royal spending broadly in line with spending in recent years in real terms. The percentage will be reviewed every seven years. In the unlikely event that an increase is proposed, it will require affirmative resolution in Parliament; and, of course, there are powerful control mechanisms that ensure that the grant never becomes unmanageable.
Furthermore, the Bill brings accountability arrangements for the royal household into line with those for other Government Departments. We think it is important that Parliament should have the ability to scrutinise the expenditure when it sees a need to do so—
Mr Kevan Jones
If a large surplus builds up in the seven-year period, what will happen to it? Will it be retained by the royal household for their use, or will it be paid back to the Treasury?
Justine Greening
There will be a cap at 15% of the spend by the royal household in the previous year. If the hon. Gentleman waits for a few more minutes, when I will have a chance to present the Bill to the House, he will have even more information at his disposal to understand exactly how that cap will work, how the review will take place, and who will perform it.
The Bill brings accountability arrangements for the royal household into line with those for other Government Departments. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise that expenditure when it—
Mr MacShane
The hon. Lady keeps saying that the royal household will be brought into line with other Government Departments. Does not that imply that there will be a Government Minister who is accountable to the Commons for what the royal household is spending and will, from time to time, answer questions on it?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. Of course, the Treasury will be accountable for the sovereign grant.
As for accountability to Parliament, sovereign grant expenditure will be audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General and those reports will be laid before Parliament. Should it wish to do so, the Committee of Public Accounts will also be able to scrutinise grant expenditure and will be able to invite the royal household to give evidence. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Barking, her Committee is already looking at how it may wish to fulfil its role in the accountability of the sovereign grant. In fact, that was one of the main things that Parliament argued for before the Civil List Act 1972. It was not implemented at that time, but it is right to do so now.
I very much welcome the valuable contributions of Members on both sides of the House—those of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and my hon. Friends the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). They set the context for the debate that we will have on Second Reading of the Bill, which I will shortly present. Once that Bill is before the House, Members on both sides of the House will have a better chance of understanding the proposals and how they will impact on the sovereign grant.
As I have said, this is only the first debate. There will be an opportunity to debate the matter in more detail on Second Reading and in Committee, which will be a Committee of the whole House. I am pleased that we have had a good discussion this afternoon, and that there is agreement on a number of fundamental issues.
Her Majesty the Queen has given exemplary service to the country throughout her 60-year reign. She, and other members of the royal family who support her in her official capacity, will continue to play a vital role in representing and promoting the UK and the Commonwealth. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would agree wholeheartedly that it is right to provide the royal household with stable and sufficient support in those duties.
As I have pointed out, the royal household has significantly reduced its expenditure. As the Chancellor said, total spending by the royal household has reduced by almost £10 million over the past two decades. That is a real-terms cut of more than 50% in 20 years, which no other Department can claim to have achieved. It is also right that we ensure that that provision is transparent and accountable. In fact, on current assumptions, we expect the sovereign grant to be between £34 million and £36 million for 2013-14 and 2014-15. Such a level of support is lower than it would have been under the old system. As we have heard, in cash terms, that is broadly in line with the current level of spending, but in real terms, there is a cut of 9% over the course of this Parliament. As I said, that is lower in real terms than royal household expenditure in any of the past 20 years. The cost amounts to 51p per person per year in the UK. That is a remarkably low price to pay for the royal family’s profound contribution to public life.
The sovereign grant Bill will put that funding on an efficient, sustainable footing, and provide for it to be fully accountable to Parliament and the public. These are necessary reforms and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(1) new provision be made for, or in connection with, the financial support of the Sovereign and of the heir to the throne;
(2) any sums payable in respect of provision so made should be payable out of money provided by Parliament;
(3) provision be made enabling the continuation, in the reigns of Her Majesty’s successors, of the payment of the hereditary revenues of the Crown as directed under section 1 of the Civil List Act 1952;
(4) provision be made about allowances and pensions under the Civil List Acts of 1837 and 1952;
(5) any sums payable in respect of such allowances and pensions by virtue of any provision so made should be charged on the Consolidated Fund;
(6) it is expedient to amend the law relating to the financial support of members of the Royal Household.
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Clarke, Mr Secretary Hammond, Mr Secretary Hunt, Danny Alexander, Mr Mark Hoban, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening bring in the Bill.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr John Randall)
The Prince of Wales, having been informed of the subject matter of the Bill so far as it relates to the Duchy of Cornwall, recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Presentation and First Reading
Justine Greening accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown and the Royal Family; make provision about allowances and pensions under the Civil List Acts of 1837 and 1952; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 213).
Legislative Reform Order (Epping Forest)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
I beg to move,
That the draft Legislative Reform (Epping Forest) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.
The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games will be the greatest sporting festival this country has ever seen. Athletes, officials, media representatives and spectators will come from all over the world to enjoy top-class competition, together with all the associated events that come with the Olympics. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are as excited as I am about the prospect and number of applications for tickets, even if it has inevitably led to disappointment for a lot of people. It shows that the British people are similarly looking forward to the games.
Such a big event inevitably requires a significant safety and security operation. Indeed, the police are preparing for the largest ever peacetime security operation in this country. I am pleased to be able to say that planning is well under way, as was confirmed by the audit and review that the Government carried out on taking office. In securing major events such as the Notting Hill carnival, the Metropolitan Police Service has developed a well-tested approach to hosting large numbers of officers from outside its usual areas of work through the use of a temporary muster, briefing and deployment centre. That provides a facility where large numbers of officers can be gathered, fed and, most importantly, briefed before being sent off to their duties.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her opening remarks. We are all looking forward to the Olympic games, and we are very excited in the east end of London, but on this specific proposal, will she tell me what other venues were considered for this important site?
Lynne Featherstone
I will come to the venues. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that 29 were considered, but that only this one—Wanstead Flats in Epping forest—was considered suitable. That was an operational matter for the police; it was not for the Government to intervene or make suggestions on. I will deal with that in more detail later, however.
Three muster centres are planned for the London 2012 Olympics. The main one will be needed to support the main Olympic park area, the transport hub at Stratford and other Olympic facilities. The police and emergency services already have facilities built into the park itself, but the police need to have a base that is a sensible distance from the site, not least so that they can respond sensibly in the event of an incident that puts the park out of action. The Metropolitan police are satisfied that the fairground site at the southern end of Wanstead Flats in Epping forest is the best option for a deployment centre. The fairground site offers the best combination of location and access, minimises disruption to local people and is the most cost-effective solution to the needs of the police.
Lyn Brown
The hon. Lady says that it will create minimal disruption to local people. May I gently suggest to her that local people in the vicinity of Wanstead Flats and the fairground area would not necessarily concur with her observation? Given that she is a Home Office Minister and given that the Home Office—effectively in its broadest family—has considered these proposals, will she tell the House why residents in the area were not told of the other venues considered by the Metropolitan police and on what basis they had been rejected? Surely that should have been part of the consultation process.
Lynne Featherstone
My understanding was that there were three consultations, but indeed the other sites were never open to selection by local people. As I explained to the hon. Lady, however, that was because the police said that, operationally, only this site would facilitate a muster centre of the necessary size and in a suitable location.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
There were three consultations, but at least two were deeply flawed. If anybody speaks to the people who live near the fairground site, which is almost entirely in my constituency, they will struggle to find anybody who supports the construction of the muster centre.
Lynne Featherstone
I will come to the consultation in due course, although I would say now that only 31 representations were made throughout the process.
The City of London corporation, which is responsible for Wanstead Flats, is content with this approach. I should make it clear that the Government accept that there will be some disruption and inconvenience to local people, but are satisfied that this is the best solution to a specific problem, serving the wider public interest. It is also worth pointing out that the Metropolitan police will pay £170,000 in lieu of rent, in addition to the costs of making good the site. That sum will help to create lasting legacy benefits for those who use Epping forest.
Lyn Brown
The Minister rightly says that the police are paying £170,000 a year, effectively for 120 days, which works out at about £1,500 a day. Given the cost of putting the area back to its former use once the muster site has gone, is she really convinced that that is enough money properly to reinstate the flats to a state at which they can benefit the local community?
Lynne Featherstone
I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. The £170,000 is additional to the duty and obligation on the police to put the site back to its original condition within the 90-day period, and the £170,000 is for the local area to spend to advance the site and make it better than it was before. The cost of putting it back to its current condition is above and beyond the £170,000.
Wanstead Flats are legally part of Epping forest. The Epping Forest Act 1878 prohibits the enclosure of any part of the forest, even on a temporary basis, and that is why we have brought forward a legislative reform order to make a temporary amendment to the Act. Let me make it quite clear that the Government have no wish to see any change to the status of Epping forest, which is a well-loved amenity. Accordingly, the order before us is strictly time-limited and at the conclusion of the games the muster, briefing and deployment centre will be removed, the land will be restored to its former status and the full protections of the 1878 Act will remain intact. No lasting change to the law will be made.
Our proposals have already been subject to consideration by three separate parliamentary Committees—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Hybrid Instruments Committee in another place, and this House’s Select Committee on Regulatory Reform. It is on the latter that I should like briefly to focus. I am grateful to the members of the Regulatory Reform Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), for its very thorough and comprehensive report on the order, which was published on 6 May. I am pleased to note that it stated at paragraph 49:
“The Government…believes there are good reasons to maintain the restrictions in the 1878 Act rather than removing them in their entirety, so has proposed to limit the position, coverage area and duration of the LRO provisions. We support this belief and agree that the proposal is a proportionate measure to achieve the policy objective.”
The Committee went on to say, at paragraphs 50 and 51, that it agreed
“that the proposal strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it…and…does not remove any necessary protection.”
The Committee went on to recommend that the order should be approved.
I would like to address a couple of concerns that the Committee raised, some of which have also been raised by Members. The first relates to consultation. The proposal was subject to three separate consultation processes during the second half of 2010, covering the police proposals to use the site, the specifics of the LRO itself and the planning permission from Redbridge council. The latter was unanimously approved by the council’s regulatory committee on 24 February 2011, subject to conditions to which the Metropolitan Police Service has agreed. Every effort was made to involve and consult local people and to give them an opportunity to express their views. That included leafleting the streets most directly affected and holding public meetings and exhibitions in the area. Respondents and petitioners clearly were not deterred from contesting the principles in the proposal. The previous Security Minister, Baroness Neville-Jones, held two specific meetings on this issue with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and I am grateful to him for his support in this matter.
This is complex territory and I accept the Committee’s view that the consultation was imperfect. I apologise for that. Nevertheless, the Committee did conclude, at paragraph 53, that the Home Office
“has respectably arguable grounds for concluding that its consultation was adequate.”
It is also worth pointing out that the Hybrid Instruments Committee in another place invited petitions against the order and, having considered them carefully, decided not to recommend that the order be referred to a special Select Committee, in part because
“Many of the matters complained of in the petitions have been so dealt with, in particular by the normal planning process or in the report to the House by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (4th Report, 2010-12), that no further inquiry into them is necessary”.
That quote was from paragraph 6 of the House of Lords Hybrid Instruments Committee’s First Report of Session 2010-12, on the Legislative Reform (Epping Forest) Order 2011.
I shall touch on one specific issue—whether the Home Office should have consulted just on the legislative options for Wanstead Flats or whether it should also have introduced possible alternative sites into the equation. As the published documents make clear, the Metropolitan police considered a very large number of possible sites in north-east London for the muster, briefing and deployment centre. Applying objective criteria they concluded that Wanstead Flats was the only suitable site. That was the clear professional, operational advice from the police to the Government, and I think it would have been very difficult, and dangerous, for the Home Office to try to countermand that advice. I do not believe the effectiveness or the clarity of the consultation process would have been enhanced had we included reference to alternative sites that had already been ruled out as unsuitable. Indeed, to have done so might have unnecessarily alarmed residents living near those sites.
Finally, on the question whether this sets a precedent for future development on Wanstead Flats or, indeed, other open spaces, the answer is emphatically no. The Olympics are a unique event in terms of their scale and the policing challenge they present, and I can think of nothing else that would require similar arrangements to be made. More than that, the particular legislative route that we have adopted means that even if a future Government were minded to put buildings on Wanstead Flats, even temporarily, they would have to start all the procedures again from scratch and secure fresh parliamentary approval. Nine months into the process and after three public consultations and three parliamentary committees, I can assure hon. Members that that is something not easily obtained.
I am sorry to have spoken at some length, but I thought it was important to address these issues. In conclusion, I return to where I started. The success of the 2012 safety and security operation depends on the police being able to operate effectively, and the muster, briefing and deployment centre on Wanstead Flats is an integral part of that. The proposal before the House is a proportionate measure. It enables the policing operation to take place while making no lasting change to the protection granted by the Epping Forest Act.
Lyn Brown
Notwithstanding the other points that I have made, does the Minister genuinely believe, and can she categorically assure my constituents, that this is a temporary, one-off measure, that it will not happen again and that it will not be a precedent for future use by anybody else following the Olympic games?
Lynne Featherstone
Yes. If there ever were to be anything on the scale of the Olympics—something that none of us in the House today can imagine—the process would have to be started all over again, and there would be opportunities to comment. The answer to the hon. Lady, in the scope of what one can imagine, is yes.
We are satisfied that the proposed LRO is the best solution to a specific, time-limited problem in the unique circumstances of the 2012 games. I request that the House support the measure.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on the way in which they have represented their constituents’ views on this matter. Anyone who has had a conversation with them about the issue is left in no doubt about the strength of the opposition locally to the proposals.
I am sure that we all welcome the fact that we have the Olympic games coming to London. We also understand that it is impossible to have the world’s greatest sporting spectacle take place in our great city without we, as hosts, accepting some inconvenience if we are to put on a safe, efficient and enjoyable games. Our aim must be to showcase our city and country and confirm our status as one of the world’s leading nations, a place that people want to visit and do business in. However, we must also remember that foremost in the minds of local people is the legacy. One way that the success of the games will be judged, when the pomp and fanfare has been and gone, is the legacy left for the people of London, particularly those who live in and around the Olympic boroughs. We all understand and accept that in order to deliver a safe and efficient games the Metropolitan police must be free to make judgments and decisions on operational matters, and the Minister has our full support in that, but it is unfortunate that this decision is being made in the face of local opposition. I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure local people that their concerns about the future of the site will be considered.
Wanstead Flats is a highly valued and essential open space in that part of London. In the short time I had to prepare for the debate, and being that sort of anorak, I decided to look up the history of Wanstead Flats and discovered that attempts to enclose it and restrict access for the common people have long been a source of controversy. In 1871, Henry Wellesley, Earl Cowley, attempted to enclose another piece of the flats. An advertisement with the headline “Save The Forest” encouraged working men to “Attend by Thousands” an open air meeting on Wanstead Flats on Saturday 8 July 1871 and protest against the enclosure. We are dealing with a highly sensitive site in east London that has a history of local activism to protect it. As that piece of history demonstrates, it is clearly because local people have campaigned effectively to protect it that it is still there for us to debate in the House today.
According to the briefing paper provided by the Residents of Leytonstone and Forest Gate campaign, to which I am grateful, the site is designated as green belt and green corridor land, as heritage land and as a site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation. To of the north of the site is a part of the flats that is designated as a site of special scientific interest. As a veteran of the campaign to stop the east London river crossing and protect Oxley woods, which is also an SSSI, I sympathise with the people who are sensitive about the use of the site and wish to protect it for the future.
The Epping Forest Act 1878 lays down a legal framework for the preservation and management of Epping forest, requiring its conservators to keep it for local use. I will not list the six requirements set out in the Act because I want other local Members to have enough time to speak. Suffice it to say that the previous Government introduced the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which gives the powers to set aside the 1878 Act, which is what the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is doing. It is a little churlish of me, but I thought I should point that out as another U-turn.
When we deal with local communities like the one in east London, we must remember that they will still be there when everyone has gone home, waiting to see whether the organisers of the games have proved as good as their word and delivered on their promises. The people opposing these plans feel that insufficient effort has been made to find alternative sites and there is concern locally that it could set a precedent for future events. I welcome the comments that the Minister has just made to give reassurances on that.
Will the Minister clarify the position on the future use of the 2006 Act? Is it the case that to use this site in the same way in the future, the same procedure will have to be used and Members of Parliament will again have the opportunity to bring the matter to the Floor of the House if there is strong opposition? Will she also give an assurance that the corporation of London will consult the local community and involve it in future decisions on this site? From the conversations that I have had, there is a feeling that the local community has been left out of those discussions.
Lyn Brown
Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the site being restored following its use as a muster site, I know from my time in local government how much argument there can be about whether there has been true restoration of green and open spaces. There are inevitably arguments about how much restoration will cost and to what standard it should be done. Given my fear that the £170,000 will be used to restore the site, rather than to enhance it, does my hon. Friend agree that the police are getting the site rather on the cheap and that they should up their cash so that local people really have something to invest in the site at a later date?
Clive Efford
I am not qualified to say what the true value of the site is and what a proper rent would be. However, I do not think that the £170,000 should be used to restore the site. It should be available as a legacy and be spent in consultation with local people. I was just about to make that very point.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
To be clear, we are talking about a large structure, stables for up to 54 horses, an area for dogs and parking for 375 vehicles on a site that has dense vegetation. Many of my constituents very much enjoy going to the Wanstead Flats. I hope the shadow Minister can understand why we are concerned about the restoration of the land, not just in its quality, but in its content. That is vital to the future of the site.
Clive Efford
Absolutely. People will need reassurance about the management of that process and should have some input into it to ensure that the standards are not diminished, that the site is restored to its former state and that the damage is not permanent. The only way to reassure the local community is to involve it in the process. I ask the Minister to clarify who will ultimately be responsible for overseeing this. Does she have any influence over the body that will be responsible so that she can ensure that it involves the local community?
I am grateful for the Minister’s unequivocal statement that the £170,000 is for the restoration of the site and not its repair. Will she guarantee that it will be spent in consultation with local people, who have demonstrated through their campaign a great love of and commitment to the site? From their experience of living near the site and visiting it regularly, they will have essential expertise and ideas on how the money can best be spent.
I hope the Minister agrees that when it comes to the legacy, it is issues such as this that will determine in the long run whether local people and communities in the Olympic boroughs feel that the Olympic games have been in the interests of ordinary people, their local communities and London. I hope that the Minister will do everything in her power to ensure that those communities are involved not just in planning the legacy on this side of the games, but in delivering it post the games.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I rise as Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee. The draft order and the explanatory document were laid before the House on 21 March under section 14(1) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The Government recommended that the draft order be subject to the affirmative procedure, under section 17 of the Act.
The draft order proposes an insertion into the Epping Forest Act 1878 that would allow the Metropolitan Police Authority to erect a muster, briefing and deployment centre on Wanstead Flats for up to 90 days. As we have heard in the debate, it will be quite a busy centre, with perhaps upwards of 3,500 police officers on certain days of the Olympics, providing security at the Stratford centre, the Olympic stadium and various other stadiums in that part of London.
The Home Office has reassured the Committee that the draft order is a temporary provision that constitutes no precedent, as we have heard from the Minister. It believes that it is the most efficient way to ensure the safety and security of the 2012 games, following a site selection process that found Wanstead Flats to be the most suitable location. Clearly, we are all concerned about security.
The Committee considered the draft order on 3 May. It concluded that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate and recommended that the draft order be approved. The report was agreed, but following a Division in which the Committee divided five to three. Under the procedures of the House, when there is a Division the matter has to be referred to the Floor of the House.
I think it fair to say that members of the Committee were sympathetic to local Members, particularly the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), who wanted to attend the Committee but could not under the Standing Orders of the House. He made representations himself to the Metropolitan Police Service and the consultation, and I hope that he will catch your eye in a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, to represent the views and concerns of his constituents. The debate provides an opportunity for local Members to make their concerns known.
As we have heard, a number of concerns were expressed in our report, such as the fact that the consultation document contained an avoidable error.
Lyn Brown
The hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. Does he not agree that given the state of the consultation, local people have a right to be concerned? Does he also accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that how and where the £170,000 will eventually be spent is a concern, given the botched consultation?
Mr Syms
There were clearly problems with the consultation, although it is true that, as the Minister said, there were only 31 replies. However, my Committee still found that it wished to approve the order, and I hope that the House will do so today. It seems to me that there would be a very good reason for local Members to write to the Home Office to put pressure on the Metropolitan police, and indeed the City of London corporation, so that there is some local involvement in how the £170,000 is spent. Once the site is repaired, if it is used by many of the hon. Lady’s constituents, they clearly ought to be consulted about what improvements are made. That seems to be a matter for another day, but I am glad that she has put her point on the record.
Although the difficulties with the consultation were unfortunate, the Committee concluded that that should not inhibit the progress of the draft order and did not alter the fact of the site’s utilisation. There was concern about the adequacy of the consultation, because the wording used in the consultation document was potentially deficient. Wanstead Flats was described as
“essential to ensuring the safety and security of the Games”,
which was a bit of an overstatement, even though it was clearly the preferable site.
The consultation was poorly conceived, which raised unnecessary worries among local residents, and took place nearly a year after Wanstead Flats was identified as the preferred site. It was limited in scope to rule out comments on alternative sites, and the document contained a factual error about the criminal sanction. The poor design and preparation of the consultation gave the impression that the process was a done deal, and that the legislative reform order was being used as the easiest way to reach the desired solution. That is one reason why we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today.
The fact that the Metropolitan Police Service is clear that it requires the site for the policing of the Olympics is a persuasive, but not conclusive, reason for the narrow terms of the consultation, as it has no statutory function in relation to the Olympics. Direct responsibility for the centre lies with the Metropolitan Police Service, which formulated the site criteria. Its assessment against those criteria found that Wanstead Flats was the only site to meet all of them. However, it would have been more appropriate if the consultation document had taken that assessment as a starting assumption that the Department expected to adopt unless persuaded otherwise.
As we have heard, the consultation generated 31 responses. The explanatory document dealt with them in a rather perfunctory manner and should have contained a more detailed response and information. Despite the concerns raised, the report concludes that the Department has “respectably arguable” grounds for believing that its consultation was adequate.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords reported on the draft order on 4 May. It, too, considered the Government’s consultation to have been “very poorly handled”, and drew this to the House’s attention, while concluding that the draft order was appropriate to proceed. As we have heard, a Hybrid Instruments Committee of the House of Lords considered the draft order on 23 May, concluding that there ought not to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee into any of the matters complained of by the eight petitioners.
There were genuine concerns, which is why the matter has been referred to the Floor of the House, so that local Members can raise those concerns. I am sure that there are further discussions to be had on another day about the details of the improvements to the site and the £170,000. However, I hope that the House concludes that the site in question is the most appropriate and will support my Committee’s decision by voting for this order today.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We have certainly had contrasting debates this afternoon. Let me start by saying—I will make my reasons clear—that I am speaking against the order. I do not support it in any way, and I do not want to mislead the Minister by putting her in the position of believing me somehow to be offering my support, because I am not. The order and the proposed creation of the muster centre have caused deep concern among my constituents. Wanstead Flats are a cherished local amenity and have been since 1878. They have actually been a local amenity for longer than that, but they have been recognised in statute for nearly 140 years, since 1878. The decision to build a police muster centre for the 2012 Olympics on a piece of much-cherished and precious piece of common land is simply wrong and should not have gone through in the first place.
