House of Commons
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
1. When he next plans to meet the vice-chancellor of the Open university.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I meet representatives of the Open university regularly. My most recent meeting, covering a range of issues, took place earlier this week. The Open university has, of course, particularly welcomed the extension of loans to part-time students, which will benefit up to 175,000 students overall, including many from the Open university.
Iain Stewart
Some 20% of the newest undergraduates at the Open university come from the 25% most disadvantaged communities in the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the widening participation allocation is crucial to delivering results and will be essential to widening access in the future?
Mr Willetts
Yes. My hon. Friend refers to something that, in many ways, is the equivalent of the pupil premium in schools. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is now consulting on how best to deliver the money in future, but we have made it clear that it is very important to reflect the additional costs that under-represented groups face.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Open university the only happy university at the moment? I note the 10% increase in the number of its students, but what about the rest? Most of the vice-chancellors I talk to are very unhappy about the destabilisation of the sector and cannot see their way forward.
Mr Willetts
The hon. Gentleman does higher education a great disservice. In my experience, vice-chancellors are looking forward to the challenge of attracting students and know that one in four students will be bringing their money to the university that they choose, as we push back the quotas. They also see that in our White Paper we envisage universities having 10% more cash coming to them in four years’ time than they have now.
Mr Speaker
May I just remind the House that the question is specifically about the Open university? I know that that is what the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench will be asking his question about.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am always grateful for your helpful advice, Mr Speaker.
As the Minister reflects on his important meeting with the vice-chancellor of the Open university this week and as he worries, too, about the number of would-be students set to be turned away from university this summer on his watch, can he tell the House which of the following he is most proud of? Is it the decisions that have already been taken by the Government to axe 24,000 student places? Is it his plan to axe another 20,000 places at quality universities in order to fund an auction to the lowest bidder? Or is it his claim that universities charging the full £9,000 would be the exception?
Mr Willetts
The hon. Gentleman is in danger of becoming the mad axeman. There are no 24,000 places being axed—he has invented that figure. What we have been able to do, even in tough times and even when we are reducing spending across the board, is broadly maintain the number of student places.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the effects on growth of green investment; and if he will make a statement.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
4. What assessment he has made of the effects on growth of green investment; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
In the transformation to a green economy, low-carbon industries will grow, while other sectors will face significant challenges from increased energy prices. There could be significant transitional costs in the near term, but those could be manageable, with targeted Government action. We have committed to announcing in the autumn a package of measures to reduce the impact of Government policy on electricity costs for energy-intensive manufacturers whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies.
Anas Sarwar
Ernst and Young’s latest survey found that only 8% of renewable energy professionals said that they were optimistic that the Government would establish the conditions for success in the next 12 months and that only 14% of those surveyed expected significant growth and new jobs, which is a decrease from last November’s figure of 65%. Is it not clear that the Government are undermining confidence in growth in this important sector and are costing real jobs at a difficult time for our economy?
Vince Cable
The renewable energy sector will, of course, be given confidence and clarity as a result of the electricity market review, which my colleague the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change launched this week, and it will be given further confidence by the investments of the green investment bank, which will take shape in the coming months.
Paul Flynn
Why have the Government inexplicably cut investment in tidal power by 50%, given that the immense power of the tide in my constituency is the second greatest in the world? We have this vast resource, with huge potential. It is green and inexhaustible, yet the Government refuse to invest in it. Should they not give the powers to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which thoroughly understand the potential of tidal power?
Vince Cable
Tidal power may well have an important role to play in the long-term development of renewables and that is why it is one of the components of the new technology innovation centre that will focus on renewable energy.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
To unlock the full growth potential of the green investment bank, the UK will need to secure state aid approval. What progress is the Secretary of State’s Department making to obtain that approval and to ensure that the legislation is introduced as soon as possible?