Let me go back over some of the history of Epping forest and Wanstead Flats, which are partly in my constituency. Epping forest has been fought over for centuries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) mentioned. In the 18th and early 19th centuries there were fights over enclosure. Repeated attempts were made to enclose the land—as there were across the south-east of England—but the campaigns launched and fought by local people kept it as common land. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were battles over house building. As London rapidly spread eastwards into Essex, there were successful campaigns to maintain Epping forest—and, therefore, Wanstead Flats—as a local amenity. The Epping Forest Act 1878 was the result of those campaigns, and it has kept the area as an amenity for local people ever since.
The City of London corporation has long been seen as the defender of local people—ironic, in view of what has happened recently. It has fought battles against landowners and others to prevent encroachments on common land. That is why the City of London corporation was made the conservator of Epping forest. Over the past 150 years there have been more recent battles, particularly over Wanstead Flats. The 1878 Act states clearly that the land should remain open and undeveloped. On an 1882 visit to High Beach, another part of Epping forest, Queen Victoria declared Epping forest dedicated to the free use and enjoyment by the public “for all time”. However, the City of London, having had quite an honourable record, has now spinelessly lain down and abandoned its traditional defence of local people and the local amenity, and decided to go along with the creation of a police muster centre without even the use of primary legislation to do so. There was some house building there during the war, between 1939 and 1945, but that took place under the wartime emergency powers legislation, which is a crucial point. That was primary legislation, and as soon as hostilities ended, the emergency powers legislation lapsed and the 1878 Act came back into prominence. As a result, the houses were moved—as a matter of fact, I recently met somebody who lived in one of the houses on Wanstead Flats until about 1950-51.
I want to run through what I see as the major points in these proposals. As for the location, which has been raised before, the Home Office explanatory document says:
“It is a large site close to the Olympic Park and new Westfield shopping centre through which a large percentage of visitors to the Park will transit.”
However, the site is actually not particularly near either, so that argument starts to fall down. Many locals—certainly people in my constituency who live near the site—have asked why the muster centre cannot be built on the Olympic site itself. I have yet to hear a compelling argument in favour of the muster centre being established on Wanstead Flats, which are a considerable distance from the Olympic site and from the Westfield shopping centre.
I also have to raise the question of security. A number of local people have said that the police muster centre could be a target for terrorists. That is certainly a possibility, given that the plans for the centre are widely available online, whereas the specific plans for the Olympic site itself are rather more difficult to get to grips with.
As far as traffic is concerned, the route from the muster centre to the Olympics will be a circuitous one involving the use of the A12. The reserve plans, for use in certain situations, involve the use of fairly narrow roads such as Cann Hall road, and an increase in traffic could cause serious problems for police transport accessing the Olympic site. Mixed messages about transport have been given to the public in east London. An Olympic planning document states that there will be a traffic downturn during the games, although I cannot imagine what evidence that is based on. Local businesses, on the other hand, have been clearly told that they should expect a rise in the volume of traffic. Both cases seem to have been put forward as an argument for building the police muster centre, so I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me which is correct. Is there going to be a downturn or an upturn in traffic? How will that answer back up the argument for the creation of the muster centre?
On compensation, I have to say that £170,000 is a paltry amount to pay for the site. The rent on an equivalent brownfield site in the south-east of England for a period of 90 days would be in the region of £1.5 million. Wanstead Flats are obviously not a brownfield site, and an equivalent site would cost nearer to £3 million to rent for that period, yet the City of London corporation is perfectly content to say to the Metropolitan police, “We’ll take 170,000 quid.” That is an absolutely pathetic amount of compensation, especially as far as local people are concerned.
Stella Creasy
It is estimated that the land will be out of use for at least six months while the vegetation recovers, yet we will get no recompense for the lack of use of that common land for all that time.
John Cryer
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very good point. I will touch on that further in a minute.
Three consultations have taken place, as has been mentioned. One was a straightforward planning consultation conducted by Redbridge council, the local planning authority. The Metropolitan police consultation was one of the most bizarre that I have ever come across. It could be accessed only online, so none of my constituents could write a letter to the Metropolitan police. They had to make their submissions to the consultation online and it dealt only with specific questions. I believe that those factors alone should render that consultation null and void, because it was not a proper consultation. It was conducted entirely on the Metropolitan police’s terms, and it excluded an awful lot of people in my constituency who do not have access to the internet.
The Home Office consultation focused on section 34 of the Epping Forest Act 1878, which was a bizarre way to go about it, given that that section ceased to be in force in about 1882. I would have thought that someone might have spotted that. The section of the Act that the consultation should have dealt with is section 7, which I want to quote in full. It states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Conservators shall at all times keep Epping Forest uninclosed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public; and they shall by all lawful means prevent, resist and abate all future inclosures, encroachments, and buildings, and all attempts to inclose, encroach or build on any part thereof, or to appropriate or use the same, or the soil, timber, or road thereof, or any part thereof, for any purpose inconsistent with the objects of this Act.”
It is difficult to argue that that is in any way ambivalent. It is absolutely crystal clear: that building on Wanstead Flats or in Epping forest—the Act covers the whole of Epping forest—was intolerable to Parliament at the time.
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is being used for the first time to attack the central purpose of legislation from a past era. The 2006 Act has been used in the past to make what can now be seen as relatively minor amendments to legislation, but here it attacks the central thrust of the 1878 Act because it undermines section 7—the whole basis of the legislation. The purpose of the 2006 Act was to remove regulatory burdens, but in this case, it is about removing protection—protection afforded to the people of east London since 1878.
This should never have gone ahead and it has probably happened because of all the mistakes made during the consultations. It is almost certainly vulnerable to judicial review if anyone wanted to take up that case. There are, however, one or two guarantees that we need to secure from the Minister at the end of this debate.
For a start, we need a guarantee that the muster centre will be gone after 90 days. The original plan was for 120 days; it was then cut to 90 days, so we need an absolute guarantee that the police’s muster centre will last for no more than 90 days. Secondly, the Minister has already touched on this matter, but it needs to be made absolutely clear that this will not set any precedent. We are potentially amending primary legislation, which could be used in future court cases to set a precedent that might allow developers to build on Wanstead Flats. That needs to be dismissed absolutely so that in future court cases, today’s proceedings can be cited and developers told clearly that the Government had no intention of creating a precedent.
We also need guarantees that the order will be complied with to the letter and we need to know how the consultation on the disposal of the £170,000 will be conducted. Who will be consulted, who will run the consultation, and who will make the judgment that the land has been returned to its original use and its original state? I can feel an Adjournment debate coming on at some point in the future if we are not satisfied that all the criteria are being met. In the meantime, I leave it to the Minister to answer these questions.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
I begin by apologising for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of this debate. I was attempting to enter the House but the events occurring in the immediate area around Parliament right now have undemocratically deprived me of access. Given that we are debating a narrow order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the workings of democracy, so I will not do so or take up any more of the House’s time on the subject, but I do make the point that if Members of Parliament are denied access to the House of Commons through action taken by other people in the Westminster area, that is an affront to democracy. That is the best excuse I have ever had for being late!
Although this legislative reform order specifically refers to Epping forest and I represent the Epping Forest constituency, I must explain that the piece of land in question is not in my constituency, but almost entirely in that of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). It is he who has the duty to speak on behalf of local people, but I have every sympathy with the points he has made. Wanstead Flats are part of Epping forest, and although my Epping Forest constituency does not cover the whole of the forest geographically I am nevertheless always concerned for the protection of our wonderful and ancient forest. It is the duty of us all, and particularly those with an interest in this particular area of London and Essex, to be concerned for the preservation of Epping forest itself. Any threat to our forest is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead has waxed lyrical—and rightly so—about the dangers of enclosure and about the historical position that has seen the people of east London and Essex fight literally for centuries to ensure the preservation of our forest. As the hon. Gentleman has just explained, that culminated in the Epping Forest Act. All of us who are concerned with the forest and its preservation will never allow anything to happen, in the House or anywhere else, that would undermine its preservation. Enclosure was wicked and took resources away from people who needed them, but nowadays the threat is somewhat different: it is generally a threat of house building and overdevelopment on what ought to be one of the most important lungs of London. I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said in that regard.
In 1882 Queen Victoria visited High Beach, which is in my constituency, and only a couple of weeks ago I went to see the oak tree that she planted when she was there. Actually, that one died; another was planted two years later, and still stands as a permanent reminder of the importance of preserving the forest for the people. Queen Victoria said that she was dedicating
“this beautiful forest to the… enjoyment of my people”
for ever.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the forest must be preserved for the enjoyment of the people for ever, but I disagree with him slightly on another point. I feel able to support the order because it refers specifically to a 90-day period. If it were a general order allowing the forest to be used in any way in perpetuity, I would join the hon. Gentleman in expressing deep concern. Furthermore, the area in question constitutes only about 2% of Wanstead Flats and is already used for circuses, fireworks and other forms of enjoyment. It is therefore geographically suitable for the purpose for which it is to be used during those 90 days.
I hear what Opposition Members say about the payment being made by the Metropolitan police. As the Minister explained earlier—I was not present, but owing to the wonders of modern technology I was able to listen to her on a mobile phone—
Mrs Laing
Yes, it was. I am glad to be able to make that absolutely clear.
As the Minister explained, the Metropolitan police are making a significant payment to the conservators of Epping forest, in lieu of rent, and in addition to the payment for the restoration of the site. I hear what Opposition Members say about the amount involved, but the important point is that the entire amount paid by the Metropolitan police will be used for the enhancement of Wanstead Flats. Opposition Members argue that the amount should be greater, but I do not agree. Money paid by the Metropolitan police is taxpayers’ money, and if it is used for the enhancement of Wanstead Flats, it obviously cannot be used for the prevention of crime and the maintenance of law and order. There is a wider interest. It is absolutely right for an amount to be paid for the enhancement of Wanstead Flats, but it should not be larger than the amount that has already been negotiated.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady interpret the order as meaning that the restoration must be completed before the end of the 90-day period? My reading of it does not make it clear whether it means that the Metropolitan police must have left by then, or that the restoration must have taken place.
Mrs Laing
I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I agree that assurances must be given on a time scale within which the work on Wanstead Flats must be undertaken and completed. It is not for me to answer the detail of his question, however.
Although I am very concerned at all times for the preservation of Epping forest, I do trust the Committee that examined the order; I have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) has said, and I trust him and his Committee to have properly scrutinised this proposed small piece of legislation. On that basis as well, I can support the order.
Like all our other commonly owned property, Epping forest is there for the good of all the people, not just those who live in the immediate area of Wanstead Flats or the forest itself; and for the good of all the people, there is a wider public interest here. The Olympics are also for the good of all the people. My part of London and Essex will benefit enormously from the fact that an historic world event is being held on our doorstep. Therefore, we have to play our part in contributing to the effort for the Olympics for the temporary period that that effort is required. The conservators of the forest are trying to accommodate that wider public interest by making arrangements with the Metropolitan police for Wanstead Flats to be used for this temporary period, and I therefore feel that I can support the order.
Lynne Featherstone
I wish to respond briefly to some of the many concerns raised in this debate. I am grateful to all the Members who participated, and I appreciate that this proposal raises strong local feelings about the protection of what is a valuable open space in north-east London. I can assure the House that I would be adding my voice to that of the opponents of the proposal if I thought that this was an attempt in any way to destroy a much-loved open space or to weaken permanently the protections guaranteed by the Epping Forest Act 1878. It is neither of those things. This measure is constrained in scope and time, and it will leave all the provisions of the Act in place exactly as they were, while Wanstead Flats will be restored to its previous state.
The hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made speeches, and they understandably have a strong interest in the subject. They show great care for their constituents and the well-being of this much-loved space. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked if £170,000 was sufficient in lieu of rent. That figure was arrived at following discussions between the Metropolitan police and the City of London on what would constitute a reasonable payment for the temporary use of the land. The police are a public service, so they rightly should consider getting best value for money. It would be odd for London taxpayers to expect their local police to spend more money, not less.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked whether local people would be consulted on the nature of the structures put on Wanstead Flats. I am sure that the Metropolitan police will want to consult local people. He also asked whether local people will be consulted on the future of Wanstead Flats. That is a matter for the City of London corporation, but I can assure the House that the City has said it will consult local people on the use of that part of the £170,000 that is above and beyond what is required for the use of the land.
Lynne Featherstone
I do not have to hand an official answer per se, but I would be surprised if local people, the hon. Lady and other hon. Members did not raise this issue if the restoration were not done to what local people felt was the right standard and if the area had not been restored to the state in which it was found. The restoration is about that and the £170,000 is about enhancing the land above and beyond the state it was in when the police first came to use it.
Lyn Brown
Should we find difficulty in appealing against the state in which the flats have been left after the police have gone and after the restoration has taken place, to whom would we appeal? Will the hon. Lady write to me or have the appropriate Minister write to me on that point?
Lynne Featherstone
I am happy to do that, but may I suggest to the hon. Lady that photographs would be useful in that regard?
I was asked whether the legislative reform order procedure would be required if ever a proposal were made to put something similar on Wanstead Flats, and the answer is yes. As I explained during my opening remarks, we would have to go through all this all over again—there is no question about that.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked why the facility was not part of the local Olympic park itself. There will be facilities for the police and emergency services, including front-counter services, on the park, but we are talking about different things here, as there are operational reasons why a briefing centre needs to be a reasonable distance from the park. Obviously, if anything happened in the park, people would need to come from outside to deal with it.
Redbridge council considered the traffic problems as part of the planning application and was content that the proposals would not damage the local environment. Transport for London raised no objections, and the location was chosen, in part, to avoid potential traffic nuisance.
Clive Efford
Before the hon. Lady wanders too far from this subject, may I take her back to the issue of the site? It is not good enough just to say that the City of London corporation is responsible for restoring the site for the local community. After all, the previous Government and this Government have been all over this project of delivering the London Olympic games; no doubt, Secretaries of State and other Ministers will be posing for photographs with famous sports personalities and so on as they arrive. So it is not good enough to say that all this about restoring the site is a local skirmish between the local community and the City of London corporation. Does the Minister not think that the Government have a duty to ensure that the corporation is as good as its word and to represent local people who have these concerns when the site is being restored?
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Gentleman does the corporation a disservice, because its reputation is generally very good and people would often like it to take things over.
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Lady is shaking her head. I will not tempt her further and will write to hon. Members on this matter.
The traffic issue might be one of the things that worries local people the most. The Olympics will be taking place during the school summer holidays, so traffic levels will be lower than normal. The muster centre will cause some increase in the level of traffic, but all officers will arrive by coach, not in individual vehicles and, as I said, Transport for London is content that this proposal will not give rise to undue problems.
I was asked whether this order would set a precedent, and the answer is no. I am happy to put on the record the fact that should any future Government want to do something similar—I can see no reason why they would; that is outside the scope of imagination because the Olympics is the biggest event this country will be hosting—they would have to repeat this procedure and secure parliamentary approval all over again. I was asked how we can be sure that the police will be off the site after 90 days, and that they will have no legal power to be on the site beyond that point.
Stephen Timms
I want to pick up the point I raised with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). Does the order mean that the restoration must have happened within 90 days or simply that the police must have left within 90 days?
Lynne Featherstone
The police will have dismantled the muster, briefing and deployment centre, it will be off the site and they will have made the necessary restorations within the 90 days.
We are satisfied that the proposal is sound in principle and practice and all the statutory gatekeepers have broadly agreed with us. As I said, that includes the three parliamentary Committees as well as the local council, as the planning authority. The proposed LRO will ensure that the 2012 games are a safe and secure spectacle that can be enjoyed by all those involved, particularly those who have tickets.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Legislative Reform (Epping Forest) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.
Liverpool Passport Office
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter of great importance: the dismissal of 14 staff at the Liverpool passport office because of a major error made by their employer, the Identity and Passport Service, an executive agency of the Home Office.
I thank the Minister for meeting Liverpool MPs and arranging for us to discuss the situation with him and key staff. I also thank him for forwarding us a copy of the internal review into the issue, although it came complete with many redactions. The key facts are not disputed. On 21 March 2011, 14 permanent staff at Liverpool passport office were called to a hastily convened meeting to be told that what they thought was their permanent employment had abruptly ended. Four were dismissed immediately and 10 were switched to temporary employment, which has now finished for most of them.
The reason given was that the IPS had made a major error in awarding those staff permanent employment status from September 2008 when they were recruited under a friends and family scheme. The rules under which they were recruited meant they should only have been given temporary employment status for a maximum of two years. The employees were unaware of that fact and they had been given permanent status by their employer. The sudden dismissals without warning shocked and angered the staff, some of whom had left their previous employment to take up what they thought was a new career. Others had taken out loans or mortgages on the basis of their permanent employment. Indeed, the whole office remains upset.
I want to raise serious, still unresolved, issues about the conduct of the IPS in this sorry saga and the current status of the dismissed staff. There is considerable confusion about what happened. I have in my possession a very interesting letter dated 4 January 2011, written by Paul Luffman, head of employee relations at IPS, and addressed to Barry Forrester at the office of the Civil Service Commission. According to the letter, the IPS’s error was discovered in its recruitment audit at the end of March 2009. The Minister’s reply to my parliamentary question on 31 March 2011 contradicts that, stating that the error was discovered in March 2010.
Why did it take one or perhaps even two years to inform the staff that there was a question mark against their employment? According to a reply I received from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 27 April 2011, the IPS told the Civil Service Commission on 27 April 2010 that it was dealing with the situation, replacing the permanent contracts with temporary ones. In reality, they were doing no such thing. Who signed off that incorrect information? Who gave the wrong information to Ministers? When did the Minister discover that the information was wrong?
It also appears that the recruitment audit file was not returned to the Liverpool office as it should have been; it was sent to the Peterborough office and destroyed. Paul Luffman’s letter asks the civil service commissioners if there were any alternatives to terminating the 14 permanent employment contracts, and that indeed is the key question. I understand that the letter was never dispatched. Why?
It is alleged that the letter was never dispatched because of concerns that it would embarrass David Normington, then permanent secretary at the Home Office and now first civil service commissioner and commissioner for public appointments. Is that correct? It is worth noting that David Normington would be in a difficult position to adjudicate the current situation.
Instead of the 14 Liverpool staff being informed of their problem at a time when more alternative jobs were available, they became unemployed two years later, when job opportunities were decreasing and educational and training courses were being curtailed.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, Denise Wheatcroft, who is 58 years old and the oldest of the group of 14 people, took the post with the Identity and Passport Service because she thought that it would guarantee her employment until her retirement. She now finds herself without a job aged 58. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Denise had been informed of the situation when it was discovered, and in advance of the current situation, given the cuts that are impacting on Liverpool in particular, she would have been in a much better situation than she is today?
Mrs Ellman
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and certainly agree. Indeed, she provides an example of the human cost of what has happened in Liverpool.
It has been said that the decision to dismiss the 14 employees was taken on the basis of “legal advice”, and it has even been claimed that to maintain their employment would have been “illegal”. I challenge that. I have seen no evidence that any formal legal advice was sought or obtained, and Paul Luffman’s letter seeking such advice was never sent.
Telephone conversations and personal discussions, which I am told took place, do not constitute formal legal advice; nor is there any record of the questions to which any verbal advice responded. The suggestion of “illegality” in allowing those employees to continue with the permanent status that they were awarded is grossly misleading and an attempt to divert attention from what has happened and from the culpability of those who are responsible.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate about a running grievance that affects a number of our constituents. Does she agree that, regardless of the recruitment method and whatever flaws it had, there is no real evidence that it would be illegal to rectify the situation, so the Department and, by extension, Ministers have a real opportunity to redress a terrible example of bad faith on the part of the Department?
Mrs Ellman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and certainly agree. During the course of my contribution, I will suggest what I think needs to be done to redress the situation.
It is possible that, given the circumstances in which the permanent employment status was awarded, continuing with it was contrary to an interpretation of current departmental rules, but that is a very different proposition from any notion that it was illegal. We are, indeed, discussing a unique situation, and it required an imaginative and flexible approach. In any case, advisers advise, Ministers and their staff are responsible for decisions and the advice itself is influenced by the question posed. Where is the instruction from the Civil Service Commission to dismiss the 14 staff? Does such written instruction exist? If so, will the Minister publish both question and answer?
Correspondence from the then Liverpool regional manager in June 2010 refers to advice that the Civil Service Commission could make an exception to permit these employees to be made permanent staff. Annexe E of the internal review quotes the human resources business partner as stating:
“The Civil Service Commissioners recruitment principles do allow for some exceptions—I believe there could be a small opportunity to attempt these”.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this important issue to the House. I should like to support the points she is making and add that given that this is a unique and extreme situation with many missing parts, perhaps the Minister could look at it again with fresh eyes.
Mrs Ellman
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and agree with everything she says.
I want to return to the question of whether there was another way of dealing with the matter. I have quoted the views expressed by the Liverpool office regional manager in June 2010, and I would now like to refer to Paul Luffman’s letter—the letter that was never sent from the Department to the Civil Service Commission. In referring to what has happened and what should be done about it, it says:
“I would like to discuss this directly and in detail with the Civil Service Commissioners to see whether IPS is able to use one of the exceptions to fair and open recruitment, before resorting to withdrawal of the contracts. I understand that the civil service commissioners recruitment principles do allow for some exceptions to fair and open recruitment, and I believe there could be an opportunity to attempt to use these (albeit retrospectively) to rectify the situation.”
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) regarding the importance of this issue. Given the additional information that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) has provided to the House, and the cross-party unity that seems to have broken out, does she agree that it is not good enough for the Minister simply to bury his head in the sand, and that the first thing that should happen is for him to reinstate the Liverpool 14?
Mrs Ellman
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution; I certainly agree with him. Indeed, I will make the same request before I conclude my remarks.
We see from the written information that we have to hand that there was the possibility of an alternative way of dealing with the IPS’s grave error with regard to these employees, yet it appears that it was not properly pursued, and that for some bizarre and unknown reason the letter written by the Department to the civil service commissioners asking that the matter be looked at was not posted. That has to be one of the great mysteries in all this sorry episode.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I join colleagues on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on her tenacity in uncovering the information that she is sharing with the House. My constituent, Christina O’Brien, who is one of those affected, will be encouraged by what she has discovered. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to reconsider this matter so that we can see these 14 hard-working staff re-employed at the passport office?
Mrs Ellman
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I will certainly do as he requests. Fourteen people are unemployed as a direct consequence of a major error made by the IPS—an error that it failed to address constructively. They are the victims of an unacceptable catalogue of events.
The internal review document that I have seen contains many redactions at critical points. That is why it is not a proper and satisfactory explanation of what went wrong and why. Perhaps it is time for an external inquiry if matters cannot be put right. To add insult to injury, I understand that a business case has been submitted for the imminent recruitment of staff at the Liverpool passport office on the same or similar grades as those of the dismissed employees. It seems that the jobs are still required, although the 14 people who were doing them satisfactorily were dismissed. In those circumstances, I must press the Minister. Can the dismissed workers have priority consideration for those posts, which I understand are about to be part of a recruitment drive?
A June 2010 memo from the Liverpool regional manager states:
“Surely we have a duty of care to those who are in this position through no fault of their own.”
No duty of care was shown by IPS. The key questions on what has happened and why the matter has not been rectified remain unanswered. In those circumstances, and given all the information I have presented today, and the contributions of my colleagues on both sides of the House, I call for the reinstatement of the 14 dismissed workers as a matter of natural justice.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) naturally takes an extremely keen interest in the future of the passport office and its staff, and I recognise the sentiments that she and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed.
The hon. Lady may be aware, although she did not mention it in her speech, that an employment tribunal hearing date for six of the people involved has been fixed in Liverpool for 30 September. I hope that she and the House will appreciate that, in view of that pending action, I am unable to comment on matters of legal interpretation, as they will be for the tribunal to determine. She and I, and others, have had discussions about the legal interpretations, and she gave powerful views on them, but as I said, I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on matters that are for the impending tribunal to determine.
The hon. Lady made a number of points and revealed a number of things. She said that she had got hold of an e-mail from, I believe, 2009. She will understand that I have had no access to that, not least because it was sent under a previous Administration. If she wishes to provide that to me, I will investigate and get fully involved in seeing what it tells us.
The hon. Lady made a powerful point about the question that could be asked to the commissioners. She will remember that at our recent meeting, she made the perfectly reasonable point that she wished to ask questions of the commissioners. I asked her to send me her question on the interpretation of the advice, and said that I would be happy to put it to the First Civil Service Commissioner. I have not received that question, but my offer still stands. If she or any of the hon. Members who were at that meeting wish to send me the question that they would like to ask the Civil Service Commission, I would be more than happy to ask it.
Mrs Ellman
I have written to the Minister recently on the legality of the situation. Those matters should be addressed to the commissioners. However, he previously remarked that he would not have had access to information given under the previous Administration. I would be most surprised if the civil service does not make all information available to Ministers, including information that existed under previous Administrations. This not a party matter, and surely the civil service deals with all information regardless of who is in government.
Damian Green
Of course this is not a party matter, but Governments do not have access to the papers of previous Governments—that is a long-standing rule. Let us not go into the constitutional niceties, though. It is a fact that I have not seen this e-mail that the hon. Lady mentioned. If she wishes to send it to me or hand it to me at the end of the debate, I will happily take it away and look at it. She will be aware that the IPS has offered its sincere regrets to the individuals involved, and I can only add my apologies for the distress that resulted from this operational error, which, as she said, took place under a previous Administration. The IPS has clearly apologised.
Steve Rotheram
I accept that this problem was not of the Minister’s making, but it is a problem for him to act on. It is not good enough to hide behind the legalities and legal niceties. It is a unique set of circumstances, and I do not believe that reinstating these 14 people from the passport office would set an undue precedent. Even before the tribunal sits, he should use his powers to right this wrong.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a legal decision, but a legal process is in action under the tribunal, and what he calls hiding behind legal niceties I would call obeying the law, which it is a good idea for Ministers to do.
Mr George Howarth
The Minister will know that, while a tribunal is pending, it is open to any employer to review the situation, decide that it is not worth proceeding to a tribunal and try to rectify the situation by their own actions. If he wanted to be bold, he could overrule what his officials are telling him and say, “Look, there is a moral case here.” It has been put effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and in the light of what she said, I think that we should resolve this situation before the tribunal.
Damian Green
I am conscious of the strong feelings involved, and as I said, I would be delighted to look at the new information that she has revealed to the House this afternoon.
The hon. Lady made a number of other legal points. As she will be aware, the civil service rules do not permit exceptions to enable permanent appointment under this type of system, although they can enable the extension of fixed-term contracts up to a maximum period of two years. She mentioned the letter from Paul Luffman, which was indeed a draft letter that was never sent. It was not sent to the commissioners because the Home Office human resources team were dealing directly with the commissioners, not the IPS.
I want to put on record what happened. The core of the problem sits with an error made by the Liverpool passport office in September 2008 in preparation for the peak demand period starting in March 2009. At that time, the Liverpool office ran a recruitment exercise using friends and families as a candidate-attraction method. The IPS issues more than 5 million passports each year and demand is subject to seasonal peaks. It manages the seasonal variations through the use of flexible employee deployment and through a variety of employee contracts. These contracts include full-time, part-time and part-year appointments and will occasionally include the appointment of staff on fixed-term or casual contracts.
For a number of years, the IPS has, in areas of the country where there are challenges for the permanent recruitment and retention of lower graded staff, used a localised process for the recruitment of fixed-term appointment or casual staff. In this case, short-term opportunities were advertised through the existing network of IPS staff. The recruitment process is closed, which means that the job opportunities are not advertised publicly and therefore other potential candidates are not given access to information about the opportunities available. However, those candidates given the information are selected fairly and are required to demonstrate appropriate levels of competence and behaviours through an application and interview. They are also subject to normal referencing procedures.
Posts advertised under the friends and family scheme should be clearly described as either casual or fixed-term appointments. By definition, friends and family schemes are not fair and open campaigns and, under the civil service Order in Council, cannot result in a permanent appointment to the civil service. Posts advertised and appointed in this way can result only in fixed-term or casual appointments for a maximum of two years. IPS works to defined policies for deploying and recruiting staff. Since 2005, the management and administration of IPS recruitment has been overseen by the IPS central resourcing team in human resources at its headquarters in London. The error made by Liverpool passport office in 2008 and 2009 was that it employed those 14 staff on a permanent basis. The recruitment had not been authorised by IPS’s head of resourcing and the Liverpool office had not described the scheme as falling under the friends and family provisions. This resulted in a list of candidates being subsequently employed on permanent civil service contracts by mistake.
In March 2010, the IPS central resourcing team carried out a routine audit of IPS external recruitment. The audit identified concern about the friends and family recruitment scheme that was adopted at the Liverpool office in 2008 to employ staff in 2009. The concern primarily arose from the fact that staff had been permanently recruited without any open competition or advertisement of the vacancies. IPS considered that the civil service Order in Council had been contravened on the grounds that permanent contracts had been agreed through a process that was not subject to open competition. In view of the contravention, IPS looked to withdraw the permanent contracts and place the individuals involved on fixed-term contracts.
The following month, April 2010, IPS notified the civil service commissioners that a total of 14 permanent contracts were being withdrawn and replaced by fixed-term appointments of under two years. However, that action was not taken immediately. Instead, IPS explored whether alternative approaches existed that could alleviate the potential impact on the staff employed. That process was protracted but IPS was unable to find new evidence to support any other approach. It was not until February 2011 that the final decision was taken to cease the permanent contracts. Having reached that decision, IPS briefed the local senior management team and national trade union representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union. The PCS local branch was briefed on 16 March 2011 to allow employee representatives time to prepare and consider an appropriate response. On 21 March 2011, the decision to dismiss the affected staff was carried out. The 14 staff affected, still in employment, had their permanent employment contracts terminated immediately and four of those staff, who had already completed two years’ service, by exception were offered a five-week paid notice period. The remaining 10 staff were offered and accepted fixed-term contracts of up to two years, including time already served. Of those 10 fixed-term contracts, three were scheduled to end on 14 June 2011, two on 31 August 2011 and five on 30 September 2011.
Stephen Twigg
The Minister has just described the sequence of events. Does he agree that one of the most disturbing features of this saga is that the problem was identified almost a year before the directly affected employees were informed? Would it not, with the benefit of hindsight, have been a great deal fairer for the employees concerned to have been advised that there might be an issue as soon as it came to light? Frankly, the situation in terms of finding other jobs, especially in the public sector, was a lot rosier in April 2010 than it is now.
Damian Green
As I have just said, the reason for the delay was precisely because the IPS management were searching desperately for ways to avoid where we have come to. It was done with the best of intentions, but I appreciate the power of the hon. Gentleman’s argument.
So far, four staff have elected to leave before their scheduled end date and four are still in post. Six of the staff who have left have found jobs elsewhere. Discussions with individual staff about potential compensation payments commenced in the week starting 20 June 2011. That is one of the matters that was discussed when I met hon. Members a few weeks ago. Those discussions remain under way and it is hoped that agreement about a suitable level of compensation can be reached. Those discussions will continue ahead of the tribunal hearing of 30 September.
At my meeting on 8 June with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and others, the question was raised of whether the people affected would be guaranteed an interview if any new recruitment was planned at the Liverpool office. IPS is unable, for legal reasons, to offer a guaranteed interview. However, it is open for the people involved to apply for posts under any future recruitment campaigns, and their experience of the work and the skills and competencies would be taken into account as relevant factors in considering any application.
A detailed review of what has happened and the lessons to be learned was immediately commissioned and reported in April 2011. The review has been shared with the staff, the unions, the hon. Lady and other interested Members. It is of course a matter for the individual staff concerned to take the matter further. As I said, six of them have submitted employment tribunal papers. It may well be that others choose to follow that approach. That is for them to decide, but it is important for me to acknowledge here that the people involved did a good job for IPS. We should make it clear that they were not asked to leave because they were inefficient or were unable to their job. We should also make it clear that IPS is engaging with all the people involved to determine whether we can reach an equitable settlement that will bring the matter to an earlier conclusion and reduce any further impact on those involved.
As I said at the outset, this matter arose due to an unfortunate error in 2008 at the Liverpool passport office. The review, which reported earlier this year, identified that a number of practical improvements have been implemented. A key change is that the recruitment of any staff is subject to central processing, which means that although local interviews and managing of the process take place, it will be a matter for the IPS central resourcing team formally to agree and approve any new appointments and the recruitment methodology to support them. Staff cannot be put on the payroll without that process having been completed. That is a key processing change and, as part of the next generation of human resources expertise in IPS, it will allow access to the right level of expertise, ensure that the right governance arrangements are in place and ensure that decisions are legally compliant. That has now been in place for over a year.
IPS has admitted that it failed to complete the right processes in 2008 and 2009, and it has taken steps to recover the situation. I appreciate that 14 people consider, rightly, that they have been disadvantaged in the whole process, but I can only emphasise again that the cancellation of their contracts is not a reflection of their ability or their contribution. Human resource services across government have to meet exacting standards and while IPS’s actions in this case have clearly had a serious detrimental impact on the individuals involved, I believe that it was an isolated error and that IPS has taken the right steps to avoid the situation being repeated.
IPS is looking to agree an equitable settlement with the people involved, and I would welcome information and support from the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who are, perfectly rightly, concerned about their constituents and who have engaged on the issue to ensure that we can bring the matter to as speedy a conclusion as possible, not least and most importantly for the benefit of their constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
(13 years, 7 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
Co-operatives and Mutuality
(13 years, 7 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
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Amess, and I welcome you to the Chair. I think that this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate that you have presided over. I suspect that this debate will not be the most difficult debate that you will ever have to adjudicate on. All the same, I am sure that you will handle whatever comes up in your normal equitable and even-handed manner.
Before I go into the substance of my remarks, I should declare an interest. Like other Members here in Westminster Hall today, I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. Indeed, prior to entering the House, I was employed for 18 years by the co-operative movement. I will not detain Members today with a résumé of those 18 years working in the movement, but there are obviously a number of things from my past experience that I want to draw on.
Before I do that, I should thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this particular debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and I originally asked for it because we are in co-operatives fortnight, which runs from 27 June to 9 July, and therefore it seemed appropriate that we used this particular window of opportunity to have a debate that would highlight the contribution that the co-operative movement makes at this time, not only to the total economy but to thinking in community and Government policy circles. It is also an opportunity to test and if necessary challenge the Government on those areas of their policy that they say are supportive of co-operatives, to get some idea of what progress is being made.
I will start off with a somewhat philosophical question, “What is a co-op?” Perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, there would have been a fairly simple response to that question—“It is a company registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.” At that time, one’s local Co-op store would immediately come to mind and I suspect that Members of my generation, if not perhaps newer Members, can easily quote their parents’ divvy number. It was something indelibly etched on our memories.
Of late, however, the term “co-operative” has come to embrace a number of corporate structures, including the mutual building society and other structures in the financial mutual sector, friendly societies and in some cases employee share-ownership companies. Not all of those have a traditional co-operative structure but the values that underpin them are very similar in each case to those of the co-operatives and they also have certain basic principles in common with co-operatives. They are, of course, democratic ownership and participation; one member, one vote; and the reinvestment of surpluses. These organisations are intended to make profits, but it is the distribution and allocation of those profits that distinguish them from other forms of proprietary corporate structures. They may also demonstrate a higher commitment to what is measured as “ethical trading”, value for money and a certain level of community involvement, although they do not necessarily demonstrate those things. In general, however, those are the sort of principles and values that underpin the different sorts of corporate models that we loosely term as “co-operative”.
It is probably fair to say that for a long period of time co-operatives were somehow stereotyped as a slightly idealistic and not necessarily appropriate business model to survive in the highly competitive capitalist world that we now have. Crucially, however, if we go back to the roots of both the co-operative and mutual sectors, we realise that these forms of organisations did not arise out of an idealistic or visionary approach. Essentially, they arose out of groups of people trying to get out of a particular problem and realising that it was only through self-help and working together that they could actually do so.
I was particularly struck by two quotes in a pamphlet by Cliff Mills on mutual organisations. The first is:
“The different types of traditional mutual business (co-operative societies, building societies, friendly societies, mutual insurers) operated in different ways, but the underlying reason for existence–self-help–was the common theme.”
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
On that specific point, Members of Parliament will recall the example of the Tredegar Medical Aid Society, in which my grandfather was very proud to serve and which Aneurin Bevan said was the forerunner idea for him in establishing the national health service. It was a programme in which all the miners in Tredegar contributed a sum and then elected the doctors who would offer services to all of that mining community in the absence of any sort of state provision of health care.
Mr Bailey
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) for bringing that issue to my attention. I was not familiar with that society but it is a very good example of the values and qualities that I have been describing as the foundation of the co-operative movement and of the subsequent development of our public policy.
In his pamphlet, Cliff Mills goes on to say that mutuality
“was the response of people with often desperate needs”—
as the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated—
“to find a solution for themselves and others in their community. It was based on self interest (the need to provide for me and my family), not philanthropy or charity; but—”
and now Cliff Mills comes to the crucial point—
“the genius of mutuality was that it captured that self-interest, and by channelling it through collective self-help, was able to produce an economically sustainable business.”
As I say, that is the crucial thing about the co-operative movement and the variety of business models that it incorporates. As Cliff Mills says, the movement is “channelling” self-help, but doing so in a way that enables someone to advance themselves or to deliver the service or product that they want to deliver in a way that can compete with the wider and less idealistic commercial world that they have to exist in.
If we look at the formation of the traditional co-operative movement—via the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844, and the different mutual building societies and insurance companies—all the bodies within it were rooted in that idea of self-help and they all had to survive in a very difficult external commercial environment. Indeed, the co-operative movement, which I have more experience of than other movements, was formed in the 1840s because its members needed good-quality foodstuffs, which they could not get through local private traders, and at the sort of prices that they could afford, which again were often not available. In addition, they needed to be able to use any surpluses that came from trading to reinvest in their own communities and their businesses, both to strengthen those businesses and to provide education and other help for the communities that they lived in.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The setting up of the co-operative movements was perhaps not as utilitarian as he suggests. A key aspect of the miners’ welfare halls in my constituency was libraries and the ambition of self-advancement, and we might have to return to a similar system in the future.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Further to the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), it would be a poor history that did not include the role of Robert Owen in this field. The Robert Owen Society in Herefordshire does an enormous amount of work, representing the wide-ranging approach to human well-being of which, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) says, the Rochdale Pioneers were acutely aware.
Mr Bailey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Robert Owen was of course the pioneer of these ideas, and although he did not succeed in his own lifetime, many of his ideas were incorporated during the formation of the co-operative movement in the 1840s through the Rochdale Pioneers.
The co-operative movement took a knock in the post-war era. The traditional retail societies lost an enormous amount of their market share to the emerging supermarket chains, and their structure found it difficult to adapt. Equally, in the ’80s and early ’90s, many building societies—the traditional mutual sector—fell prey to the prevailing philosophy of privatisation and the free market economy, and the conventional wisdom was that co-operative principles were somehow anachronistic and inappropriate to survival in what was then a highly capitalistic and business-orientated world.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
As I listen to the hon. Gentleman, it strikes me that co-operatives are almost inherently part of private enterprise and the free market. Can he help me to understand, therefore, why those things are in opposition? I just do not see it that way.
Mr Bailey
The crucial difference is that the co-operative and mutual movement exists for the benefit of the participating consumer-members or worker-members. In the free market, the wider movement is the proprietary sector, with outside investors investing in, taking profits out of, and controlling the businesses. That is the crucial structural distinction, and there is also a huge difference in values and ethos.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that for many years there was confusion about what “the third sector” meant. It was often taken to mean the voluntary sector, but the third sector of the economy was always seen as the co-operative sector, a business sector aiming to be profitable but having, as he has indicated, a wider set of values than merely profit as the driver behind its engagement and success.
Mr Bailey
One thing that attracted me to work in the co-operative movement for so many years was that as a believer both in the market and the need to succeed in it, and in certain values, I felt that it was a model in which successful businesses could reconcile the two. That is clearly demonstrated, and is part and parcel of the reasons for today’s debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I hope that we are not bracketing co-operatives in the third sector; they work in the private and public sectors as well. They speak to all of our economy, and if we see them in that way we are much more likely to have an ambitious agenda for them.
Mr Bailey
The Minister can rest assured that I was going to come on to demonstrate the range of businesses in the co-operative sector. One problem that the mutual and co-operative sectors had in the ’80s and ’90s was that they failed to highlight sufficiently their difference, and a minority of co-operatives did not appear to be effective business models—being more charitable, for example—with the result that movement as a whole suffered.
Jonathan Evans
It would be unwise to leave the subject of the 1980s without saying that there were well run mutuals in the sector, which focused on customers’ experience and recognised their role. Others, such as Equitable Life, might historically have been mutuals, but did not appear to recognise that and behaved, in a sense, like private companies. That was also a factor in some change being necessary.
Mr Bailey
I agree up to a point. Some mutuals certainly embraced or sustained the principles of mutuality more than others, but in the ’80s and ’90s the great majority of the public would have been unable to distinguish between a building society and a bank—indeed, I have occasionally heard Ministers and shadow Ministers confuse them in the Chamber. That was a reflection of the mutual movement’s failure to highlight sufficiently its difference and market it successfully, but much has changed in that respect in the past few years.
The traditional co-operative retail movement has in many ways gone back to its roots, and has successfully reinvented itself as a community-based consumer co-operative. That is reflected in the huge increase in turnover and profitability, with turnover in the sector increasing by 4.4% in the past year. At a time when the economy has grown by only 1.3%, that is a very creditable performance. In 2008, the increase was 21%, and by anyone’s standards that was an incredibly difficult time in retailing. However, the building society movement emerged, not completely unscathed because it took some hits—we unfortunately saw the demise of the Dunfermline building society—but relatively so, compared with the proprietary banks, and in no way was it a contributory factor to the banking problems. A lot of credit for that goes to the largest national co-operative—the Co-operative Group—but credit also goes to a number of other co-operative societies. One of my two local societies, the Midcounties, increased its profits last year from just less than £20 million to £26 million, and the Midlands—I have to be careful not to mention one and not the other—increased its profits from £22 million to £26 million. Such societies have demonstrated that this form of organisation can compete and thrive in even the most difficult of climates.
It is fair to say that the success and potential of that model is now recognised by all political parties. To return to the point that the Minister raised, the areas where co-operatives and mutual organisations are thriving include traditional consumer co-ops; worker co-ops, whether in service delivery, conventional trading or business co-ops; and employee-owned businesses. The John Lewis Partnership is perhaps the most well known, but many others are successful as well. They include agricultural, fishing and housing co-ops and football supporters’ trusts, and rugby supporters’ trusts are being considered as a model for other sporting clubs. Financial co-ops include credit unions, building societies and mutual insurers. I am sure that I have missed quite a few, but no doubt people will remind me of them during the course of this debate. That list is a clear demonstration of the model’s relevance to a range of public services and business activities.
The Government have embraced the approach. The pathfinder programme is designed to encourage co-operative models in the delivery of public services, and we are waiting on the “Open Public Services” White Paper, which will give us an opportunity to debate where Government policy in that area is going.
Although I generally welcome the Government’s recognition of co-operatives and mutuals, I will issue one or two words of warning. First, the essence of mutuals and co-operatives throughout their history is that the individuals forming them must have a desire to make them a success; we cannot just legislate for them, or point to a group of people and say, “You will work in a co-operative manner.” The desire is absolutely essential. Similarly, we cannot just look at a failing business and say, “Become a co-operative and you will succeed.” That will not happen. If the business model is wrong, just putting it into mutual ownership will not do. Particularly in the context of the debate on Post Office and Royal Mail, those issues have not yet been fully explored. We will certainly seek to do so, and other hon. Members here might wish to comment on them.
There are a range of potential opportunities—some might say potential pitfalls—for co-operative development. The obvious and most public one, of course, is the re-mutualisation of Northern Rock. I know that the movement feels that if it can be done, it will be an almost iconic recognition of the renaissance of mutuality and its relevance, and it intends to probe the Government on what they consider the prospects to be. I am disappointed that the previous Government’s commitment to British Waterways has not been upheld. Again, I would welcome hearing the Government thinking on that. The removal of the funds available for the formation of community pubs is also disappointing. However, I do not mention those things in a churlish way. They are matters that we need to debate. Hon. Members from various parties might feel that it is possible to pursue them and join others intent on promoting the co-operative agenda to achieve them.
Jesse Norman
I have considered closely the possibility of re-mutualising Northern Rock. I could not get over the question of how to handle an enormous vendor note —the vendor financing from the Government to the employees—to be paid out over 10 or 20 years. That has proven an insuperable practical burden, as far as I can see. I welcome other thoughts on the matter. However, I am sure that we all share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration that the mutual ethos should return to the financial sector.
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps I should have recognised earlier the work that he has done as chairman of the all-party group on employee ownership. I held the same position in a previous incarnation. He has done a good job, and I accept that he is intent on resolving some of the problems and issues that arise from the Northern Rock situation.
I will finish, as I know that many people want to raise specific interests during this debate. To return to where I started, co-operatives and mutuals are a form of self-help that is relevant in a range of business activities and public services. It has been clearly demonstrated that their impact on the economy is increasing and that public support for them is improving. Their membership is also rising; I think that nearly 13 million people in this country are now members of one form of co-operative or another. This debate will play a small part in raising awareness, assembling ideas and testing the Government to see how deep their commitment is and how they can take the agenda forward.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
We have until 5.30 for this debate. At 5 o’clock I shall call Mr Gareth Thomas, who will speak for 10 minutes, the Minister, who will speak for 15 minutes, and Mr Adrian Bailey, who will sum up for five minutes. There are 13 potential speakers. Obviously, I want to call everyone, so I hope that hon. Members will co-operate and share the time. I will call first those colleagues who wrote to the Speaker.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important and timely debate, which coincides with co-operatives fortnight. I will talk about financial mutuals, particularly credit unions. This is a promising time for financial mutuals, in the wake of the banking crisis and against the backdrop of the big society agenda and the emphasis on debt affordability at all levels.
Financial mutuals remain large, in spite of what has happened over the past couple of decades, and still serve one in three of the population through building societies, mutual insurers and friendly societies, co-operative financial services and credit unions. Credit unions, sadly, come at the bottom of that list, because it is ordered by number of members or customers or by assets under management. If the list were ordered by number of individual institutions, credit unions would come at the top. There are 48 building societies in the UK, with more than £300 billion in assets. The number of credit unions is about 10 times higher, at 426, but they hold assets of less than £1 billion.