Vince Cable
The proposals are at such a stage that they are being referred to the European Union for state aid approval. Legislation will follow, but in the meantime the Department will be able to make available loans and other forms of investment under the green investment bank, as we originally envisaged.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Clear regulatory frameworks are essential to facilitate green investment. The construction industry, which is flat on its back at the moment because of the Government’s policy, is desperate to take forward the green deal but it does not know the rules of the game. When will it have some clarity from the Government to facilitate investment and build jobs and growth?
Vince Cable
The answer to that question will be included in the green economy road map that will be announced at the end of this month. It involves a process of collaboration across Government by my Department, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in discussion with business and trade unions that will provide a consensus framework within which such decisions can be pursued.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
3. What progress he has made on reducing regulatory burdens on business arising from EU directives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I am pleased to have this opportunity to remind the House of our recent successes. The recent political agreement to exempt micro-enterprises from onerous accounting and financial reporting obligations should save British companies between £150 million and £300 million a year. Thanks to the UK’s persistent efforts, a further commitment from the Commission to introduce proposals to exempt micros from new and existing legislation was also secured at the European Council in June.
Mr Laurence Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware of the EU waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which requires all showers that are not fitted to be registered through a costly system, whereas those that are considered to be fitted need not be registered? There is a great debate about what constitutes a fitted shower. Such nonsense is not helping British business or jobs. Is that really why we put so much money into the EU?
Mr Davey
I am delighted to be able to tell the House that I am now aware of that issue, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s written question on it. He is right that the scope of the EU waste electrical and electronic equipment directive has been problematic since its adoption at the end of 2002. For example, there is no reference in the directive to exemption for fixed installations, but the European Commission’s guidance does allow for one in its interpretation of article 2(1). European negotiations on a recast of the regional directive are under way and we hope for greater clarity on that and other scope issues once a new directive is agreed.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but will he also assure me that he will do all he can to reduce any home-grown regulatory burden that might crop up, especially for small and micro-businesses?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that in the Chancellor’s Budget we announced a three-year moratorium on regulations for micros. We have also set up the red tape challenge. We are dealing not just with future regulation but with the stock of regulation, an exercise that was long overdue.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
5. What steps he has taken to support the engineering industry; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Government are actively supporting engineering and manufacturing by boosting innovation, increasing business investment, improving skills and encouraging exports.
Mr Spellar
I thank the Minister for the departmental mission statement, but the reality is that the Thameslink contract is being given to Siemens without even getting the company to build in the UK. The Minister cannot hide behind EU rules, because the French buy only from France and the Germans buy only from Germany—and the last time I looked they were in the EU. Will he stand up for British industry at last, meet the Transport Secretary before the contract is signed and ensure that we keep train building in the UK at its historic home in Derby?
Mr Prisk
We are concerned for those workers in Derby and that is why we have already taken prompt action. I welcome the support of local Members, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the contract’s tendering rules were set in 2008 and you were responsible as a party for the first two years of the contract. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that 1.7 million jobs were lost in manufacturing under the previous Labour Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the Minister that I was not responsible for any such contract at all. I am entirely innocent in the matter.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
In South Staffordshire in the past year we have had considerable success in attracting engineering manufacturing jobs, but I am constantly being told that we do not have enough engineering graduates coming out of colleges and universities after 13 years of Labour government. What are we doing to rectify that?
Mr Prisk
Absolutely right—what we, rather than yourself, Mr Speaker, are doing about it is making sure that we have apprenticeships in place and that we put vocational education, which was neglected by the Labour party, back on a proper footing. We are also making sure that people are able to transfer between engineering firms. There is good news to be told.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
6. What progress he has made on local enterprise partnerships; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
Both the number and activity of local enterprise partnerships is continuing to rise. Dorset is the latest to be cleared, bringing the total to 36—or 97% of the country. Of those, 18 now have full board recognition and have begun their work.
Tony Baldry
I am sorry to ask my hon. Friend what I suspect will be perceived as an unhelpful question, but local enterprise partnerships are going to have to raise their game seriously if they are to have any traction or impact. I am sorry to have to report to him that, so far, they seem to have no traction or impact in my area of the country.