Nevertheless, despite their relatively small size, credit unions in this country have been growing rapidly. Over the past 20 years, from 1990 to 2010, the number of members has grown from 54,000 to 800,000 and assets from £17 million to £750 million. However, there is an awfully long way to go. Compared with other countries such as the United States, Ireland, Australia and elsewhere, the penetration of credit unions among the UK population is small indeed. I see that as an opportunity rather than a problem.
Credit unions are traditionally mutuals owned by their members, who are savers and shareholders, and managed or overseen by a board of directors elected on the traditional one-member, one-vote basis. Critically, the interest rate at which they can lend is capped. It is about the only part of the financial sector that has such a cap. Historically, it was 12.7%, but it is now 27%. That still means, however, that anybody borrowing from a credit union knows that they are getting their loan at a reasonable rate. It is very important, because the market in which they operate features many other operators that charge a good deal more.
Payday lenders are a part of the financial market that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) might mention later. They represent an area of growth in the market and have received a lot of attention, but there are plenty of others. Home credits, for example, are a much larger part of the sub-prime market, have been around in this country for much longer and serve many more customers. Other parts of the market may not appear to have the same sky-high rates of interest, but they end up being just as bad a deal in terms of their overall charging structure. I am thinking in particular of some rent-to-own operators.
There are some brilliant opportunities for credit unions at the moment, and some strong and encouraging news from the Government, particularly the £73 million that they are making available in the modernisation fund for credit unions. Many areas of modernisation need to be looked at, but I think that what the sector finds most exciting is the development of the back-office platform and the potential to interface with the Post Office. That opens huge opportunities to bring credit union services to a much larger part of the population and for them to be much more visible in the marketplace.
Another critical piece of the jigsaw is the legislative reform order, for which the credit union sector has been waiting for some time. The issue has straddled the change in Government and we hope that it can now progress with great speed. It will enable critical changes in the sector to facilitate its further development. First, it will soften the common bond requirement—which relates to where someone lives or works, who they work for, or which organisation they are a member of—to become a member of a credit union. Secondly, it will enable credit unions to offer services not just to individuals, as is the case at present, but to organisations, particularly charities and voluntary organisations, although it might also apply to firms. Thirdly, it will enable credit unions to offer a fixed rate of interest to savers, if they wish. That will make them more attractive and enable them to provide a better range of financial services.
There are other issues. The sector looks to Government for a proportionate approach to regulation. They are, relatively speaking, only little and have not had the problems that the big banks had during the crisis. They want an appropriate level of regulation that matches their size and role.
There are also new opportunities, such as the big society bank, which is a wholesale bank that needs organisations on the ground to administer its funds. I am sure that community development finance institutions will play a big part in that, as will credit unions, in a post-legislative reform order world. Not all credit unions will find that appropriate, but some of them may. Credit unions could also play a role with the son or daughter of the social fund, in its new, evolved form. Local authorities will be more responsible for elements of that. They do not have a long history of dealing with crisis loans and so on, but their local credit unions could help them in that regard.
Looking to the future, I think there will be some blurring of the exact lines between credit unions, CDFIs, social lenders and microfinance institutions. It would be good to see the development of more microfinance institutions of one sort or another in this country, as well as internationally. Technology may also help us to broaden the boundaries of credit unions and to bring more people in, particularly as savers, which will allow them to expand their business. That is also applicable to microfinance and, eventually, to retail investors in social impact bonds.
Two key developments will enable that. They might involve a role for Government, but they might not—they might come from entirely different parts of the social finance sector. The first is the development of a social ISA, which I wrote about some years ago in a Bow Group pamphlet on credit unions and increasing the capitalisation available for them. Others have written about similar things in relation to all sorts of other projects. It sounds very much like an idea whose time has now come, to enable ordinary retail investors to put their money behind socially worthwhile projects and accept a slightly lower financial return as a result.
Steve Baker
My hon. Friend has mentioned returns, but at the moment the banking system seems to be failing both savers and entrepreneurs simultaneously. I wonder whether such projects might give a better return to savers while benefiting entrepreneurs.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that fine point. In fact, it is true now, to some extent, that people will get a better return through a dividend from some credit unions than they would through some high street bank savings accounts. It is also possible to say that interest rates for savings accounts in general are so low that it does not make a whole lot of difference whether one gets a return that is much lower—credit union returns have the benefit of not changing after the first six months and of not having complicated introductory marketing deals. The general principle that I am trying to outline is that there are many people who, for a proportion of their savings, would be happy to accept, on average, a slightly lower cash return, because they know that their cash will be doing something worth while, either in their local area or, as is the case with some people, in supporting microfinance and so on.
I will mention the second development briefly, because I have talked for longer than I had anticipated. It relates to exchanges to bring people together, so that they can find the opportunities. Many people to whom I speak who are relatively well off and who have heard about credit unions, CDFIs or microfinance, say, “I’d love to put a bit of money into that.” The problem is that they do not know where to find these things. How would they? They are not organisations with multi-million dollar marketing budgets, so an exchange could put people in touch with those opportunities.
In conclusion, the future is bright for credit unions. We need the legislative reform order to complement the investment and support that the Government are giving the sector. Of course, credit unions also need to step up to the plate. They need to make sure that they keep their cost base trimmed, that they have a balanced portfolio with a good mix of customers, savers and borrowers, that they continue to develop their financial products, and that they consolidate the sector in the post-LRO world.
It has been a pleasure to take part in this important debate. Again, I congratulate the hon. Members for West Bromwich West and for Islwyn on securing it, and thank you, Mr Amess, for presiding over it.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for his work as chairman of the all-party group on credit unions, of which I am treasurer. I called for this debate, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), because my whole political life is framed by my experiences of where I grew up in the south Wales valleys. We lived in a close-knit community. This speech might be sloppy and sentimental, if you will allow it, Mr Amess, but that is where I grew up.
When I grew up, the Co-op, as we called it colloquially, was always there. My mother told me, “I’ve brought you and your sister, Cara, up on Co-op milk,” and we went down the Co-op shop for our groceries. If you died, you were laid out in a Co-op funeral home and they probably buried you as well. As my great-grandmother said before she died at 104, “Don’t worry, everything’s sorted—I’ve been paying the Co-op for years.” That is where I came across the co-operative movement.
The most iconic moment of my life growing up in the valleys was seeing the proud workers walking back to Tower colliery in the Cynon valley. They had taken over their business and mines after being written off by the previous Conservative Government. They were walking back to run a workers’ co-operative. I have never felt more proud of my community and my people than when I saw them marching together. Those proud men, who had been beaten down by the Government, said, “No, there is a better way.”
Jonathan Evans
I come from a similar background, and I pay credit to the workers at Tower. However, they were given the opportunity to turn it into a co-operative by Michael Heseltine, who rejected the private sector bid and accepted their bid. It is therefore slightly churlish to be dismissive of the previous Conservative Government’s position on that.
Chris Evans
At the end of the day, I have to get political. As I always say, I am from a mine-working area, and the previous Conservative Government were no friend of the miners. I cannot get away from that; that is what I was born into, that is what I grew up believing and that is what I still believe.
I am extremely proud of those communities, and I am proud to be here as a Labour and Co-operative Member representing them, but there was a dark side. I am perhaps being romantic again, but I remember being out on the street kicking a football against the wall every Monday evening after school. The women would shout at us children and move us on.
At about half-past six, however, we would all rush through our doors and slam them shut. We would see the white XR3i coming down the hill, if anyone remembers those flashy cars. A woman would pull up and get out. I can see her now with her bleached blonde hair. My mother would say, “Caked with make-up, she is. She stinks of Estée Lauder perfume,” not that I knew what Estée Lauder perfume smelled like, but that is exactly what my mother said.
The woman was there with her little book, her little bag and her pen, and everybody would run inside. She would hammer on the doors. She was the woman from Provident, and everybody in our street had Provident. If people did not pay her, she would bang on the door and say, “I know you’re in there, love. You owe me £400.” If people had made the mistake of leaving the door ajar, she would push it open and go, “Where’s my money?”
When I was first elected, I found a chitty from when my mother took out a Provident loan in 1987, and the annual percentage rate was 150%. Years later, I went to work for Lloyds TSB, and I thought there was no way that Provident could still exist, but it does.
When the basic bank account was introduced, I felt the banks often did not want to know about people with a basic account. These people did not have a credit score for loans or credit cards, so when they needed money, they had no access to it. When they were asked how they were getting by, they would say they had Provident or Shopacheck and that someone would come round to their house to pick the payments up.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to intervene in the hon. Gentleman’s flowing speech. As I have said in many debates, the other problem with firms such as Provident is that they build relationships. They turn up at people’s doors and suggest ways in which their customers can spend money. They might say, “Christmas is round the corner. Have you sorted your Christmas presents?” They take advantage of the most vulnerable people.
Chris Evans
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was coming to that. This culture is very much engrained in the valleys. My mother, my grandmother and all my aunties and uncles had Provident. However, this is not just about Provident; it is also about paying off the money for the television through the slot in the back. People put a pound in, and they had 10 hours of television. In that way, they could pay off their television. It was always a nightmare, because the pound was guaranteed to run out just at the conclusion of “EastEnders”, and we would never know what the cliffhanger was. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that once the television had been paid off, the firms would come round and say, “The carpet’s looking a bit bald. Do you fancy a new one? What about a new washing machine.” They would then sign people up.
This problem of high-cost lending still exists. I cannot believe that I am going to admit this in a Westminster Hall debate, but I actually watch Jeremy Kyle; I am ashamed to admit it, but I have watched his show. As I was waiting for the all-important DNA tests and the lie detector, the adverts came up. One was for a company called Wonga.com. It was wonderful; Wonga was revolutionising same-day lending. I thought, “This is marvellous.” The advert said, “You’re in control.” I thought, “This is brilliant.” Then, however, I looked at the APR, which was 4,125%—pure, utter profiteering.
I did not think any more about the company. Then, however, I got on the tube on Monday morning, and there was an advert for Wonga.com, saying, “You’re in control.” The APR was more than 4,000%. I cannot get away from this company. I was watching “Match of the Day” and the press conference after the match. There were adverts for Barclaycard, but the Blackpool players also had the word “Wonga” right across their chests. Such things give the company the legitimacy that it does not deserve.
There is a way of out this. Yes, we can have legislation, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has done a lot of work on the issue, and I am sure she will speak about it later. However, there is a more intrinsic way forward, so let me move on to credit unions.
The other day, I went to Islwyn Community Credit Union with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—I will not talk about our earlier visit. We talked about how the credit union had lent a total of £1 million to the most vulnerable people. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, the people at the credit union said it was all very well lending money at competitive rates and allowing people to save, but that people did not know about credit unions. Provident, Safeloans and Shopacheck will knock at the door, and people can go to Wonga, Ocean Finance or someone else, but they do not know about credit unions. People are hearing about them by word of mouth and they are hearing about getting more protection points.
The other day, I was proud to visit Trinant school—I must give it a plug. If anybody wants to see a credit union, they should go there to see the children’s enthusiasm. The pupils have formed their own saving scheme, which is run along the lines of the Islwyn Community Credit Union. Those children have saved £600. The scheme has 56 members. One of the wonderful things about the scheme is not only that the children are saving, but that they are so enthusiastic that they are going home to their parents to tell them about credit unions. They are promoting credit unions in that way. This is an excellent project.
When the Minister sums up and talks about credit unions, I hope he will talk about Wales. Everybody in Wales has access to a credit union, and I really think the coalition Government should have that as an aspiration more widely. We should also take legislative obstacles down. I would ask the Minister to lower the minimum age necessary to join a credit union, which is presently 16—the same as the minimum age people need to be to serve as a company director. If we take such steps, we can promote credit unions, good lending and good saving.
I turn now to the mutualisation of the banks. I have been accused of banging on about the banks, but, like many Members, I am disappointed that Northern Rock will be sold privately. I hope the Government can look at introducing a mutual element, because we need that in society. In the middle of the banking crisis, there was one bank that did not need bailing out and which had run its business ethically: the Co-operative bank. When we look at the banking sector again, I hope the Co-operative bank is one of the examples we look to and learn from.
Jesse Norman
It is also true that the Nationwide, a mutual building society, did not require a bail-out. In fact, it was like the Rock of Gibraltar throughout the crisis.
Chris Evans
As my right hon. Friend says, there was also the Principality. That backs up my point that we need a mutual element. We need something strong in the banking industry; we need a safety net.
I will conclude now, because I have spoken for a long time, including about the valleys. Co-operatives have a huge role to play in the economy. They are central to society, and I hope that, when the Minister sums up, he will give a strong commitment to ensuring that they have an important part to play in our future economy.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I should start by disclosing that I do pro bono work with the John Lewis Partnership, which kindly pays into a charitable fund for local independent charities in my constituency. I am also the chair of the all-party group on employee ownership.
I massively welcome the debate and its excellent timing, coming as it does in co-operatives fortnight. I very much congratulate the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans), as I know other Members will, for calling this important and timely debate.
I want to celebrate two organisations in my constituency. One is Money Box, which is Herefordshire’s own credit union. The second is Widemarsh Workshop, which I am working to help transform into a co-op. It is a social enterprise that creates excellent furniture and works with disabled local people.
I have been interested and actively involved in co-ops, mutual organisations, employee-owned firms and similar organisations for many years. In that context, I pay tribute to an extraordinary man called Robert Oakeshott, whom many Members will know of and who died about 10 days ago, on 21 June. He was a lifelong friend of the co-operative movement in this country and overseas. He wrote a book, “The Case for Workers’ Co-ops”, many years ago, and helped to set up co-ops. His book “Jobs and Fairness” was, and still is, the seminal contribution to the discussion and debate on employee ownership. Robert was an extraordinarily far-sighted man. I wish that he were here to see the debate and the progress that the Government and their supporters across the third sector and the private and public sectors have made in promoting co-ops. I know that he would be thrilled. He was a great influence on me, and he brought me into Job Ownership Ltd, the predecessor organisation to the Employee Ownership Association.
I am also very pleased to have been able to help so many of my colleagues and to spread the word on the value of co-operative and mutual ideas on the centre right of the political spectrum through what we have called the Conservative Co-operative Movement. I have 37 Conservative colleagues who are members, and the number is growing. So far we have published two publications. One is called “Nuts and Bolts: How to Start a Food Co-op”, and is a detailed guide. It was mentioned earlier that the original form of co-operative organisation was the industrial and provident society, but now, and in many respects thanks to the previous Government, there has been an expansion, and people can use many different routes, including trusts and community interest companies. One thing that this lovely little book does is to set out all the possible different legal and practical approaches to setting up a co-op, and to consider the advantages and disadvantages. Our second publication is a pamphlet that we have recently published, called “Co-ops in the Big Society”, which explores all the different ways in which co-ops can add to the delivery of public and private services, and the role they can play in society.
Co-ops, with the mutual ethos that they derive from and celebrate, their spirit of trust, and their moral embedding in our society and communities, are of profound importance. One is reminded of the Rochdale Pioneers, whose history brings out a truth that some hon. Members may find slightly rebarbative, although I think it is important to remind ourselves of it: co-ops are by their nature rather conservative—with a small “c”— institutions. The first successful co-op, as has been mentioned, was established by the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844. They were 28 poor weavers and tradesmen looking for a better future as the industrial revolution mechanised the cloth trade. They relied on slowly accumulated subscriptions of £1 each from their members and initially made a modest £13 a week in sales. By 1850, just six years later, the co-op had 600 members, nearly £2,300 in capital and sales of £300 a week. In 1861, 11 years on, it diversified into housing for its members. By the end of the 19th century the Rochdale Pioneers had in turn established the Co-operative building society, which is a major provider of mortgages to this day.
We should look again at the Rochdale Pioneers’ experience. That success was the result of self-help, entrepreneurship and community energy. It was not the result of state patronage or official intervention. Those men and women were able to adapt the co-operative form and the broader idea of shared ownership to a variety of social needs—a local food shop, local housing and local mortgages. They were motivated as much by high ideals as by economic necessity—a point that has already been well made. In their first year of operation they established the Rochdale principles, to which all co-ops broadly adhere today. I think we need something similar today if we are to combat the fragmentation of British society.
There is a huge opportunity—I am delighted that it is being seized and developed by the Government—to initiate a great wave of change across society, whether that is through Cabinet Office pathfinders, the mutualisation of the Post Office or some of the work that is being done to create new forms of delivery of public services. Those are all thoroughly important. No less important are the opportunities to stimulate the growth of co-ops, mutuals, employee-owned organisations and the like in the private sector. That is a point that is widely misunderstood and I am thrilled that the Government take the same positive and proactive attitude towards private sector co-ops as they have to public ones.
Jonathan Evans
I have been looking for an opportunity to return to the issue of Northern Rock, on which my hon. Friend intervened earlier, and his work on assessing the possibility of remutualisation. Is my hon. Friend disappointed by the fact that United Kingdom Financial Investments appears to have made the recommendation on sale but not published the outcome of its assessment of the option of remutualisation? I respect what my hon. Friend has said about it, but it seems a bit odd that we have not seen the detail, even though UKFI obviously must have looked at that subject.
Jesse Norman
It is a disappointment that UKFI has not published its thinking on that even in outline. The calculations are not enormously complex. There is, of course, a further political issue, which has to do with the return of cash to the public Exchequer at a time of extreme economic crisis, but one still hopes that something of the form of the mutual ethos can be retained in the new organisation when it is ultimately sold.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether, like me, the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that the Government have not considered the proposal for a payback to the taxpayer. Perhaps he will join me and other co-operatively-minded MPs to challenge the Chancellor to re-examine the issue, because of the benefits that could accrue from the mutualisation of Northern Rock.
Jesse Norman
I am not absolutely sure I understood the thrust of the hon. Lady’s intervention. It seems to me that there is an important issue in relation to the publication of the decision that has been made. It is quite right that there should be a public justification of the decision not to proceed with the mutualisation. One would like further progress to be made on retaining the mutual ethos. I am not sure how much further work there is to be done on it.
Stella Creasy
I am afraid I have a foggy head, but my mind is clear on this. The Co-operative party has submitted a proposal to the Government about paying back and the mutualisation of Northern Rock. I ask the hon. Gentleman again whether he will combine with me and other co-operatively-minded MPs to press the Chancellor to respond to that document, which he has not yet done.
Jesse Norman
I am afraid I have not the foggiest clue what paying back means. To whom will something be paid back, and out of what, under the proposal?
Stella Creasy
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is worth considering models of remutualisation for Northern Rock, which would examine the payback to the taxpayer through the remutualisation process, he will meet us to look at how to progress that, and not lose the opportunity that mutualising Northern Rock would present.
Jesse Norman
I am of course happy—if this is what the hon. Lady is asking—to meet her and other Co-operative MPs to discuss that, so that I can understand the proposal better. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present when I intervened earlier, but there is a clear financial problem to do with the capital structure, the taxpayer value and the sustainability of a model that has a large vendor note sitting in it from the Government—that is a form of loan—and substitutes public ownership of equity with public ownership of a loan, which may be no more stable for less return. There is a genuine economic issue, and that is what we need to engage with.
I hope that we can come together as a House and a community of MPs, in a bipartisan way, to promote co-ops, change our public culture, develop and spread the co-operative ethos, and encourage the Government to push ahead with all the work they are doing so successfully, so far, in this area.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on obtaining it. It marks co-operative fortnight and also comes at the 10th anniversary of the Co-operative Commission report.
I am delighted that the debate is so popular—something perhaps illustrated by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). I hope that he may be willing afterwards to look at the document that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to. Often, good ideas in the co-operative movement do not reach a wider audience. If the hon. Gentleman has not yet had the opportunity to read those suggestions, I am sure that we can help him with that, especially as he responded so positively to the intervention.
Jonathan Evans
I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for allowing me to intervene. What has been put forward by the Co-operative party is not the only way in which Northern Rock might still end up with a mutual future. It is known that some mutual building societies are, in fact, interested in bidding, even through the Government’s proposed route. However, that will depend on the recognition of a capital instrument. Does the right hon. Gentleman hope, as I do, that we might hear something along those lines from the Government later this afternoon?
Alun Michael
I am not wedded to one particular proposal. The Co-operative party has put forward ideas but, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, there are other options. A genuine will is needed to find a solution to overcome the problems that have been raised.
It is 10 years since the Co-operative Commission published its report on the co-operative movement, and it has come a long way in that time. If we went back further than that—perhaps 20 years—it would feel almost as if we were living in a different world. Then the retail co-operative movement was struggling, but now it is back in the top ranks; then the building societies were under pressure and were not very popular, but now their value is much more appreciated, as has been mentioned.
The creation of the Co-operative Commission was itself a landmark event that demonstrated the co-operative movement was important enough to be the subject of a Government-initiated commission. Virtually everything in that report, which contained some 60 specific recommendations, has been acted upon, mostly by the movement itself. The introduction of legislation during the past decade has assisted the movement’s development and success. As has been made clear in the debate, the name “co-operative” does not guarantee good governance, but good corporate governance has the capacity for business success and stability. Co-operative principles can also contribute significantly to public service.
Today, I want to celebrate the sheer energy and creativity of the movement, as well as its genuinely positive political impact. Politics is not just about narrow party interests; at its best, it is about people working together to change the world. Certainly, that is what drew our 29 Co-operative MPs into the political front line. It is worth noting that that is the largest group of MPs there has ever been in the history of the Co-operative party. In the past year or two, the co-operative movement has seized the opportunity to deliver on the concept of the co-operative school. In the past few days, Ben Reid has launched Co-operative Energy, and Supporters Direct is nurturing the growth of popular engagement with sport. On that point, I hope that the recent glitch can be overcome, so that Supporters Direct can continue and succeed.
The issue is not just about setting up co-operatives. I want to touch on four important initiatives where the experience of co-operative governance is being applied to a much wider aspect of public policy and organisation. The first initiative relates to how British Waterways is organised. I chair the all-party group on the waterways and I am pleased that the Government have picked up on the Co-operative party proposal to move our canals into the third sector under a non-governmental organisation. That idea found its way into the Budget report before the election and has been described as seeking to create a sort of National Trust for the waterways. It has had a positive response from the public. The main aspect of co-operative governance that needs to be built into that new organisation is public engagement and involvement, so that people feel a genuine degree of ownership in the new organisation and are willing to contribute to it both financially and in terms of volunteering. The all-party group will produce a report shortly on the hearings we held in respect of governance and finance.
The second initiative is the idea of a co-operative council. That is not just about having a council that encourages people to consider setting up co-operatives and includes the co-operative model in options for change; it is about transforming the relationship between leadership and management of the council, those who work for the council and the public that the council exists to serve. The idea is powerful and will enable us to refresh how we do business locally.
The third area of initiative is internet governance. The internet offers enormous potential for co-operative solutions. I chair the UK Internet Governance Forum, which is leading the way in the UK in bringing together Government, business, Parliament and civil society to look for better ways of encouraging creative and positive human activity nationally and internationally. It was part of the 2010 Co-operative party manifesto, but we are co-operating across party. Ministers have been very supportive of delivering that approach, and it will be taken a stage further when the UN’s internet governance forum meets in Kenya in September.
The fourth area of initiative is the partnership approach to reducing local crime and disorder. That idea has flourished since I had the privilege of taking the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through the House and has proved a success in reducing crime. However, the potential of such an approach has not yet been realised because the governance of local partnerships is not as well developed as it should be. In Cardiff, such an initiative reduced violent crime by about 25% more than in comparable cities. That shows the value of taking that approach to enable local partnerships to succeed. Methodology and governance provides the potential for greater success in that respect. Those are examples of areas where the co-operative model can contribute to the public and private sector.
In 2007, I did a piece of work for the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, which was commissioned by the then Minister for the third sector, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. That work was part of the preparation for the 2007 spending review and involved taking a wider, general look at the contribution that could be made by the third sector to social and economic regeneration. My report concentrated specifically on the evidence of what mutuals and co-operatives could contribute to that. It is fair to say that the Treasury officials in particular were genuinely surprised and impressed by what they saw across the country when we were undertaking that work. I personally found it an invigorating experience.
The report showed the contribution that is already being made in areas such as health, housing, child care, financial services and community cohesion. That potential has not yet been realised, partly because I discovered immediately after we published the report that the people on the team who had gathered all the information and worked with me so positively were sent back to their original places of work. I am not sure why, but some Departments have the capacity for getting rid of expertise as soon as it has been developed. I cannot blame the Minister for that, but I hope that he will have a look at the report and consider how its findings might be used by the current Government, because its proposals cross boundaries.
During that period, we saw how co-operative principles can transform an inner-city hospital—Homerton hospital, Hackney was the example we considered—and how co-operative initiatives, from credit unions to play groups and social groups, were transforming the lives of individuals and communities across the country. The co-operative movement and the application of co-operative principles in a whole range of areas—not necessarily just to things that would be described as an industrial and provident society—are probably one of Britain’s best kept secrets. I am glad that we are having this debate to highlight, however briefly, all the areas on which the movement is having an impact.
Co-operation and mutuality are alive and well in the sphere of political action, and the latest initiatives to create co-op councils will open up a new era of delivery to our communities locally. Change of power through an election should not just change the name plates at the Executive table; the relationships between the people who work for the council and the public they serve should also be changed. I hope very much that all the examples given during the debate will lead to a greater flourishing of the co-operative principle and will perhaps pick up the impetus that was given by the Co-operative Commission 10 years ago to refresh our activities into the next decade.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate a few days into co-operatives fortnight. I congratulate the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on persuading the Backbench Business Committee to enable them to initiate this debate. I very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Islwyn. I loved the delicious irony of a boy from a mining community in the valleys who went to work for a bank that was bailed out by taxpayers crossing the picket line today to talk about co-operatives. I congratulate him enormously on that.
I am sure that many Opposition Members are surprised to see hon. Members on this side of the House taking a real and genuine interest in a debate on the co-operative movement. I hope that I can not only reassure hon. Members that we support co-ops and mutuals, but reclaim a bit of the movement back for the Conservative party. I was amused to read, in the Library debate pack, an opening line from Guardian journalist Tim Smedley, which read:
“Have you heard the one about the Conservative-led government encouraging public servants to form employee-owned mutuals?”
He went on to write that, “this is no joke.” I know that we are supposed to bristle at the Labour party’s missive to the media to call the coalition a Conservative-led Government. However, as a Conservative Back Bencher and member of the Conservative Co-operative Movement, if a left-wing paper wishes to highlight, even in a mocking tone, our support for co-operatives and mutuals, frankly, that is fine with me.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the hon. Lady tell us how many members of the Conservative Co-operative Movement there are? The 37 alluded to by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) does not suggest that it is much of a movement.
Tracey Crouch
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, my hon. Friend said that there are 37 members, but the movement has only just been launched. We are a small but perfectly-formed group. [Interruption.] I may also add, thanks to help from my hon. Friends from a sedentary position, that there are 37 members within Parliament.
Jesse Norman
At the risk of intruding, would my hon. Friend, or perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), like to comment on the difference between the number of members of the Conservative Co-operative Movement and the number of Labour members of the co-operative movement within this House?
Tracey Crouch
I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West will deal with those questions when he sums up at the end of the debate. I am proud to be a member of the Conservative Co-operative Movement in Parliament, which has only just been established.
Mr Davey
Without wanting to intrude on this debate, I will not suggest how many Liberal Democrat hon. Members are members of a similar co-operative movement. I will simply say that there are 12.8 million members of co-operatives in this country, and they are the ones on whom we should focus.
Tracey Crouch
I agree with the Minister. If I may continue with my speech, rather than getting into how many members we have in each political party—
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I just wanted to clarify, for Hansard and for the debate, that there is a distinction between those Labour MPs who are Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament and those who are members of the Co-operative party, but may not be Labour and Co-operative MPs.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful for that clarification. The hon. Lady may be interested to learn that members of the Conservative Co-operative Movement have been considering whether, perhaps at the next general election, we may do something radical and stand as Conservative, Unionist and Co-operative candidates. That is under active consideration.
Alun Michael
It is important to emphasise that the Co-operative party is a separate party—it is a registered political party. A Co-operative and Labour MP has to be selected by the Labour party, and by the Co-operative party through a separate selection process. It is not just a question of the name; it has a very deep reality in our history.
Tracey Crouch
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The issue is under consideration by members of the Conservative Co-operative Movement. I think that we have just ruined any kind of cross-party consensus that we were having on the co-operative movement. The Conservative party should be congratulated on the fact that it has now established this movement in its own party, and I hope that Opposition Members will consider that to be an important step forward.
As I was saying before I was sidetracked, there are many reasons why co-operatives and mutuals are good for growth and for society. Hopefully, I shall cover those reasons in what was supposed to be a very short contribution to the debate. Having spent too much time talking about it recently, one area of co-operative success that I will not focus on this afternoon is football. There have been many debates in the Chamber and on the Floor of the House about football club ownership, so I shall surprise colleagues by avoiding my main non-political passion and concentrate on other issues today.
The co-operative movement has a far greater pedigree than perhaps people give it credit for. The first co-operative was established in 1844, and there has been a steady increase in numbers across the country, with some gaining a foothold and becoming cornerstones of local communities. Examples that have already been referenced this afternoon are, of course, the Co-operative Group and the John Lewis Partnership. Together, they have an impressive combined turnover of approximately £18 billion.
It is often the small co-ops, which do not have the big brand names, that make the biggest and best impact in our communities. As a relative newcomer to the Conservative Co-operative Movement—run impressively, if I may say so, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—I have read with interest about the potential for co-operatives. Undoubtedly, they have intrinsic social benefits, promoting ethical, responsible, democratic and equitable ways of doing business. Inclusion, another positive contribution they make to society, ought not to be underestimated, not least at a time when we are asking individuals to do more for their communities. Co-operatives command cross-party support and that is to be welcomed. However, I believe that it is under this Government, with their desire for people to take up responsibility and seize the initiative, that they can really flourish as social enterprises and local providers.
We often hear co-operatives mentioned favourably in reference to their social, ethical and communal benefits, but many people who are not hugely involved in the movement will be surprised to learn of the enormous contribution that they make to the economy. In the south-east region, where my constituency is located, 328 co-ops now employ more than 13,000 people and generate more than £3 billion per annum. They take many guises, and I have read with interest about the coverage that they offer across a range of sectors, including housing, finance, agriculture and retail.
The Minister knows that I am heavily engaged in the debate about high-cost credit lending and debt management companies. I am therefore particularly interested in what co-operatives can offer the financial sector. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and others who have already spoken have made the point that credit unions demonstrate particularly valuable and welcome traits. They foster a self-help and community ethos, while encouraging financial inclusion, affordable borrowing and prudent saving on a not-for-profit basis.
By law, each credit union must be founded with a common bond, which all applicants must satisfy before they can become members. In the case of the Medway Credit Union, which has a catchment area covering part of my constituency, the common bond is geographical. It restricts membership to those living and working within the union’s prescribed boundaries. It is seeing a steady increase on its 400 members. I appreciate that bonds are being considered as part of the legislative review, but the point is that each member is part of a community that has grouped together to offer a service that is independent of the state and is self-sustaining.
On top of the ability to promote saving and equity in an area such as Medway, where there is a significant personal debt problem, credit unions offer a very different and innovative approach to debt reconciliation, unique to their mutual nature. The advantage a credit union possesses over a high street bank or a loan company, for example, is its personal and flexible nature. Of course, someone can have a rapport with their bank manager, but he is ultimately concerned with generating profit. As part of a credit union, however, each loan that is taken out is given careful consideration by peers and fellow members who have one’s best interests at heart, and any loan taken out incurs a low rate of interest.
Justin Tomlinson
The point about the loan being in the best interest is absolutely essential to this. We were talking earlier about the Provident doorstep lending, with their nudge, nudge sales techniques. What a stark contrast the credit unions are, and what a real difference they make to the most vulnerable people.
Tracey Crouch
I agree completely. It is for that reason that it is right that credit unions receive so much support from across the House and from Government. They are great advocates of financial inclusion and can offer an alternative to high-cost credit that blights many, and submerges them further into debt. I look forward to visiting the Medway Credit Union in the autumn, and to helping to raise its profile.
That leads me on to an observation that many have no doubt already made. Small, particularly localised co-ops such as the Medway Credit Union, rely heavily on volunteers. Unlike private ventures, which have a large amount of start-up capital, they can call on little in the way of reserves. If we are to encourage the co-operative contribution to the economy, the Government must focus their energies and funding on providing start-up capital. It is encouraging therefore that the Government have recognised that and established a fund to help mutuals to meet such costs. I would also like local enterprise partnerships, which are meant to focus on providing localised services and on developing a devolved enterprise strategy, to explore how co-ops can become involved, attract investment and improve membership. The Government have previously committed to reducing the regulatory and administrative burdens so that it is easier to start and run a co-operative. I hope that we see that commitment become reality soon. We must then, with some cross-party zeal, start championing and promoting the co-operative movement.
I feel particularly strongly about the issue because, in the run-up to the general election, a major high street bank decided that its small branch in my constituency, with its over-the-counter service and ATM, was surplus to its global requirements. HSBC decided that Aylesford village did not fit into its strap line of “The world’s local bank.” Despite serving an elderly and local business population, the branch was closed without any concern about the impact on the local community. The village is now bereft of its post office and its bank. Given the thousands of names we had on a petition from Aylesford and the surrounding villages, I wish I had seen the example of villagers coming together to provide their own local counter services and forming a co-op. We could and should have done that, and the village would have been better off for it.
I promised a short contribution, but now I have wittered on about co-op opportunities that passed by. This debate, however, has allowed me to emphasise that the co-operative and mutual movement has cross-party support. Co-ops bring huge benefits to society and the economy, and they can demonstrate entrepreneurial brilliance and deliver rewards to all those involved. There are legal obstacles, which the Government are looking at, but it is hard not to want to get involved in this debate and to encourage the establishment of more co-operatives, to help to deliver what society and the country needs.
Jesse Norman
On a point of order, Mr Amess, I want to put on record my sense of the great discourtesy done to this Chamber and to the House by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who came in, did not listen to the opening speeches, asked a series of questions and then left. That ought to be in the record.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
All I say about hon. Members staying for the debate is that, when I made my announcement about the timing of things, there were 13 possible speakers. I hope I did not scare people off, because we seem to have lost a number of them. I am not referring to our current proceedings but, as far as the specific point made by the hon. Gentleman is concerned, Mr Speaker has said that it is certainly discourteous for a Member to arrive, make an intervention and not return. I cast no aspersions on what is happening at the moment.
Alun Michael
Further to that point of order, Mr Amess, as we are having this discussion about courtesy, has not Mr Speaker also ruled more than once in the past that, if a Member intends to make a critical comment about another Member, he should first have spoken to that Member, to apprise of his intention and to see whether there might have been good reason for any action that had provoked him to intervene?
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I am advised that that is generally the case. Rather than prolong the matter, and as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) have made their observations, we will see what happens.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing it.
I declare an interest: along with many other Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament, I am proud to be part of a movement motivated not purely by the pursuit of profit but by values of openness, social responsibility and solidarity. As well as being founded on strong principles, in practice co-ops and mutuals can be more efficient and are a positive force in local communities. The co-operative model also makes sense economically. As right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of this Chamber have alluded to, last year the co-operative economy throughout the UK stood at 12.9 million members, who were part of almost 5,000 co-operative businesses, with a turnover of £33.5 billion, contributing 237,800 jobs to the national economy. In the north-west region, where my constituency is located, 416 co-operatives turn over £2.2 billion and employ 20,350 people. As a proud member of the Lodge Lane credit union, I see the many benefits of co-operatives in my own constituency.
As well as highlighting the successes of co-ops nationally, I want to focus my remarks this afternoon on how the co-operative model is thriving in the energy market. Up and down the country, communities have come together to find new ways of generating renewable energy. Co-operatives have pioneered renewable energy in the UK, whether large ones such as the Co-operative Group powering its stores with renewable energy or innovative businesses such as Powys-based Dulas developing green technologies.
The co-operative model is providing communities with the means to invest in, own and benefit from new wind farm developments. Nine community co-operatives currently own wind farms in the UK, providing a great model of community power. Baywind, for example, is a wind co-operative in Cumbria which has successfully carried out two share offers since it was founded in 1996 and has more than 1,300 members. Westmill wind farm in Oxfordshire is entirely owned by about 2,500 members, largely drawn from the local community, who between them have invested £4.4 million. Nationally, wind farm co-operatives alone have 6,700 members and turn over £2.5 million.
Until recently, energy co-ops have benefited from a supportive central Government. Recent Government decisions, however, have resulted in support for community-based energy co-operatives being withdrawn, risking their success. The Government’s decision to cut the feed-in tariff subsidy for projects that generate more than 50 kW will mean that many community co-op solar projects on hospitals, schools and community buildings are now no longer commercially viable. Alongside that, it was announced in the 2011 Budget that renewable energy schemes eligible for the feed-in tariff would no longer qualify for tax relief under the enterprise investment scheme, harming at least 20 communities planning a community share launch soon—the business model is entirely based on securing the feed-in tariff and the enterprise investment scheme. Small schemes with less than £0.5 million of capital costs will struggle to be viable.
Community ownership is a wholly different approach from purely commercial operations and brings additional benefits such as increased community engagement and education on low-carbon issues, but it does not often generate the same level of revenue to pay the interest on investors’ capital during the early years of development. In that situation, the enterprise investment scheme offers a breathing space for community initiatives not to pay interest while the enterprise is established, allowing them to grow. It is regrettable that moves to boost equity investment in small enterprises will damage the smallest of those enterprises and many co-operatives and mutuals.
As well as removing support for existing co-operatives, the Government have rejected Labour plans to encourage the establishment of new energy co-operatives. We recently concluded the Energy Bill’s Committee stage, and many hon. Members are familiar with its provisions. The main Government proposal in the Bill is to establish a pay-as-you-save energy-efficiency scheme called the green deal, a programme first piloted under the previous Labour Government. Under the green deal, homeowners and tenants will be able to borrow money to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes, such as insulation, with no up-front costs. The improvements will be paid for in instalments from the money saved on utility bills.
The new marketplace that the scheme will create offers huge potential for co-operatives and mutuals to become green deal providers, installing energy efficiency measures. Labour’s vision of the green deal marketplace is one in which small businesses, co-operatives, mutuals and social enterprises are able to compete equally alongside the big energy companies and supermarkets that want to take part in the scheme. For that reason, on behalf of the Opposition, I tabled amendments to the Energy Bill in Committee which would have guaranteed fair access to the marketplace for co-ops and reduced the administration costs that they would have had to pay in order to take part in the scheme. I hope there is broad agreement on both sides of the House that co-ops and mutuals that want to benefit our communities and focus resources on vulnerable people and households in fuel poverty should not be excluded from the green deal marketplace.
Reduced admin fees and fair access to the market would not only lessen the financial start-up costs for those organisations, but would act as an indicator to them that they have an important part to play in the green deal. Surely the idea of helping co-operatives and mutual societies to flourish, instead of the market being dominated by a few big companies, is very much in the spirit of the big society? Unfortunately, the Government did not think so, and voted down those amendments. That did not stop the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), using warm words about co-operatives, but what good are words when they are not followed up by actions?
I thought that the Government recognised the value of employee-led models. During a speech in November 2010, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, said:
“The evidence increasingly shows that they reduce absenteeism, improve performance management, encourage innovation, and increase productivity.”
Will the Minister take the concerns that I have raised back to his ministerial colleagues in the responsible Departments, and press them to look again at their decisions, so that instead of punishing co-ops and mutuals, we build on them and drive the energy co-operative sector forward?
The threat of climate change is the greatest threat to our planet, and it is only through co-operation that we will be able to take urgent global action to fight it. Renewable energy co-operation to tackle climate change and to reduce household fuel bills at a time when they are increasing is just one example of how co-operatives can benefit our society. This debate has highlighted how much co-operatives can benefit our society, and it is timely at the start of co-operatives fortnight. From banking and finance to renewable energy and environmental protection, co-operatives are making a difference. I thank my hon. Friends for securing this debate, and I thank you, Mr Amess, for your stewardship.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I intend to consolidate some potential interventions in a short and efficient speech, partly in recognition of you, Mr Amess, because your role as chairman of the all-party group on small shops reminded me of a few extra elements that have not been touched on. The first is the impact on the high street. The Government have commissioned Mary Portas to review the high street, and having avidly watched her TV programmes for some years, I know that her main mantra is about customer service. All too often in this great nation of shopkeepers, customer service is appalling at best. Through the principle of co-operatives, employees are directly involved and have a direct incentive to offer far better customer service, and to help to rescue our high streets. That is an element that we should consider.
Some hon. Members have talked about credit unions, and I intervened several times. It is essential to the interests of the most vulnerable consumers that they have access to loans on which their interests are put at the heart of decisions, in stark contrast with the doorstep lenders who prey on people, and encourage them to get into a long-term cycle of expensive debt, and end up buying dodgy-smelling perfume. There is so much consolidation of banking services on the high street that there is less competition, and that is another opportunity for the credit unions to step in. Access to services is key, because vulnerable people often do not know how to access more affordable credit, and the help and advice that come with it.
I want to issue a slight warning to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for picking on Wonga. It does not lend to vulnerable consumers, who must go through rigorous checks. If the headline interest rate is 4,400% APR, and if someone is two days from their pay day and wants to borrow £100 to tide themselves over, they will be charged a product fee of £5.50 plus 4,400% APR of £1 a day, so they will pay £7.50 for the privilege. If they just go overdrawn at their bank, Lloyds TSB, for example, would charge a flat fee of £10 a day plus £2.50 for the debit card charge, which makes a total of £22.50 so they will be £15 worse off. We must be careful not to fall into the traps of some headlines.
The way to get round the problem is to support my financial education campaign so that more people understand the deals that are put before them. However, I was testing some people on Wonga’s APR yesterday, and not one person was able to calculate the interest rate, including a Treasury manager.
Chris Evans
I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about APR. I have always said that people should be quoted a flat rate of interest, which is simpler and easier to understand than APR. As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, I used to work for Lloyds TSB, and I have regretted it every day since, but I have always said that a flat rate is simple.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In an ideal world, we would have cash-for-cash comparisons if people wanted to borrow money. I echo the comments about doorstep lending. The Minister feels strongly about it, and it really needs to be dealt with. The sales techniques are nothing short of disgraceful.
Damian Hinds
Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the apparent attraction of straightforward interest charges being disclosed, they lack something because they do not cover any of the behavioural charges. There is no perfect way, but it would perhaps be slightly closer to perfect to have disclosure of both the set-up costs for the loan, and the interest rate on top. That twin-rate approach is much more reflective of lenders’ cost structures.
Justin Tomlinson
I absolutely agree. The key message is that the Government are reviewing the matter, and they should do so with time and patience to make sure that it is delivered in the right way that people can understand. We do not want to fall into the trap of obvious headlines, because that would just make the situation a lot worse.
On public services, I spent 10 enjoyable years in local government, four of them as a cabinet member making key decisions. I fully support the principle of allowing staff with front-line experience, and who are fuelled by their direct passion, to make a difference and have a greater say in how services are delivered, instead of remote politicians—this applies to all of us—without that experience.
I pay credit to the Co-operative shops—my local shop is a Co-op and its cheesy tasty bread is very good—for the way they conduct the elections to their board. Every member—I am a proud member of my local Co-op—is sent a clear booklet, and as we consider creating elected police commissioners and having other elections, that may be a model to consider, especially if we manage to ban political parties from being involved in such things.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. As many other hon. Members have done, I declare an interest as a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. I also join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate as we come to the start of co-operatives fortnight. I want to highlight the contribution of the mutual sector in many areas of life, and then to comment specifically about one sector, leaving the Minister with plenty of opportunity to respond to the issues that hon. Members have raised this afternoon.
As other hon. Members have said, one of the challenges facing the mutual sector has been to explain what a co-operative is, how it works, and why it is relevant in the present and the future. My family’s experience of co-operatives is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn. My grandparents were dairy farmers in east Kent, and were part of a co-operative that fed into a retail co-operative, so there is a long and varied history of what co-operatives are. There is huge potential for their future, and I am glad that in recent years we have started to go beyond the common misapprehensions and the occasional suspicion or dubiousness on this side of what co-operatives are about and how they fit into the wider Labour movement. It is gratifying that we have got over that in recent years, and I hope that we are now starting to see not just the value of co-operatives, but the potential for future co-operatives and how we can develop them in future.
I want to speak about one form of mutual ownership that is particularly close to my heart. Unlike the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), I will not apologise for talking about football supporters’ trusts yet again, because it would be remiss of me in this debate not to refer to them in a little more detail than others have been able to do. My personal involvement in the co-operative movement and Co-operative party comes from having helped to establish the Fulham Supporters’ Trust just over 10 years ago. If anyone is at a loose end this evening, Fulham start their European adventure at Craven Cottage, and hon. Members would be more than welcome to join me in attending the game to watch Fulham play the team that finished third in the Faroe Islands Premier League.
It seems an apposite time to raise the issue of supporters’ trusts, because of the problems surrounding Supporters Direct to which I want to refer this afternoon. Supporters Direct is a matter of concern to hon. Members from all parties—early-day motion 1909 on the funding of Supporters Direct has been signed by 66 hon. Members from all parties except the Scottish National party, although that is not necessarily a good way to measure levels of concern.
Many hon. Members will be aware of and familiar with the work of supporters’ trusts in their constituencies, and there will be clubs—rugby league clubs as well as football clubs—in which they have either a constituency interest or a direct supporter interest.
Justin Tomlinson
On that point, I am a proud member of Swindon Town supporters club, which I joined when it first formed. One challenge it faces is that it often meets in moments of crisis—Swindon Town lurched from one crisis to another until the new owners transformed it. We need to encourage supporters’ trusts to set up and work in the long term, especially when the sun is shining on a football club.
Tom Greatrex
The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point I was about to make. My experience—and that of many others involved in supporters’ trusts—has been that at a moment of crisis, when owners walk away from a club because they have lost interest, or are unable to continue because it is more challenging than they thought it would be, they leave clubs in the lurch. One thing that can be said about football clubs is that players, managers and chairmen may come and go, but the fans remain constant. They have a huge amount of concern for and emotional attachment to their clubs, and they will step in. In the past, fans have stepped in very successfully—we could all give examples of trusts that have become involved in running a club, and done it well. The hon. Gentleman’s point is right. I desire to see supporters’ trusts not only getting involved in times of crisis when no one else steps in, but also getting involved in representation and the running of the club, so that there is a direct link to the supporters and communities.