Mr Prisk
I am disappointed by my hon. Friend’s comments. I have visited 25 of the 36 LEPs and they are already setting up boards to make sure that they are ready to involve small businesses. Now they are going to be able to lead on enterprise zones, lead on the regional growth fund and make sure that we strip away some of the local regulatory problems on the ground, which I am afraid the Labour party did nothing about.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
As LEPs are business-driven, they could have businesses working with local authorities and local education providers to provide a much better and more localised match of skills needs and skills provision. Will the Minister say how many LEPs are taking that responsibility on and whether any examples of best practice will be rolled out with other LEPs?
Mr Prisk
It is encouraging that almost all the LEPs that I have visited have demonstrated that they are involving FE colleges in their programmes. The hon. Gentleman is right that that is crucial. They are ideally suited to get FE colleges producing what local businesses need; that is one of the crucial projects that at least half a dozen of them have already begun.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The pan-Humber local enterprise partnership is now up and running and it has recently put in a bid for a local enterprise zone across the Humber, which will be based around the renewables sector. As a result, the area covered by that potential enterprise zone is quite large. Will the Minister give an assurance that its size—and the need for it to be of that size given that it will be structured around the renewable energy industry—will be taken into account?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
According to recent OECD research, the single most important factor in regional growth is innovation, but LEPs do not even have responsibility for that, let alone any money, and it is not even mentioned in the regional growth fund criteria. The £440 million that the regional development agencies invested annually in regional innovation is gone, the Technology Strategy Board’s new strategy makes no reference to it and in any case it still does not have a budget for next year. I know that the Secretary of State enjoys chaotic Maoism, but does regional growth not merit a more coherent approach?
Mr Prisk
The hon. Lady is ignoring the fact that we have made sure that the science budget is retained and strengthened, and that we are putting £200 million into technology and innovation centres. When we look at individual schemes and the regional growth fund, we see that £2 million is being put into 3D printing, which is a vital technology for this country—we lead on it and we are investing in it.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
7. How much outward investment to Azerbaijan was supported by his Department in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11. [R]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Azerbaijan to develop the relationship between our two countries. I am pleased to say that more than 100 exporting and investing companies have been assisted in Azerbaijan through UK Trade & Investment in the past two financial years alone.
Mr Field
I thank the Minister for his answer. As he will be well aware, over those past two years there has been compound double-digit growth in Azerbaijan. Is he convinced that his Department is doing enough in two specific areas—the fledgling financial services industry in Azerbaijan and infrastructure investment, on which our companies could add a lot in that part of the world?
Mr Davey
Across the Government, our new approach to commercial diplomacy is working in all those areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited Baku last year and took with him a number of companies involved in the infrastructure project. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the British music industry will take all the possible opportunities presented by the Eurovision song contest being held in Azerbaijan next year, and that they are not “Running Scared”.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
8. Which locations he is considering for the headquarters of the green investment bank.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
Ministers will consider all submitted business cases for a potential location for the green investment bank. To date, London, Edinburgh and Bristol have made representations. However, others might wish to do so, and once state aid approval is granted, Ministers will choose a location that best enables the bank to fulfil its mission.
David Mowat
I thank the Minister for that reply. When the Secretary of State announced the bank in May, it was stated that there was a shortlist of the three locations that have been mentioned, two of which are capital cities. Further to the reply today, can the Minister confirm that the selection process will be based on rigorous and transparent criteria and that other towns and cities will be judged on their merits?
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister will understand the strong case for the bank to be based in Edinburgh, but will he confirm that the bank will not end up just taking up the cuts made elsewhere in Government expenditure? I was concerned by the earlier suggestion that wave power could be funded by the green investment bank. I hope that the bank will provide new, additional funding for greener industries and not just pick up slack elsewhere.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, ideally, the home of the green investment bank will have a mix of commercial and ethical banking, a strong network of professional services firms, green non-governmental organisations, charities and sustainable businesses? That strongly suggests that the city of Bristol is the ideal home for the green investment bank.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Will the Minister identify the key criteria in the selection process for the green investment bank location?
Mr Prisk
I have just set out that, in fact, the process is under way for the rules and criteria. The location, which is obviously the issue at hand, is one that we will bear in mind when we see the business cases. The key issue is what will deliver the best result for the bank itself.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
9. How many people in (a) Crawley constituency, (b) the south-east and (c) England have started an apprenticeship in 2011.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
In the first three quarters of this academic year, 550 apprenticeships were started in the Crawley constituency, 41,890 started in the south-east region and 326,700 in England. Overall, that is 114,000 more than last year—more than a 50% increase. By the end of this spending review, there will be funding for 250,000 more adult apprenticeships than were planned by the previous Government.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating Central Sussex college in my constituency on administering 900 apprenticeship places and Virgin Atlantic Airways on creating 42 highly skilled engineering apprenticeship places in my constituency? Does that not prove that further education and the commercial sector working together can improve the offer for apprenticeships?
Vince Cable
Yes, indeed; it does exactly that. My hon. Friend’s constituency can demonstrate that this is a real success story. There has been a 62% increase in such places in Crawley over the past year. I certainly welcome the news from Virgin Atlantic Airways about engineering apprenticeships. We have had massive shortages in this country at intermediate level and in graduate and postgraduate engineers, and we really now must buckle down to increasing the supply in this and other ways.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
10. What his policy is on future space travel and exploration; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
My hon. Friend’s question is very topical: this morning, a statue of Yuri Gagarin is being unveiled just a few hundred yards from here. It commemorates the first human space flight 50 years ago. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will wish to send their best wishes to Yuri Gagarin’s daughter, whom I will meet later today.
In the growth review, we set out our support for innovative forms of space travel, such as Virgin Galactic, that involve British entrepreneurs and British inventors.
Mr Brine
I thank the Minister for that. He will remember the exciting HOTOL—horizontal take-off and landing—project in the 1980s, which certainly put a spring in the step of the British space industry. The single-stage-to-orbit Skylon programme looks equally promising today. I hear what the Minister says—and I send my best wishes, too—but I wonder what role an ambitious Government see for the UK in future human space travel.
Mr Willetts
I have visited the company to which my hon. Friend refers, and he mentions an excellent British technology that is securing a lot of private backing. The future of space travel rests much more with commercial businesses now, but I look forward to the day when Major Tim Peake, the British astronaut, makes it into space; I regularly raise the issue of that programme with the head of the European Space Agency.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Would the Minister expand on how the UK might increase its participation in the European space business development plans?
Mr Willetts
We have specifically identified the space sector in the growth review, and we are committed to a major role for British business in that. Indeed, only last week we celebrated a £110 million satellite order.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
11. How many people in (a) Stafford constituency, (b) the west midlands and (c) England have started an apprenticeship in 2011.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
In the first three quarters of this academic year, there have been 570 apprenticeships started in the Stafford constituency, 38,350 started in the west midlands, and 326,700 started in England.