That is why I am concerned about the situation with Supporters Direct. As I know from personal experience, Supporters Direct has provided huge support in getting trusts established, and it has campaigned on some wider issues concerning the ownership of football clubs and other sporting clubs. We need such a body to help co-ordinate that work. I raised that point with the Minister for Sport and the Olympics during questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport a couple of weeks ago. He recognised the issue and said that talks would be taking place on Friday. I am not sure which Friday he was referring to, but there have been a couple of Fridays since then and the issue is as yet unresolved. If Supporters Direct, or an organisation of that type, does not take that role, there is the danger that supporters’ trusts that need to be developed will not get the opportunity to learn from others and proceed with development. Instead, the funding will be fragmented and, as hon. Members will be aware, it is a relatively small amount of money given the wealth that swirls around football, particularly at top level.
As I understand, part of the Premier League’s reasoning concerns comments made by the former chief executive of Supporters Direct. I know that the individual concerned regrets those comments; he has apologised fully and since resigned. I hope therefore, that that issue is not still an impediment to the continuation of Supporters Direct. I realise that that is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I hope that he will mention the issue to his colleagues in the Government. It is an important aspect of co-operatives and mutuals and there is a great degree of concern about it.
I also wish to raise a couple of specific issues about credit unions. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn spoke eloquently and passionately about the role of credit unions. I am fortunate in having a number of credit unions in my constituency, and everybody is covered by the bond for credit unions. Blantyre and South Lanarkshire credit union means that the whole of South Lanarkshire is covered, and there are a number of smaller credit unions in Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Hamilton.
On Friday I met representatives from the WHEB credit union—Whitehill, Hillhouse, Earnock and Burnbank—which operates in a small part of Hamilton in my constituency. I raised a couple of issues with them that refer back to the comments made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, particularly in relation to the potential for credit unions in the future. The ambitious and appropriate programme for future development will do a huge amount of good to the credit union movement and to consumers, but we must be aware of the concerns felt by smaller credit unions that they do not get lost in a drive that could end up with larger credit unions effectively taking them over. I say that because WHEB credit union, for example, is tied to a specific, but quite small geographical area and has a relatively small number of members in comparison with other credit unions. WHEB is trusted in that area because it is seen by members of the community as a sound source of credit and a reliable organisation. I am slightly concerned that in the drive to develop credit unions, some of the smaller and community credit unions could be left behind. I do not want that to happen.
I have a further point, which is relevant to the Minister’s responsibilities. WHEB told me last week that one problem that happens more and more frequently is where people join the credit union and save the minimum amount needed to have access to a small loan. They then take out that small loan and almost immediately apply to become bankrupt, which they use as an opportunity to get over the repayments. I appreciate that insolvency is a devolved issue, and that accountancy and bankruptcy are devolved responsibilities in Scotland, but part of the problem I have described is because of radio adverts, for example, that say to people “We can help you get rid of your debts by you becoming bankrupt”, without explaining some of the consequences. We hear about such things more and more frequently, and we heard during earlier contributions about some of the other advertising that goes on. There are examples of people using credit unions to save enough to be able to borrow money, and they then default on their debts.
That issue was raised with me because, as I have already said, WHEB is a small, community credit union—I am sure there are many others—and it is not well placed to absorb the number of insolvencies that are taking place. I was told that there were seven such cases over the past month. That might not sound like a lot, but for a small credit union in that area it is starting to have a significant impact and causing concern. Perhaps when the Minister responds, he will address the issue of advertising for such services, which, given the way the adverts seem to suggest to people that all their problems could be over, borders on irresponsible. The effect on smaller credit unions is an unintended consequence of that.
Damian Hinds
I am conscious that the debate is about co-operatives and mutuals, so I do not want to draw the hon. Gentleman too much further into this area, but does he agree that part of the problem is that, these days, the route that people end up pursuing in an alleged solution to their debt problems seems to be driven far more by which advert they see first, rather than which type of solution is most appropriate to them? In some cases, it will be insolvency, but in many others it is not, regardless of the fact that the specific firm that they go to may have charges that are inappropriately high.
Tom Greatrex
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am under no illusion that the issue is an easy one for the Government to tackle, but I wanted to reflect the concern and raise it with the Minister. I am sure that he is aware of it, but I hope that he will comment on it.
Finally, I want to reflect on the importance of mutuals and co-ops. This has so far been a very good debate, covering a wide range of issues. That highlights the wide range of co-operatives and mutual organisations that exist. They are not just an interesting historical relic, but a huge opportunity for the present and for the future. In relation to Supporters Direct, I am pleased that the coalition agreement is explicit about the positive role that can be played by supporters having ownership of football clubs on a mutual basis. However, some contributions to this debate have reflected the fact that there are a lot of warm words on this issue and we now, across the parties, want to see those transformed into action on the specific points that we have discussed. I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect on and respond to those points and give Opposition Members some comfort that the rediscovery of mutualism by a wider range of people means that there is a real, lasting and meaningful commitment to helping to develop mutual solutions to some of the issues that the country faces.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on convincing the Backbench Business Committee to allow it to be held. I also echo the welcome for the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I am a member of the Co-op party; indeed, I am privileged to chair the Co-op party, and to be a Labour and Co-op MP. I therefore particularly welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate for the official Opposition. As other hon. Members have said, it is taking place during co-operatives fortnight, which runs until 9 July. It is an opportunity to celebrate the considerable contribution that co-ops and mutuals make to British economic and social and cultural life. However, it would be wrong of me, speaking for the official Opposition, not to go further and undertake some scrutiny of the Government’s record to date on providing assistance, or not, to the co-op sector.
First, let me acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West, in setting out the scope of the debate, rightly alluded to the stereotypical view of the co-op movement that there certainly was throughout the 1990s and the early part of the current century. It saw co-ops not as dynamic and forward looking, but as things that were associated very much with the past. He rightly drew attention to the considerable change in the fortunes and perceptions of the co-op movement. I am sure that he shares my view that part of the reason for the turnaround in the perception of the co-op ideal in recent years has been the performance of the Co-op Group, notably under Len Wardle as chair and Peter Marks as chief executive.
I also echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to Cliff Mills, a solicitor from Cobbetts and an expert on the law surrounding co-ops. When I had the privilege of taking a private Member’s Bill through the House in 2002-03 that, I hope, began the process of modernising co-op law, Cliff Mills was a huge support and source of expertise. My hon. Friend was right to pay tribute to him.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly drew attention to the contribution that credit unions make and to their considerable potential to do more. He drew attention to the opportunity for the current Government to build on the work of the previous Government in encouraging access to credit unions. He gently asked—I paraphrase—why on earth the Government had not got on with the legislative reform order. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when that order might appear before us.
A number of hon. Members drew attention to the difficulties that many people in the community that we represent have in needing to access money. I remember from my time in government the huge concern that grew and still exists today, which no doubt the Minister will want to comment on, in relation to illegal money lending. I pay tribute to my predecessor as the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, Ian McCartney, for, among other things, creating the concept of illegal money lending teams. That resulted in multidisciplinary teams, whose members included police and people from housing associations. They worked together not only to crack down on loan sharks, many of whom were particularly unpleasant individuals—there has been real success in bringing loan sharks to justice—but to ensure that victims had support to get out of the financial problems that had drawn them into the web of the loan sharks. Credit unions were often a crucial part of helping the victims of loan sharks to move towards a more sustainable future. In that context, I will come in due course to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn made about access to credit unions across the country.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire raised the issues relating to social ISAs. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the view expressed by the hon. Member for East Hampshire about their potential. The Minister may be aware of the Big Lottery Fund’s launch of a social impact bond—a particular model that it has backed. Again, I would welcome hearing from the Minister the Government’s view on whether that bond has considerably more potential and in particular whether it has the potential to help co-operatives to expand, perhaps in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) alluded to in the context of renewable energy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn drew attention to the success of Tower colliery following its conversion to a worker-led co-operative. I echo his praise of the leadership of the colliery. I enjoyed my visit to Islwyn with him. I very much enjoyed the opportunity to see the Islwyn community credit union. Some fantastic people are involved in the leadership and running of that organisation and are making a real difference to his community. He referred to the considerable success that Wales has had in ensuring that there is access to a credit union for anyone and everyone in Wales if they want to join one. That is surely an ambition that we should have for England. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether the Government share that ambition and what they intend to do about it.
My hon. Friend made a very interesting proposal when he talked about whether we should consider lowering the age at which someone can join a credit union. That might encourage far earlier recognition of the potential of credit unions and thus draw people away from the very high interest rates charged by some of the legal companies. Some of them offer small amounts of money on what are often very high interest rates, relatively.
Damian Hinds
I am sure that the shadow Minister knows that the junior savers club mentioned earlier is not the only one. Many credit unions operate junior savers clubs, which allow young people to become more familiar with credit unions and encourage them to get into the savings habit.
Mr Thomas
Indeed, but that brings me back to what I said about the difference between Wales and England. Credit unions have a far greater reach in Wales than they do in England. We definitely need to see better access to credit unions in England, and better teaching in our schools about their potential to encourage saving from an early age.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) made a number of important points about the contribution that co-ops have made. He adds to the pressure on the Government to prove their commitment to the co-op sector, as opposed to making worthy speeches about them. I echo his tribute to the life of Robert Oakshott. However, I gently suggest that he needs to do a little more to convince us that there really is a Conservative co-op movement, and that it is not just an oxymoron. We shall doubtless hear more from him on that subject in due course.
I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She made a number of references to the role of co-ops in the south-east, and I am sure that that will have been appreciated by the members and leadership of those co-operatives. She also alluded to the possibility of Conservatives standing under the banner of the co-operative movement. I understand why she would want to tone down the Conservative brand at the next election, but I doubt that that will be enough to help her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke about the role and contribution of supporters trusts. He and the House may not be aware that the two greatest football teams in Wales and England, Swansea City and Arsenal, both have supporters’ trusts, and both have been helped by Supporters Direct. My hon. Friend will know, as will some of my other hon. Friends—but not Government Members, I suspect—that Supporters Direct was originally proposed by the Co-operative party and taken up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) when he worked for Lord Smith of Finsbury.
I join my hon. Friend in urging the Premier League and the Government to sort out the funding problems for Supporters Direct. It would be a terrible tragedy if the misjudged comments of someone who has now resigned from the leadership of Supporters Direct were to undermine the concept of football supporters’ trusts and the ambition of giving fans ownership and some further involvement in the running of football clubs. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of the Government’s thinking on that, and say whether they have been able to sort out future funding for Supporters Direct.
A number of hon. Members referred to the contribution of the Rochdale Pioneers. It is worth restating that, in opening their first shop on 21 December 1844, they were responding to the acceleration of mechanisation implicit in the industrial revolution. They put forward fairly radical ideas, typical of the traditions of the centre-left, in challenging the status quo to make things better for their community. In part, they were driven by the terrible poverty in the community and the need to provide people with affordable food. Some Members praised the contribution made by Robert Owen and the other community examples of co-operation in action that took place before the Rochdale Pioneers set up their first shop; they were right to acknowledge that co-operative spirit.
Today, the global co-operative movement has about 800 million members. It employs 100 million people and secures the livelihoods of some 3 billion people—half the world’s population. Indeed, there are 20% more jobs in co-operatives around the world than in multinational corporations. If only the same attention were given to the needs of co-operatives as is given to multinational corporations, the co-op movement would be in even better shape.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West identified the traditions of collective self-help and the entrepreneurial spirit as driving influences in setting up effective co-operatives. As we heard, the UK has almost 5,000 successful co-ops, with almost 13 million members. The turnover of UK co-ops has risen by some 25% over the past three years. Perhaps the best-known example of co-ops in the UK is the Co-op Group, of which the Co-op bank is an essential part. Its move into renewable energy was mentioned by others. There is also, of course, the excellent John Lewis Partnership. If I may crave your indulgence, Mr Amess, I praise also those who are part of the Rainbow Saver credit union, in which I declare an interest, and those who run the excellent Harrow and Hillingdon credit union.
As I said, I had the privilege of piloting a private Member’s Bill through the House, which enjoyed the support of a huge number of co-operatives, including those running Labour clubs, rugby clubs and even armed forces clubs—and, surprising to me at the time, those running Conservative clubs. They all supported my Bill, which helped me to get it past the then Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, one Eric Forth.
Ministers have made a number of positive speeches over the past 12 months or so about the potential contribution of co-operatives, but the Government’s record over that time suggests that the apparent enthusiasm for co-ops shown by the coalition is not backed up by the reality.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who is no longer in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) have, on many occasions, raised the issue of the possible remutualisation of Northern Rock. Indeed, Co-op Members on the Opposition Benches have been pushing for some time for the Government to give serious consideration to the case for remutualisation.
The Government have clearly rejected that option, but it is important that they publish the work that one hopes has been done on that subject by United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd. That is necessary not least because, when the Government said that they intended to sell Northern Rock to the highest bidder, there was much media speculation, presumably briefed by Treasury sources, that the Government did not expect to receive in full what they had injected into the bank. Will the Minister assure the House that all the paperwork that UKFI has produced on the feasibility of remutualisation will be published urgently, so that the House can assess whether UKFI and Deutsche bank, its advisers, did a thorough piece of work?
The Minister will be aware of the real concern about other aspects of the financial mutual world, particularly about the new European capital requirements to enable financial services businesses better to absorb losses, and how they will impact on building societies following the introduction of the new Basel standards. They do potentially pose a threat to the future of building societies. I recognise that the Government have acknowledged that and have been in discussion with European partners. I would welcome an update on that and further reassurance from the Minister that the Government are on the case to ensure that these new requirements do not prevent successful mutuals such as Nationwide, the Coventry and the Principality from being able to play an important role in the financial services sector in future.
The Minister will also have been briefed about the concerns about the future of friendly societies and the way in which the Financial Services Authority has revisited its own rule book and used a piece of legal advice. A former Minister, who was re-elected to the House in 2010, introduced the legislation on which that legal advice is based, but has said that it should not be applied to mutuals. None the less, that legislation is being used by the FSA as the basis of a piece of legal advice, which it will not publish, that is causing a series of friendly societies to face the prospect of demutualisation in the long term. It cannot be in the interests of the country to have an important part of the financial mutual sector facing such a threat.
I appreciate that both Hector Sants, the head of the FSA, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has responsibility for financial mutuals, have come to the all-party parliamentary group on building societies and financial mutuals to answer questions on the issue. As yet, though, there appears to be no serious effort by the Treasury and the FSA to find a resolution to the problem. I urge the Minister, who has made positive comments about co-operatives and mutuals in the past, to use the influence of his position to turn that situation around.
Furthermore, will the Minister explain what on earth has gone wrong with the coalition’s support for co-operative schools? Schools that want to become co-operative trusts have traditionally been funded to the tune of some £5,000 to help with the process. Currently, there are more than 100 schools that want to become co-operative schools. Given the success of that programme, why has the Education Secretary decided to end funding for that programme?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned that the previous Labour Government had intended to announce the mutualisation of British Waterways. Will the Minister explain how it will become a genuinely mutual organisation that involves people other than just a select group of trustees in its running?
The Minister has done much work on the future of the Post Office and has announced plans for it to become a mutual. One of the concerns that has been expressed both on the Opposition Benches and outside the House is about whether or not there is a viable business plan. I welcome the mutualisation of the Post Office, but there needs to be a viable business plan if it is to be successful. Will the Minister provide further clarity on that matter?
Will the Minister explain why the Government have decided to scrap the funding that supports the development of community pubs? The previous Government worked with the Plunkett Foundation to set up a programme to support such pubs. The scrapping of the funding can only hasten the demise of pubs in many communities across the country, making it far more difficult for people to come together and organise themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree talked about the failure of the Government to encourage community energy projects. Given that the Minister is a member of the same political party as the person who is responsible for that dismal record, will he pledge to take back to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change the concern of the Chamber over his lack of commitment to co-operative energy projects?
Lastly, in terms of a critique of the coalition’s record on co-operatives, will the Minister explain to the Chamber why the Secretary of State for International Development is refusing to fund again the International Labour Organisation’s project for helping co-operatives in Africa? That programme has had considerable success in helping to strengthen the co-operative model, particularly in the financial sector in Africa, and such a decision seems somewhat at odds with the coalition’s commitment to both international development and co-operatives.
This has been an interesting debate with some important contributions from all parts of the Chamber. None the less, the only conclusion that one can draw after 12 months of the coalition Government is that there have been a lot of fine words about support for co-operatives, but not much action. I hope the Minister will give us some clarity as to when that situation will change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
This has been a very well informed and, mostly, consensual debate. There was a break-out of competition between the Conservative and Labour parties, but it obviously falls to a Liberal Democrat Minister to bring everyone back to real co-operative principles. It was good to see all contributors to the debate affirming their commitment to that. I can affirm my personal commitment, my party’s commitment and the coalition Government’s commitment to working for the co-operative movement and to developing the mutual sector more broadly.
If we look at the performance of the sector at the moment, we can see that it is in rude health. The turnover of the co-operative movement is slightly more than £33 billion and the turnover of the mutual movement rose to more than £100 billion last year, with more than 1 million employees. Interestingly, the Co-operative Financial Services won the FT sustainable banking award in 2010. Clearly, this is a sector that is doing well.
Another interesting fact is the Co-Operative Group’s takeover of Somerfield, which increased its overall turnover. If it was listed on the FTSE 100, it would be a FTSE top 30 company.
Despite the rather bizarre remarks by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), there have been many strong developments under both Labour and Conservative Governments. I point, for example, to the Oxford Centre for Mutual and Employee-owned Business, which is developing a lot of the thinking and the research so that we can drive forward this agenda in a consensual way. Although this area requires cross-party support, a lot of good things have been happening to it for quite some time.
Let me try to answer some of the points that have been raised during the debate and then I will make some comments about the direction of Government policy. A number of speeches focused on credit unions. My hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and the hon. Members for Islwyn (Chris Evans), and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spent a considerable amount of time talking about credit unions. This is an area in which the Government would like to see real progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has been a champion of credit unions. I pay tribute to the work that he has been doing in that area. He mentioned that the Department for Work and Pensions has earmarked £73 million to invest in the sector. However, we are not spraying money around in the way in which we have seen in the past; we have done a feasibility study to see where that money can best be spent.
My hon. Friend referred to a proposal by the Association of British Credit Unions, which is one of the main associations that brings together credit unions, to build an IT platform to enable credit unions to work together potentially through the post office network. Such a move would be significant, and it picks up on remarks that hon. Members have made during the debate. There are two real challenges for credit unions. One is to get better access, so that people can access credit unions. Clearly, a better IT platform, particularly if it was linked to the post office network, would be a massive development in improving our constituents’ ability to access credit unions. The second issue is even more important: awareness. There needs to be awareness that this credit source is available and that it can compete with the high-cost merchants that are around.
I want to reflect on something that the hon. Member for Harrow West said. He was quite right to praise his predecessor, Sir Ian McCartney, on setting up the illegal money lending teams. As a Minister, I have ensured that our funding for those teams continues at the levels that we inherited. Given the cuts that we are having elsewhere, that was a significant decision. The reason that we continued their funding is that those teams are successful and they are curbing the criminals who prey on vulnerable people in our communities.
I urge Members to look at how illegal money lending teams are working. I have been privy to a video of their work, from which one anecdote emerged that shows the importance of increasing awareness of the availability of credit unions. A family had borrowed £200 from a “family friend” on their estate and 10 years later, after intimidation and threats of violence, the family had paid back £90,000. It was only when the illegal money lending teams came and helped them, prosecuted their “family friend” and then gave them support as victims of a crime that they became aware of the existence of credit unions. Now they are borrowing from credit unions and they have put their lives back together, which is a tribute to the work of the illegal money lending teams. However, that story tells us an awful lot about this area and how we should approach it; above all, it shows the need to improve people’s awareness of credit unions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire also said, we need reform in this area of credit unions. We have been waiting for a legislative reform order—I share colleagues’ impatience about that—but it is coming and I am sure that in the autumn we can get it through the House. I am glad that it will have such support and it will make the difference, as my hon. Friend said.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West made an interesting point in relation to potential abuse of credit unions by people who then went bankrupt. If he can write to me about that issue, we will be responding—soon, I hope—to the consumer credit and personal insolvency call for evidence. Often, people have not focused on the personal insolvency side of the credit unions issue, and the hon. Gentleman was quite right to focus on it. The link between personal insolvency and credit unions is an important one to make and if there are problems we need to deal with them.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly raised another important issue; although it is not particularly germane to the title of this debate, it is important and I am glad to have the chance to speak about it. He raised the concerns that many of us have about the advertising of debt advice. Frankly, I think that I have broken a few radios as I have thrown things at them when they spew out these tempting adverts. We know that those adverts are a temptation that people should not go for. We need to address debt advice. In that regard, one of the issues also applies to credit unions: the importance of raising awareness so that people know that there is free, quality debt advice available. We must make sure that that is better known. The money advice service is doing some research on debt advice and considering how we can take it forward as a priority.
I want to go back to some of the other issues that were raised in the debate. The issue of Northern Rock raised its head. First, I want to say to some Opposition Members that the list of building societies that demutualised during the previous Labour Government is rather a long one. I suggest to those Members that they would be wise to press the Government very carefully on the issue, not least because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pressed the Labour Government to tie up some of the loopholes in that area, which they failed to do. I urge them to be a little more cautious as they approach the Northern Rock issue.
Mr Davey
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I think that he should listen to my full response before intervening.
I can say something to those Opposition Members who raised the issue of Northern Rock. I think it was the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Sassoon, who made a statement recently that we have launched a sale process for Northern Rock. He had written to the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals, and he made it very clear that any interested parties can bid, including mutuals. That reaffirms the Government’s commitment to promote the mutual financial sector. Having said that, of course, we cannot rule out any other options at this stage. Members may be interested to know that two building societies have expressed an interest in taking over Northern Rock. Remutualisation is an issue that must be addressed in due course by UKFI, but I am not the Minister with responsibility for UKFI. Nevertheless, those remarks that I have just made should reassure colleagues.
Chris Leslie
I am very grateful to the Minister for his recollection of my constituency. He has talked about the trade sale route that the Government have announced for Northern Rock. Notwithstanding the fact that he has said that other building societies might be interested in a direct purchase of Northern Rock, can he say categorically that the member buy-out option, whereby borrowers and savers of Northern Rock might have the chance to enter into a member buy-out arrangement, is still on the table and is still being considered among the other options that he was talking about? I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has written to the Treasury with the details of the member buy-out option.
Mr Davey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not the Minister responsible for Northern Rock and my Department is not responsible for it either, so I would be ill advised to go into detail about it. I have tried to ensure that the Members attending this debate received some answers about that issue and I believe that I have fulfilled that obligation, but he may need to attend Treasury questions to probe further on the issue.
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Harrow West, although I hope that he will bear in mind the answer that I have just given to his hon. Friend.
Mr Thomas
And I would have expected the Minister to have given a better answer than the one he has just given. At the very least, will he commit to write to those Members who have taken part in this debate with the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)?
Mr Davey
I am quite surprised by the hon. Member for Harrow West, because he has been a Minister and he will absolutely know that there are areas that a Minister does not go into when they are the responsibility of another Department. As I instructed the hon. Member for Nottingham East, I believe that he needs to attend Treasury questions and ask Treasury Ministers about this matter.