Jeremy Lefroy
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I congratulate him, and the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is not in his place, on their achievements in delivering such strong growth in apprenticeships. Quality is also important. Will the Secretary of State share with the House the steps that his Department will take to monitor the quality of apprenticeships, and the career progression of apprentices once they complete them?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that quality is important as well as quantity, but it is important that the quality assurance is proportionate and does not result in excessive bureaucracy. The best evidence that apprenticeships give value for money is in the results. Typically, employers get payback in three years. An intermediate level of skill, level 2, results in, I think, £73,000 more over a lifetime. A level 3 qualification produces £105,000 added income over a lifetime, and the Government get £40 back for every £1 that they spend on apprenticeships.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
On the future of apprentices, has the Secretary of State yet had a chance to look at the new report from the all-party parliamentary motor group about an industry that supports 700,000 jobs and contributes £1 billion towards research and development? One of the conclusions of the report, to which Ministers in the Department have contributed through discussion, is about the skills gap in the automotive industry. The Secretary of State has referred to the skills gap in engineering before; what practical steps can he take to ensure that the issue is addressed?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right in the premise of his question; the automotive industry is enormously important. As he knows, some very welcome investment is taking place in the west midlands, the north-east, Luton and elsewhere. Indeed, I have been to Japan, Detroit and elsewhere to encourage that investment. He is right also that potential investors stress the need for skills. A great deal of investment is now taking place; specifically, there are the 10,000 places for advanced apprenticeships, which will be directed specifically to small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain of industries such as the vehicle industry.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
12. What progress his Department has made on its employment law review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
As part of the review, we have consulted on employment tribunals and unfair dismissal, launched the employer’s charter, commissioned reviews of sickness absence and of compliance and enforcement regimes, repealed the default retirement age, introduced a moratorium for micro-businesses and start-ups, and announced that we will not proceed with the dual discrimination provision in the Equality Act 2010. We have announced future work priorities for the review, and the red tape challenge will also consider cross-Government employment-related regulations.
Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am really worried about the lack of engagement with the review by other Departments. Does he agree that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office also impose significant burdens on employers? May I encourage the Minister to throw his weight around with those other Departments? We have an urgent need for jobs.
Mr Davey
I assure my hon. Friend that all Departments with responsibility for employment-related legislation are contributing to the review; it is important that they should, if the review is to have a real impact on burdens on business. I will talk to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that they are taking a clear role in it, as I am sure that they will.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given that the well respected Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development considers that the Government are
“justified in seeking to reform procedures to resolve workplace disputes”,
but suggests that
“the decision to increase the qualifying period for rights against unfair dismissal is questionable”
and could be
“potentially harmful to the long-term performance of the UK economy”,
will the Government stop using a tax on employment rights as a pathetic and unproven substitute for any real growth strategy and drop plans to increase from one to two years the qualifying time for unfair dismissal?
Mr Davey
The hon. Lady is right to quote the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development on this issue, because it supports much of the coalition Government’s better regulation agenda in this area. She will know that the unfair dismissal period is out to consultation. A number of responses are very much in favour of the proposal, but she would not expect me to prejudge the consultation today.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
13. How many people in (a) Mid Bedfordshire constituency, (b) the south-east midlands and (c) England have started an apprenticeship in 2011.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I am beginning to appreciate that there is a lot of heavy lifting involved in being acting Minister responsible for skills.
In the first three quarters of this academic year, 420 apprenticeships have been started in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency. It is not possible to quantify the number of apprenticeships started in the south-east midlands region, but 28,230 have been started in the east of England.
Nadine Dorries
In 2013, Centre Parcs will open in my constituency, and I have already turned the first sod of earth. It will need a wide variety of employees, from accountants, HR professionals and medical staff to caterers, landscape gardeners and beauticians, all of whom require skills. What will the Government do further to relieve the burden on employers who wish to take on apprentices, so that we can continue with the impressive trend that we have started already?
Vince Cable
To reduce what is unfortunately the substantial amount of bureaucracy in this area, we are greatly simplifying the number of funding channels and the number of institutions and introducing outcome-based payments for large employers that are training providers. The point behind the hon. Lady’s question is that apprenticeships and vocational training are a great success story for employers, who are beginning to see their real advantages, for young people, who see benefits for their own careers, and for the Government, who have prioritised them and seen the results.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State welcome the apprenticeship initiative led by Johnson Matthey and announced this week in my constituency of 100 days for 100 new apprenticeships, the launch of which I attended, and will he recommend it to other Members as a course of action to provide support for the local economy and local new apprenticeships?