Mr Davey
Let me help the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and the hon. Member for Harrow West, who has twice interrupted me from a sedentary position, by saying that the decisions have not been made yet. If a lot of decisions had been made, I would be very happy to tell right hon. and hon. Members about them and let them ask questions about them.
Alun Michael
I will not go into point scoring of that sort. We know where the demutualisation exercise started and that piece of history is not a very good one.
I say to the Minister that it is normal in exchanges of this sort that, if a Minister is unable to answer a question, they offer to follow up the debate by providing an answer to that question. The difficulty that we have is that very often there is not a good understanding of mutuality within Whitehall; I am talking about official machinery now, particularly in relation to the Treasury. Therefore, there is a fear that a door has been closed that should be kept open. That is what the question is—is the door still open? It is a straightforward question and suggesting that people should attend Treasury questions is not really answering it.
Mr Davey
If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to listen, I will bring his remarks and those of other Members to the attention of my Treasury colleagues.
Other general issues about mutuals and co-operatives were raised very pertinently by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and indeed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. They asked how we can develop mutuals. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West made it very clear that we cannot impose mutuals. Mutuals have to take people with them and there cannot be a top-down approach. I absolutely agree with that. In addition, the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth talked about a sense of ownership. When we approach the issue of mutuals—whether that is developing more mutuals in the private sector or developing them through public sector reform—we have to learn those lessons.
I will give two examples, one from my constituency and one connected to my responsibilities. In my constituency, we have one of the first social enterprise mutuals in the health sector—Your Healthcare, which was spun out of a local primary care trust. It has slightly more than 450 employees, and will soon have local community members as well. It has been going for nearly a year, and is already a huge success. The employees feel a much greater sense of empowerment and feel relieved of bureaucracy. They elect their own managers, and have been driving efficiency and improving care. The enterprise is a key part of the reform agenda, and shows how powerful mutuals can be.
The notion of a health mutual in my constituency was first put forward about five years ago, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for being prepared to countenance such an idea. There was a lot of debate, because the Government could not quite agree on the issue, but at least they left the door open. Unfortunately, the PCT went too quickly and tried to tell the staff that they had to form a social enterprise, and from the start the staff were worried about pensions and terms and conditions. The local unions came to me, and I went to the PCT and said, “I think the idea is brilliant, but you have to take people with you,” for the very reasons that the hon. Member for West Bromwich Albion—[Laughter.]—West Bromwich West gave. The PCT stopped the process and re-consulted. It took a lot longer, but the local unions were then very supportive and the mutual has now gone forward very successfully. That is an example from the health sector of how important it is to involve people and to use a bottom-up approach.
The other example is the Post Office mutual proposal, contained in part 1 of the Postal Services Act 2011. If it is appropriate, we can move Post Office Ltd from being Crown-owned to a mutual model, and the hon. Member for Harrow West is absolutely right that we could do that only if the Post Office became commercially viable. The post office network relies on subsidy at the moment, but we are turning that situation around. I refer the hon. Gentleman to our policy paper published in October last year, which contains a whole set of serious business changes that will ensure that the post office network can go forward, wash its face and approach mutualisation. Those proposals are in stark contrast to how the network was run by the previous Government. For all the hon. Gentleman’s big words about mutuals, when we debated the relevant clauses on the mutualisation of the Post Office, neither Labour Front Benchers nor Labour Back Benchers asked a single question or tabled a single amendment. That is how interested they were when a major proposal on mutualisation was introduced to Parliament. It therefore ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to make such criticism when Labour Front Benchers did not even bother to ask questions in Committee or on Report about such a significant mutualisation. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West and the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth were right to make the points they did about mutuals having to work bottom-up.
I want to talk a little more about the Government’s approach. The hon. Member for Harrow West criticised us for not doing anything. Let me be rather more balanced and pay tribute to the previous Government for some of the things they did. The establishment of the new governance model of the community interest company has been very successful. When I recently went to see the community interest company regulator, who is based in Companies House, I heard about many successful CICs that are setting up. The previous Government’s decision to have the NHS right to request in community health care, again was a good thing, as was the development of co-operative trust schools, and we will support those types of initiative. The hon. Member for Harrow West, from a sedentary position, says “How?” He ought to wait a bit and let me finish the list of positive things. I was being positive about the previous Government and therefore he ought not to intervene at this point.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned legislation. The previous Government, through private Member’s Bills with cross-party support, improved the legislative framework. This Government are modernising that framework and taking it forward. We have heard about the legislative reform order. It is currently before Parliament and we hope to debate it in early autumn. We have also enabled greater electronic communication by mutuals, which is a very good deregulatory measure for them, and we will commence shortly the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010. We are consulting on the future registration and regulation of mutual societies as part of Treasury reforms to the landscape of financial services regulation. The Cabinet Office will give public sector workers new rights to form employee-owned mutuals and co-operatives, going much further than the previous Government and generating a huge amount of interest in many areas of the public sector.
In February 2011 we established the mutuals taskforce to advise the Government and to help drive the process forward, finding a way around some of the technical problems that were completely ignored by the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said that this is not understood; we have set up the mutuals taskforce to drive the process and to get external advice so that we can deal with some of the problems with pensions and other regulatory or technical problems. The mutuals taskforce has already met five times, and is a key development in driving the process forward.
Alun Michael
I am encouraged by what the Minister has just said. Can he assure us, though, that whoever is dealing with that process in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office will not be dismembered and sent off to do other things as soon as they have developed the expertise that is needed? In my experience, once officials grasp the contribution of mutuality they become great enthusiasts, and we need that in Whitehall.
Mr Davey
I am sure that we will learn the lessons from the previous Government’s mistakes.
We have also launched 20 pathfinder mutuals in areas including health, education and housing, to test some of the issues that went untested under the previous Government. The Localism Bill, which we will soon be considering, will give voluntary and community groups the right to challenge local authorities to take over delivery of local services. This is a rich picture of action, and therefore far from not delivering on rhetoric, as the hon. Member for Harrow West tried to maintain, we are indeed delivering.
There are one or two other questions that it would be remiss of me not to answer before I sit down, but I am conscious that I have been speaking for slightly longer than 20 minutes. There were a few questions about Supporters Direct. The Government are actively engaging in talks with the premiership in the hope of resolving the matter. The new head of Supporters Direct will, I hope, smooth some of the ruffled feathers, and perhaps with his efforts and those of the Government some moneys can be unlocked. I think that Members will understand why I cannot say too much more about that.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about social ISAs, and the hon. Member for Harrow West took up the issue. The hon. Member for Harrow West will no doubt be delighted to know that I was not briefed on that question. I am very much in favour of social finance initiatives, such as social impact bonds, community development finance institutions and the big society bank, and think that the Government have been very creative in this area. My colleagues in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office will get a lot of support from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in taking the issues forward.
I welcomed this debate, and it has been a good one. I wish the hon. Member for Harrow West had not brought so many partisan things into it, such as mentioning Swansea and Arsenal, but apart from that I am sure that collectively, as a Parliament, we will take forward this very important agenda.
Mr Bailey
Perhaps I had better start by saying that I am the Member for West Bromwich West, not West Bromwich Albion. Representing, as I do, a constituency that is evenly divided between West Bromwich Albion supporters and Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters, I am always anxious to demonstrate that my football loyalty resides with Cheltenham Town football club. I am a season ticket holder there and a member of the supporters’ trust.
This has been a good debate. There has been some political partisanship, but that is good, and it is probably good for the co-operative movement that the Government are being put on their political mettle to demonstrate their level of commitment. It struck me that it would have been almost impossible to have this debate 10 years ago, because the movement had not then demonstrated how important it is, not just to the economy but to the development of policies relevant to each of the party’s political platform. I ought to mention that that is demonstrated pictorially, and effectively in the Co-operatives UK report “The UK co-operative economy 2011: Britain’s return to co-operation”. If Members have not read it, I recommend that they do so. It is a succinct and easy-to-read document, just right for Members of Parliament, and it graphically and effectively demonstrates the range of co-operatives, their impact and their potential.
Turning to the issues raised, credit unions were mentioned a lot. We will wait with bated breath for the legislative reform order, but it is good that the Government have at least recognised the issue and are prepared to take action to advance that agenda. It has always been a source of amazement to me that credit unions, so powerful in a number of countries that are not regarded as cradles of co-operation, do not seem to have taken off in this country. There is enormous potential for a Government to provide the right legislative background for them to do so, and I welcome that.
There was a fairly sharp political exchange on Northern Rock. From my perspective, there is definitely a feeling in the financial press and elsewhere that the option of any form of mutual ownership has been closed. The Minister says that the door is open and that mutuals still have the opportunity to bid. However, I get the feeling that the conventional Treasury-backed wisdom is that that is not appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) made a point about Treasury thinking.
The Minister commented on the previous Government’s record on de-mutualisation. I cannot remember exactly which building society de-mutualised when, but I know that when Labour first came to office, co-operators found it difficult to get the Treasury and Whitehall to understand what made mutual organisations and co-operatives different and what potential they had. Numerous battles were fought to obtain that recognition, some of them through the passage of private Members’ Bills; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) piloted one of them. Over time, we were successful. I do not say that we have won every battle, or that there are not battles still to be fought, but we undoubtedly gained much greater recognition of that difference and the importance of the model within the range of financial services. We need reassurance that that opportunity still exists. If it is rejected, we need the reasons for the rejection to be clearly stated and understandable by the co-op movement.
Several other issues were raised, including that of the Post Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West said that we are happy that the model is being considered for Post Office, but given the interdependence of Royal Mail and Post Office, the right business relationship between them is needed so that a co-operatively or mutually run Post Office is not undermined. It would be disastrous to the movement for an organisation of the sheer scale and public standing of Post Office to be made into a mutual in such a way that the financial model undermined it and it was not successful. That could put back the cause of mutuality and co-operation for many years.
My last point concerns an issue on which there was a lively exchange—Conservative co-operators, whom I welcome. It is a reflection of the success of the movement that so many politicians are now willing to jump on that bandwagon. However, some of us were co-operators through the difficult days of the ’70s and ’80s and have brought our battle scars into Parliament with us. The commitment and capacity of Conservatives to claim co-operative credentials will be judged only when they can demonstrate what they have delivered during this Parliament. Co-operators such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West can do so, having piloted a co-operative Bill through the Commons. A range of changes were made as a result of pressure applied by Co-operative Members of Parliament. We in the Opposition are looking at Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to see whether they can do the same with their Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Court of Justice Judgment (Use of Gender by Insurers)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
On 1 March, the European Court of Justice ruled that the use of gender as a risk factor by insurers should not result in individual differences in premiums and benefits for men and women, with effect from 21 December 2012.
The Government were very disappointed with this result, which it expects to have a negative impact on consumers. The judgment goes against the grain of the common sense approach to equality which the UK Government want to see. The Government believe that nobody should be treated unfairly because of their gender, but that financial services providers should be allowed to make sensible decisions based on sound analysis of relevant risk factors.
However, in the light of our obligation to implement the judgment, this statement sets out the Government’s understanding of the judgment; their intention to amend the Equality Act 2010; and the steps we are taking in Europe to secure legal certainty and to ameliorate the worse effects for consumers.
Legal interpretation and domestic policy approach
The Government’s view is that the judgment only applies to new contracts for insurance and related financial services entered into on or after 21 December 2012. In such contracts, the use of gender as a risk factor should not result in individual differences in premiums and benefits for men and women. However, any contracts with gender-sensitive pricing of premiums or benefits concluded ahead of 21 December 2012 can continue unchanged after that date. We will therefore proceed with amendments to schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010. These amendments would be effected by Statutory Instrument under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which we propose to make early next year. Beforehand, the Government propose to issue a consultation on a draft order, including a full impact assessment, in the autumn.
European policy approach
The Government are working with the European Commission and other member states to ensure a unanimous view across the EU of the implications of the judgment, and the factors that need to be considered by member states in their implementation of the judgment.
While other EU member states and the European Commission are still considering the issues raised by the judgment, early indications are that our interpretation is shared across Europe. In view of the need for legal certainty, our preferred outcome would be an amendment of the gender directive to give effect to the judgment. We are therefore disappointed that the Commission has said it has no plans to propose any amendment, leaving the text of the directive inconsistent with the court’s decision. In view of the 21 December 2012 deadline, we will continue to work with other member states to press the Commission to propose such an amendment at the earliest opportunity.
The Commission has said that it proposes to issue guidance on the interpretation of the judgment and its implementation by member states. Although guidance will not offer all the advantages of a legislative amendment, we nevertheless welcome this and will work constructively to ensure it is as helpful and clear as possible. In view of industry’s need for early clarity about how to implement the judgment, we will press the Commission to bring this forward as soon as possible.
Industrial Action
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I am updating the House on the impact of the strike action by the PCS union on the civil service today.
I can confirm that our latest data gathered from all Government Departments show that, as of 12 noon today, just less than 100,000 civil servants were on strike. This is around a fifth of the total civil service work force.
The civil service has rigorous contingency plans in place to ensure that essential public services are maintained during periods of industrial action. For example, I can confirm to the House that:
Nearly all jobcentres are open for business, with only a handful closed to the public.
All UK borders are open and operating with only minor delays to the travelling public.
150 out of 159 HMRC enquiry centres are open for business as usual.
All HMRC contact centres are open and online services to the public are operating as usual.
Very few civil servants wanted this strike at all, and less than 10% of them voted for it. Less than half of PCS’s own members chose to take part today, and far fewer than in previous strikes in 2004 and 2007. The vast majority of hard working public sector employees do not support today’s premature and unjustified strike and have come into work today.
The Government are still in detailed discussions with the trade unions on public sector pension reform. We had a constructive meeting on Monday, which was one of a series of ongoing talks the Government have committed to with the TUC, and further meetings have been scheduled for July.
The Government are committed to working openly and constructively with the trade unions on public sector pensions and we believe both sides have a responsibility to see the talks through. This is a genuine consultation in order to try to agree a way forward with the unions.
The reform of public sector pensions is essential, but we will ensure that public sector pensions will still be among the very best, with a guaranteed pension which very few private sector staff now enjoy. But they will be paid later because people live longer. And public sector staff will pay more, for a fairer balance between what they pay and what other taxpayers pay.
We know that pension reform is an important issue and one that public sector staff care about a great deal. I want to thank the vast majority of hard working public sector employees for coming in to work today, ignoring the pickets and putting the public first.
News Corp/BSkyB Merger
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I am today publishing the results of the consultation on the undertakings in lieu I launched on 3 March alongside the subsequent advice I have received from Ofcom and the OFT. The consultation did not produce any information which has caused Ofcom and the OFT to change their earlier advice to me. I could have decided to accept the original undertakings. However a number of constructive changes have been suggested, and as a result, I am today publishing a revised, more robust set of undertakings and will be consulting on them until midday Friday 8 July.
As previously, I was not required to involve independent regulators in assessing the revised undertakings. However I have again done so, and sought their independent advice. I am today also publishing that advice, which after careful consideration I have decided to accept.
Background
On 3 March I informed the House that based on advice that I had received from OFT and Ofcom, I was minded to accept undertakings from News Corp in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission. As the Enterprise Act 2002 requires, I published these undertakings for a public consultation which ended on 21 March.
I received over 40,000 representations to this consultation, including a very large number of near-identical responses as a result of internet campaigns. I have placed summaries of the main responses on the DCMS website. I met representatives from Trinity Mirror, Guardian Media Group, Telegraph Media Group, Associated News and Media, and Slaughter and May on 24 March and met Avaaz on 15 April. Notes of meetings will be published at the end of the process.
The substantive points have been carefully considered by me, advised by the independent regulators.
The Carriage and Brand Licensing Agreements
The carriage and brand licensing agreements are an important part of this process and I will only accept the undertakings once I have approved these agreements.
These documents have been reviewed in great detail by OFT, Ofcom and external lawyers. I believe that their independent, expert advice provides confidence that the undertakings and key agreements are robust. They have concluded that the drafts of the carriage agreement and the brand licence agreement are now fully consistent with the proposed undertakings. In addition, OFT confirm that the terms of the carriage agreement and brand licensing agreement mean that Sky News will be practically and financially viable for the lifetime of the carriage agreement. I can now therefore confirm that I am satisfied with both agreements and am able to approve them in line with the requirement in the undertakings. I will not be publishing these agreements given the nature and the extent of the commercially confidential material they contain.
Undertakings in Lieu
I received advice from Ofcom and OFT on 22 June, copies of which have been placed on the DCMS website. Both regulators are clear that the points raised in the consultation exercise do not require them to change their previous advice to me. Nevertheless, there have been some constructive suggestions for strengthening the undertakings which I am minded to accept.
Editorial Independence
A number of changes have now been made to the undertakings to strengthen further the arrangements for editorial independence:
Sky News’ articles of association set out the definition of independent directors;
Meetings of the board of Sky News about editorial or journalistic matters will
only be quorate if an independent director with senior editorial and/or journalistic expertise is present. Similar arrangements apply to the corporate governance and editorial committee. This is a response to representations that these arrangements could be undermined if this director was often unavailable for meetings for whatever reason. The change will ensure that Sky News organises its business so as to ensure that there is always appropriate senior editorial and/or journalistic expertise at relevant meetings.
The appointment of a monitoring trustee whose main role is to ensure that News Corp complies with the undertakings and make sure that News Corp does not do anything
“that would prevent Newco [i.e. the spun off Sky News] being placed in an overall position of editorial, governance, commercial and financial independence in which it will contribute to plurality as Sky News did prior to the Transaction”.
Business viability
Some representations were made about Sky News’ continued financial viability. I consider that Sky News’ financial viability is adequately secured through the carriage and brand licensing agreements. However, in the light of representations received in response to the consultation exercise, I am proposing to modify the undertakings to ensure that Sky continues to cross-promote Sky News on its channels to a level and in a manner comparable with such cross-promotion for the period of 12 months prior to the date on which the undertakings are accepted. This is important to ensure that Sky News continues to enjoy the same promotional support as the current business.
Also, the monitoring trustee will provide advice to me in my review of the key operational agreements requiring my approval to ensure that they are fair and reasonable.
Articles of Association
Because so many of the safeguards are contained in the articles of association, including the requirement that Sky News’ services will abide by the principle of editorial independence and integrity in news reporting, the undertakings have been amended so that I have to approve them. Furthermore, News Corp has offered an additional undertaking not to attempt to cause Sky News to act in breach of its articles of association. A copy has been published along with the consultation document and the revised undertakings.
These are the main changes. All the changes are set out in the published revised undertakings, and a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the changes is included in the consultation document and OFT’s report. In my view, they provide a further layer of very important safeguards. As amended, I believe that the undertakings will remedy, mitigate, or prevent the threats to plurality which were identified at the start of this process. I therefore propose to accept the undertakings in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission.
I have today placed on my Department’s website a revised version of the undertakings and an associated consultation document. There will now be a final consultation period starting today and ending at midday on Friday 8 July. During this time all interested parties will be able to express their views on the revised undertakings.
Once again I will seek the advice of Ofcom and the OFT on any responses to this consultation. As expert regulators they are best placed to thoroughly understand the issues and to offer comprehensive and impartial advice. Once I have considered these representations and the independent regulators’ advice, I will reach a decision on whether I still consider that the undertakings should still be accepted in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission. If, after the consultation, I remain of the view that the undertakings properly address the concerns about media plurality, I will accept them and not refer this merger to the Competition Commission.
I am required to publish the revised undertakings in lieu and an explanation as to why I have made the proposed changes, and I have done so. In the interests of transparency I have also published a number of other documents where there is no legal requirement upon me to do so. These are: the advice I have received from OFT and Ofcom; the Articles of Association of Sky News; and a summary of responses to the consultation process. The carriage agreement and the brand licence agreement have not beeen published given the nature and the extent of the commercially confidential material they contain. I hope that this openness will help strengthen public confidence in the process and decision.
Other issues raised in the consultation
During the consultation period, a number of issues were raised that were not material to the issue of media plurality.
A number of respondents raised competition issues. In addition to the fact that this could not be considered as part of the media plurality public interest test, these issues have already been considered by the European Commission which concluded on 21 December last year that the increased shareholding would not significantly impede effective competition.
Some respondents also argued that News Corp could not be relied upon to abide by the requirements set out in the undertakings, citing previous guarantees and assurances given by News in the past, and the current phone-hacking allegations against The News of the World.
I have taken the view that News has offered serious undertakings and discussed them in good faith. In all the circumstances, and given that the implementation of those undertakings will be overseen by the monitoring trustee and thereafter monitored, and if necessary enforced, by the OFT, I believe that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure compliance with the undertakings. Furthermore, the various agreements entered into pursuant to the undertakings will each be enforceable contracts. Therefore while the phone-hacking allegations are very serious they were not material to my consideration.
I would also like to draw attention to a point stressed by Ofcom in its report. Namely, that the undertakings must be assessed against the fact that the plurality concerns arose out of a change in the degree of control News Corporation has over Sky. The undertakings do not and should not seek to establish Sky News in a position where News Corporation has no relationship with it at all, because today News Corporation controls 37.19% of Sky’s voting shares.
I am committed to maintaining the free and independent press for which this country is famous. I have sought and published independent advice throughout this process. I have listened carefully to points made in the consultation and amended the undertakings where appropriate. I have also gone for maximum transparency while taking reasonable account of commercial confidentiality considerations. I continue to believe that, if I allow this deal to proceed, Sky News will be able to continue its high-quality output and in fact will have greater protections for its operational and editorial independence than those that exist today.
Review of Statutory Duties on Local Authorities
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
In March, I announced our intention to take stock of the statutory duties placed on local authorities by central Government and at that time, I committed to keeping the House informed of progress.
At no point in recent history has there been a comprehensive list of the legal duties placed on councils.
The Government therefore agreed with the Local Government Association that we should compile a list of these duties to give clarity about what these duties are. We recognise that many ensure the provision of vital front line services but there are others which may be creating unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy for local authorities.
We published the draft list in March and invited local authorities and the general public to respond, identifying any existing duties that needed to be added to the list to make it more comprehensive and identify any that were redundant. For the avoidance of doubt, inclusion of a particular duty on the overall list was not an indication that the Government were considering that duty for removal.
The opportunity to comment closed in April. We received much public interest with over 6,000 respondents. Many respondents focused on protecting vital services, such as support for disabled children and children with special educational needs, allotments and libraries, all of which we have committed to maintaining. There was also significant interest in removing process-based requirements placed on local authorities as an important step in moving towards a decentralised system of governance.
This review has not happened in isolation, for example, the Munro review on child protection and the Law Commission’s work on adult social care are currently being considered by Government. This work did not seek to pre-empt the outcomes of such reviews.
From the outset, we have been clear this is an exercise in compiling as comprehensive a list of duties as possible and obtaining feedback on those thought to be redundant. We said unequivocally that the Government would not remove any statutory duties that protect vital front line services.
In closing this review 1 am today publishing a summary of responses and the latest revised list of duties, which has been updated with feedback from the responses received. I have made both available on the Department's website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/decentralisation/tacklingburdens/reviewstatutoryduties/
Also, I have placed a copy of the summary by my Department and the latest revised list of duties in the Library of the House.
At the point of publication of the consultation, we had identified that there were at least 1,294 duties imposed on each local authority. Between 1997-2009, 647 duties were imposed that are still current today. The table below illustrates the introduction of new duties by Government Administration:
Table: Statutory duties placed on local government by central Government extant in 2011 by Government Administration
By period of Introduction | Proportion |
|---|---|
Pre-1979 | 8% |
1979-1996 | 39% |
1997-2009 | 50% |
2010-2011 | 3% |
100% |
This exercise has successfully enabled a clearer picture of the requirements placed on local authorities, and created a valuable record that had previously never existed.
Any future consideration of whether to remove specific duties or associated guidance will be a separate process, and we will consult further as appropriate.
Individual Electoral Registration
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I am announcing today the publication of draft legislation on individual electoral registration (IER) for pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft legislation is accompanied by a White Paper which sets out the proposals for how this will be implemented.
An electoral register that is secure and trusted, and as complete and accurate as possible, is a key component for our democracy. It is widely recognised that the current system of electoral registration, which has been in place since the early twentieth century, is outdated and requires change. It is also clear that, although proven electoral fraud is relatively rare, there is widespread concern about electoral fraud in this country.
In the coalition programme for government we said we would
“reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of Individual Electoral Registration”.
I announced on 15 September 2010 our intention to legislate to speed up the move to IER by introducing it into Great Britain fully during this Parliament, in 2014. Individual electoral registration will bring greater protection against electoral fraud and modernise our electoral system. IER will ask each person to register themselves, rather than by household, and provide information which will be cross checked by registration officers before a person is added to the electoral register.
Learning from the experience in Northern Ireland we have put in place arrangements to help people manage the transition to the new system. Any electors who do not respond to the initial invitation to register under IER in 2014 will be carried forward unless the registration officer has concerns the registration is ineligible. An individual registration would be required for new registrations and for any elector who wishes to use an absent vote.
The White Paper also considers how else the system of electoral registration could be modernised, making it easier and more convenient to register to vote. Reforming the system also provides the opportunity to take steps to tackle the problem of under-registration. The UK’s registration rate compares well internationally but evidence suggests that a significant number of people are missing from the register. This year data-matching pilots will allow registration officers to compare their electoral register with other public databases to identify people missing from the register or entries on the register that are inaccurate or fraudulent. If data matching proves effective, we will consider rolling it out more widely across the country.
It should be made absolutely clear that no new national databases will be created and that no additional information will be placed on the electoral register as a result of the changes to the system.
We are committed to ensuring there is sufficient funding for implementation, with £108 million allocated over the course of the spending review period. We have also sought to reduce costs where possible and have already cut £74 million of the costs of the previous Government’s plans by dropping the voluntary phase.
In developing the proposals in the draft legislation and the White Paper we have worked closely with and listened to the views of stakeholders. I thank those who have already provided valuable input into the development of the proposals, and welcome input during the pre-legislative scrutiny period from those and others who have not yet had the opportunity to engage with us.
Copies of the White Paper and draft legislation have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Memorandum of Understanding (UK Government and the Devolved Administrations)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
A meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) of Ministers from the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations took place at 10 Downing Street on 8 June 2011. With respect to the Memorandum of Understanding between their Administrations, the Ministers agreed, first, that amendments should be made to the memorandum; and, secondly, that the secretariat to the JMC should initiate a technical review of the memorandum which should report to the domestic and/or European sub-committees of the JMC in due course.
The amendments to the memorandum focus on the dispute-resolution protocol contained in annex A.3. The purpose of the amendments is to allow for the possibility of an independent third-party providing an analysis of an inter-administration dispute where all four administrations agree that independent analysis would be helpful.
A copy of the memorandum has been placed in the Library of the House and can be found in the Vote Office and on the Cabinet Office website, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk.
Industrial Action in Schools
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
On Tuesday I gave a statement to the House on this Government’s response to the planned industrial action by two of the classroom unions. In that response I outlined the action I had taken and I also provided data on likely closures based on early estimates from local authorities and academies.
We now have a fuller picture, updated this morning based on data from all 152 local authorities and all 707 academies.
Our data show that 5,679 local authority schools were closed, 4,999 were partially open and 5,860 were fully open, while the situation with a further 4,320 has not been reported to us.
The figures also show that of the 707 academies and city technology colleges, 201 were closed, 235 were partially open and 271 fully open.
This means that 27% of all local authority schools were closed, 24% were partially open and 28% were open. Data were unavailable for the remaining 21%. Of the academies, 28% were closed, 33% were partially open, and 38% open.
I know that many teachers are concerned about the changes that have been proposed to their pensions. But I believe that we must resolve these differences through discussions and that the action today, while discussions are still going on, was disappointing and unnecessary. I am grateful to head teachers and governors who have worked hard to keep schools open. And I am particularly grateful to all those school staff who—while they may also have concerns about pensions—have decided to go into work today to minimise the impact on pupils and their parents. However, I am also disappointed that there has been disruption to the lives of so many parents across the country. The Government remain committed to discussing pension reforms with all the teacher unions openly, honestly and constructively.
Simplifying the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Last year in the annual energy statement my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced that we would consider the future of the climate change agreements and review the CRC energy efficiency scheme. We did this because we wanted to ensure that the policies we had inherited from the previous Administration were fit for the future, and that any regulations we retained were less burdensome for business, and more practicable. Today we will set out our initial conclusions following a helpful dialogue with business, the public sector and regulators. As part of this, we have considered radical options, including the possibility of scrapping either or both of the schemes to simplify the landscape. We have concluded that in order to achieve our objectives, while at the same time minimising burdens on business, we will retain and simplify both the CRC and CCAs, with a particular emphasis on ensuring the overlaps are removed and the schemes are each streamlined.
The first reporting year of the CRC is now over, and many organisations are, for the first time, identifying and recording their entire energy use. Over this period we have seen the importance of the CRC for stimulating the market for new low-carbon goods and service industries—including in energy measurement, in voltage optimisers and in low-energy lighting. I expect this to continue.
Today my Department, together with the devolved Administrations, publishes a vision for the way ahead in simplifying the CRC scheme. This document sets out the main simplifications that we would like to propose for formal consultation early next year. These proposals will provide greater business certainty by continuing the fixed price sales into the second phase (rather than auctions of allowances in a capped system), as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change and requested by stakeholders. Our proposals will provide business with greater flexibility by allowing organisations to participate as natural business units. They will also reduce the administrative burden; for example by reducing the number of the fuels which are subject to the scheme from 29 to four. We will also reduce the complexity of the scheme by removing the 90% rule and CCA exemption rules, while achieving broadly the same outcomes and remove any overlap between schemes at registration. In particular, businesses covered entirely by CCAs will not need to register and we will no longer require EU ETS installations to purchase allowances for electricity supplies.
Some have suggested that we should replace the CRC with a conventional tax. After considering this, and other policy alternatives suggested by stakeholders, we have decided to retain the CRC, in a simplified form. We believe that the tailored combination of reputational, financial and standardised energy measurement and monitoring drivers remain the most effective way to tackle the barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency. We have ample evidence that price alone does not ensure non-energy intensive organisations implement cost-effective energy efficiency measures which are available to them. Therefore, we consider the simplified CRC—alongside the Green Deal—is the best way to achieve greater energy efficiency and contribute to meeting our carbon budgets in the relevant sectors.
These proposed changes provide the basis for a simplified CRC and certainty for the future. We will review CRC and its fit with other policy measures in 2017.
Following the Budget announcement to increase CCA participants’ tax relief and extend the scheme until 2023, and as part of the considerations to streamline and simplify the policy landscape we have also considered options for the future of CCAs. We will shortly publish a consultation on revisions to the scheme to reduce its administrative burden on participants. We are exploring moving the future administration of the scheme to the Environment Agency, to exploit the synergies with the EU Emissions Trading System and the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, already administered by the agency. This will give industry a one stop shop for energy efficiency regulation. Target negotiation will remain a matter for Government and the sectors.
Finally, we have looked at the interplay between the EU Emissions Trading System and UK regulation, in particular how the UK can best implement the provisions in the directive that allow for small emitters to opt out. My officials are continuing to discuss options with the European Commission and are developing proposals on the “equivalent measures” as required by the directive. These discussions have not yet concluded. I am grateful for the assistance my Department has received from the UK Emissions Trading Group in making the case to Brussels for proportionate implementation of the directive.
In order to ensure our CRC proposals maximise the simplification opportunities, and take account of all the lessons learned in the first full reporting cycle, DECC and the devolved Administrations will continue the informal dialogue with participants throughout this autumn. My Department and the devolved Administrations will welcome comments on our proposed way forward published today. We will then formally consult on legislative proposals early next year.
Pet Travel Scheme
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Today I am announcing changes to the rules on the movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets into the UK under the pet travel scheme. These changes will make it cheaper and easier for people to travel with their pets while putting in place proportionate controls to prevent rabies incursion and enabling the UK to maintain its rabies-free status.
The pet travel scheme is the system of controls in place to reduce the risk of rabies and certain parasites from entering the UK via the importation of domestic pet animals.
Before pets can enter the UK under the pet travel scheme they must meet certain animal health requirements, such as being vaccinated against rabies, which are laid down in European Union (EU) law (EC Regulation 998/2003). The EU regulation applies to all pet dogs, cats and ferrets moving between member states and from non-EU countries into the EU and sets out standard entry conditions. The regulation currently provides two temporary derogations to the UK to apply more stringent controls on rabies, ticks and tapeworm. These derogations expire on 31 December 2011.
Having considered all the options very carefully, I have decided, in agreement with ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations, that from 1 January 2012 the UK will harmonise its controls on rabies with the EU-wide pet movement system. This is in line with the positions of Ireland, Sweden and Malta who will also be harmonising their rabies controls from this date.
The key differences between the current pet travel scheme rules and how they will change from the 1 January 2012 are:
Pets travelling from other EU member states and “listed” third countries (countries which the EU considers do not present a higher risk of rabies incursion compared to movements within the EU, for example USA, Australia and Japan) will no longer need to be blood tested after they have been vaccinated against rabies.
Pets travelling from other EU member states and listed third countries will only have to wait 21 days following their rabies vaccination before they can enter the UK, rather than waiting 6 months as they do now.
Pets travelling from “unlisted” third countries (countries which have not applied or been accepted for listed status because of less robust veterinary or administrative systems or higher rabies incidence, such as China, India and South Africa) will no longer be required to undergo six months’ compulsory quarantine and will be able to enter the UK if they meet certain requirements These include being microchipped and having been vaccinated against rabies and passed a blood test. They will not be allowed to enter the UK for at least four months after the date of the vaccination.
Pet owners who need to travel to the UK at short notice will continue to have the option of voluntarily placing their pet in UK quarantine, where it will be required to undergo the necessary health treatments, such as being vaccinated and blood tested if required, before being released.
The European Commission has given a strong indication that it will shortly come forward with proposals that would enable the UK and other tapeworm-free countries to retain tapeworm controls with a treatment window of one to five days. There will be no mandatory tick treatment before pets enter the UK.
Rabies
The proposed changes to the controls on rabies are proportionate to the disease risks involved and are scientifically justified. Since the UK pet travel scheme was introduced in 2000, the likelihood of a human case of rabies in Europe has substantially reduced as a result of an effective and ongoing programme to reduce the disease in the domestic and wild animal populations of EU member states, together with improvements in the accessibility to rabies vaccination and post-exposure treatment. There has been not one reported case of rabies in the EU associated with the legal movement of pets under the EU pet movement system since it was introduced in 2004, with many hundreds of thousands of pet movements having taken place during that time.
This reduction in the level of rabies across the EU is reflected in the findings of a quantitative risk assessment undertaken for Defra by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Their report, which has been peer reviewed, concluded that the risk of a rabies case in the UK will remain very low when we harmonise with the EU pet movement rules, with a chance of, on average, one case in 211 years. The risk of an outbreak leading to a human fatality in the UK would be much lower. This report has been published on the Defra website today.
In addition to the robust scientific case for harmonisation, these revised pet movement rules will deliver substantial benefits to UK pet owners, particularly those people with assistance dogs, making it easier and more affordable for the people who presently travel from the UK and back with their pets (on average 100,000) each year and will open opportunities for many more to travel abroad with their pets. It will also reduce the time dogs need to spend cooped up in kennels. The annual benefits of reduced controls to pet owners resident in the UK are estimated to be £7 million. These changes will also provide UK citizens the same level of free movement with their pet animals which other EU citizens are allowed.
We will continue to ensure that the UK maintains a robust level of protection against rabies, given the seriousness of the disease. We have robust plans in place to deal with rabies should it be detected. As part of our ongoing disease preparedness work we keep the rabies control strategy under constant review, and will be consulting with stakeholder organisations later this year to ensure our plans remain appropriate and proportionate. When the rules change on 1 January 2012 we will be looking to ensure that every pet arriving in the UK will continue to be checked to ensure that it meets the EU requirements, regardless of which country it comes from, and we expect the private quarantine sector to retain a vital role in dealing with non-compliant animals. Stringent penalties remain in place for those that breach the law by smuggling animals into the country or by knowingly using false or misleading information/documentation.
Tapeworm
The UK is currently free of the tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis and there is a strong scientific case for keeping controls in place to prevent its incursion into the UK. The European Commission has given a strong indication that it will shortly come forward with proposals that would enable the UK and other tapeworm-free countries to retain tapeworm controls with a treatment window of one to five days.
Ticks
Tick controls will no longer apply when the rules change on 1 January 2012. Although ticks which are capable of transmitting the disease Mediterranean Spotted Fever might enter the UK via pet movements, they could also enter the UK via other routes (for example on people or vehicles). Even then, the likelihood of ticks establishing in the UK is negligible. Our evidence base for maintaining tick controls is less robust than for tapeworm and we would have difficulty putting forward a case to show tick controls are fully effective, scientifically justified and proportionate to the risk of disease incursion. We will continue to work with vets to encourage pet owners travelling abroad to treat their pets against ticks, as they do at present, as part of good pet ownership practice. Pet owners are advised to talk to their vets about the appropriate course of action for their animals when planning a trip abroad.
There are a number of practical issues that still need to be worked through and Defra will be engaging with key stakeholders, including the quarantine and carrier industries, over the coming months. Members of the public who intend to travel abroad with their pet from 1 January 2012 should consult the Defra website for advice on the procedures to follow in the first instance, contact the Pets helpline or speak to their vet.
Libya (Equipment for the National Transitional Council)
(13 years, 7 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 informed the House on 16 May 2011, Official Report, vol 528, column 161, that the Government intended to provide additional practical and material support to the National Transitional Council (NTC), as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people. I can now confirm that the following additional equipment has been granted to the NTC for the sole use of the civilian police force.
5,000 sets of body armour;
6,650 police uniforms;
5,000 high visibility vests and t-shirts;
Communications equipment for police stations.
Provision of this equipment is fully in line with UNSCRs 1970 and 1973, including the arms embargo. This equipment will enable the civilian police to carry out their functions more securely and better protect NTC representatives and the significant international and NGO communities in Benghazi, Misrata and other areas of Libya now controlled by the NTC.
Under the HM Treasury guidelines set out in “Managing Public Money” these items are grants and grants-in-aid to the NTC and not gifts. Therefore Crown immunity applies to the supply of body armour and an export licence is not required. The other equipment does not require export licences. However, I am committed to keeping Parliament informed, which is why I am setting this out in a WMS.
Public Records: Colonial Documents
(13 years, 7 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 my statement to the House on 5 May 2011, Official Report, column 24WS, I announced my intention to appoint a senior and independent figure to oversee the process of reviewing and transferring migrated archives from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to The National Archives.
I am pleased to announce the appointment of Professor Tony Badger, Paul Mellon Professor of American history and Master of Clare College at the university of Cambridge, to this position.
The independent reviewer will:
Provide independent oversight of the process of selection, review and release into the public domain of papers from the FCO’s “migrated archives”.
Provide assurance to the wider public that the process is being carried out in accordance with my commitment to transparency, notably my intention to release
“every part of every paper of interest, subject only to legal exemptions”.
These exemptions are set out in the Freedom of Information Act,
Offer guidance on prioritisation of the files for selection, review and release to ensure that the papers of greatest interest or highest significance are dealt with first and without undue delay.
Provide independent scrutiny of the steps FCO has taken to locate or confirm destruction of the missing top secret files.
Send a short report to me at the conclusion of the process, for publication.
Forensic Science Research and Development
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
On 27 January I announced a review of research and development in forensic science. The Government are today publishing this review and copies will be placed in the House Library. The review is also available on the Home Office website.
I welcome this review into research and development in forensic science. I would like to encourage all members of the forensic science community to consider it carefully, and consider how they can work together to co-ordinate, deliver and communicate research in this important field.
Research within commercial providers is one element of a much bigger landscape. I note the recommendation that the Home Office forensic transition board, which I chair, should pay specific attention to the research and development requirement in the framework agreement for forensic science providers. The review shows that research and development is already an integral part of the work of any commercial forensic science provider and that there are natural links between casework and research.
I fully accept the recommendation and can underline the Home Office’s view that forensic science providers do need to undertake appropriate research and development to support their role in the criminal justice system. Providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost will preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact forensic sciences can have on tackling crime.
Professor Silverman, the Home Office chief scientific adviser, will continue to work with the forensic science research community and research funders to help co-ordinate and support research in forensic science.
National DNA Database Ethics Group
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I am pleased to announce the publication of the fourth annual report of the National DNA Database Ethics Group on 27 June 2011. The group was established on 25 July 2007 to provide Ministers with independent ethical advice on the operation and practice of the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
I welcome the consideration given in the report to a number of important issues. The Government share the concerns of the group to ensure both the effectiveness of the database and its ethical operation. The Protection of Freedoms Bill takes account of the advice of, and a number of concerns raised by, the group. For example, as well as requiring the destruction of all DNA samples within six months of being taken, the Bill places the National DNA Database strategy board on a statutory footing and requires the Home Secretary to lay the board’s annual report before Parliament.
The ethics group’s annual report can be viewed on the website of the independent forensic science regulator and a copy will be placed in the House Library.
Matrimonial Property and Registered Partnership Property Regimes
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Government have today decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposals on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships.
The Commission’s proposals aim to regulate jurisdiction and applicable law as they apply both to the daily management of the property of spouses and registered partners (which would include civil partnerships registered in the UK) and to how disputes relating to the distribution of assets in cross-border situations are handled following the ending of a couple’s relationship through divorce or dissolution of the partnership, separation or death.
The broad balance of opinion from the Government’s consultation was that it would not be in the UK’s interests to participate in these proposals. A number of difficulties were identified. First, the concept of a matrimonial property regime (or equivalent for civil partners) does not exist in the UK in the sense understood in most other member states. Currently our courts take a wide view of the capital resources available to the parties on divorce or dissolution (including maintenance). Many of these issues are not included in traditional matrimonial property regimes. If the UK was to opt in it would be more difficult for our courts to deal with all aspects of the financial provision of international couples on divorce or dissolution in cases which fall within the scope of these proposals.
Concerns were raised about how the use of foreign law could drive up costs and complicate the resolution of disputes in the family courts and create uncertainty for third-parties who enter into a legal relationship with the couple. There was also considered to be uncertainty about the interaction with succession law.
Both the House of Lords European Union Select Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee have recommended the UK should not opt-in.
Reports of the Chief Surveillance, Interception of Communications, and Intelligence Services Commissioners
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports of the former Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Gibson (HC 1240), the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Kennedy (HC 1239) and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Rose (HC 1111).
The responsibility of the Commissioners is to provide independent oversight of the use of the investigative powers contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997. They play a vitally important role in ensuring that public authorities make use of these powers in a way which is necessary, for a legitimate aim and also proportionate to what is sought to be achieved. They are required under the provisions of the legislation to provide an annual report to me with respect to the carrying out of their functions.
All three Commissioners have concluded that these powers are being used properly and appropriately, in accordance with the requirements set out in statute and that respective Secretaries of State and the various members of the intelligence services, police and law enforcement authorities and other public authorities are properly complying with the duties set out in the legislation. They consider that the public authorities concerned are undertaking their work with diligence and in accordance with the law. There have, regrettably, been breaches and errors. However, these have been relatively few in number and in all cases they were caused by procedural or technical problems that have since been addressed.
I am grateful to Sir Peter, Sir Paul and Sir Christopher and to the inspectors and staff which support them, for their work on these reports—which taken together represent a significant increase in the transparency and oversight of these intrusive powers.
Dartford-Thurrock River Crossing (Charges)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I am publishing today, a consultation paper on proposals to change the charging regime at the Dartford-Thurrock river crossing. The proposals concern new possible charging rates according to type of vehicle using the crossing.
The Dartford-Thurrock river crossing is a key part of the strategic road network. It consists of two two-lane tunnels carrying traffic to the north, and a four-lane cable stayed bridge (the Queen Elizabeth II bridge) carrying traffic to the south. The crossing spans the River Thames between Dartford and Thurrock, forming a trunk road link (the A282 trunk road) in the M25 orbital motorway.
A road user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003, using the powers in the Transport Act 2000, in order to manage the high demand for use of the crossing. The Department for Transport (DfT) revised the charging regime in 2008 following public consultation. Details of the current charging regime are set out in the A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2008 (Statutory Instrument No. 1951).
In recognition of the strategic importance of the crossing the Government are committed to tackling the current and forecast performance issues affecting the crossing. As part of the spending review, the Department announced that, subject to consultation, prices would increase from £1.50 to £2.00 in 2011 for cars, rising to £2.50 in 2012 and that prices for other vehicles would also increase. The proposal to increase the charges at the crossing is both a measure to manage demand and to help to fund transport investment. For this reason I am today launching a consultation on proposals to change the charges.
The consultation makes reference to, but does not include detailed proposals for, other short, medium and long-term measures to be taken forward in this spending review period in relation to the crossing. In the short term we are announcing an initial six-month trial of a protocol for suspension of the charges during periods when the severity of congestion is such as to constitute an emergency, and charge suspension would help to ease that congestion.
In the medium term our objectives are, the introduction of a free-flow charging scheme and a review of options for additional crossing capacity.
I am pleased to announce that the consultation will run until 23 September 2011. Everybody with an interest is invited to take part. A consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on my Department’s website. An electronic copy has been lodged with the House Library. A public notice marking the publication of these proposals will be posted in the London Gazette and the Dartford Messenger on 30 June and in the Thurrock Gazette on the 1 July and copies of all the documents will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dartford borough council and Thurrock council.
Social Fund Community Care Grants
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am announcing changes to the community care grant scheme to ensure the fund is appropriately used. Discretionary social fund directions will be amended with effect from 4 July 2011.
The Public Accounts Committee hearing on the community care grant scheme was held on 3 November 2010. One of the recommendations was that more could be done to prevent abuse of the scheme. I am therefore amending Social Fund Direction 7 to prevent repeat applications being awarded, unless there has been a relevant change of circumstances. The current direction, which applies to both community care grants and crisis loans, prevents repeat applications being awarded if an application is made within 28 days of a previous application for the same expenses. This period will be extended to 12 months.
The 12-month time limit has been chosen because this is broadly in line with manufacturers guarantee periods. In addition the period is well within the scope of the Sale of Goods Act and is a reasonable period during which customers are able, if goods are faulty, to take the matter up with the retailer.
I am also taking the opportunity to make some minor and technical amendments to the directions.
Copies of the amended Secretary of State directions have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.