Vince Cable
I would strongly recommend it. I believe that 24 such schemes have already been launched and more than 5,000 apprenticeships have been generated in that way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his role in promoting it in his constituency and compliment the company, whose headquarters in Royston I visited a few weeks ago. It is a superb and innovative British manufacturing company that is exporting most of its production and investing in skills for the long term.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
14. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the recommendations of the report of Lord Davies on female representation on corporate boards.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Lord Davies’s report rightly challenges directors and investors to increase the number of women on boards. The report is already having an impact on FTSE 100 companies; some 21% of new board members appointed since February are women, up from 13% last year, but there is scope to do more. I fully support this initiative and will shortly consult on requiring quoted companies to publish the proportion of female directors and senior executives in their organisations.
Claire Perry
I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. I am sure that he is very aware of the large body of evidence, including Lord Davies’s report, that associates a higher number of women on corporate boards with higher stock price performance and corporate returns. If that is right for the private sector, it should be right for the public sector. What is he doing to encourage the number of women in financial regulation posts in particular, and could we have a female head of the green investment bank?
Vince Cable
The starting point of the hon. Lady’s question is absolutely right, and I congratulate her on the effective pressure she brings to bear on the issue. Her central point is that having more women on boards has nothing to do with political correctness; it is about sensible economics, good business and tapping into the potential that women can bring. The force of her argument is reinforced by the statement made at the beginning of the week by leading institutional investors that they will punish companies that do not make progress in this area. I will certainly receive her CV for the green investment bank if that is what she has in mind.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the state of the construction industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
For three years now, construction has faced very tough times after one of the sharpest recessions ever, but there are encouraging signs. Output in May rose by 0.4%, with increases in new work for most of the construction subsectors. We have published the national infrastructure plan, for the first time in this country, with £200 billion of investment over the next five years.
Diana Johnson
The purchasing managers index for construction shows that in June employment in the UK construction industry fell at its fastest rate since January’s VAT rise, and cuts in social housing investment, particularly in areas such as mine in Hull, are not helping. Would not a temporary VAT cut help to protect these skilled construction jobs at this difficult time?
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to promote manufacturing.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Recent initiatives include a high-value manufacturing, technology and innovation centre, and a financial commitment that by the end of this spending review there will be funding for 250,000 more adult apprenticeships across all sectors than were planned by the previous Government, including 10,000 higher apprenticeships. We have also launched the “see inside manufacturing” initiative to promote and showcase manufacturing careers to young people.
Chris White
Given the success of the “Made By Britain” exhibition last week, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the businesses showcased at the event and give an assurance that the Government will continue to support such initiatives in the years ahead?
Vince Cable
Yes, it is a brilliantly successful initiative. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on the efforts that they put into developing it, and all the hon. Members who have contributed—50 so far, I think, and I hope others will do so. We shall have a great virtual exhibition next year for the Olympics.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that one of the most useful things he could do to promote British manufacturing would be to get the banks together to come up with a financing package for the Bombardier contract that matched the Siemens one? That is directly within his responsibilities, and I think that the package is now being negotiated. It would be something that the banks could do, for once, to back British industry instead of filling their own pockets.
Vince Cable
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), has already explained the background to the Bombardier contract. It was confined to very narrow tendering terms of reference that, in the circumstances, we could not avoid, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on how public procurement can be used, within European rules, to support British industry. I have taken an initiative with the Secretary of State for Transport to try to make sure that, in future, tenders do reflect that priority.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State meet me and members of the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum to talk about how we can help those who are made redundant from Bombardier, how Bombardier can move forward and get further contracts, and how we can make sure that procurement rules benefit the people of this country as well as those abroad?
Vince Cable
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the procurement rules. As I said, we are taking an initiative to try to address an anomaly whereby Britain appears to be uniquely open in relation to other European countries. Regarding the work force who are, sadly, affected by these redundancies, I have already announced the launching of a taskforce in Derby led by a former senior executive of Rolls-Royce to try to mobilise assistance.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
At the previous Business, Innovation and Skills questions, the House united to welcome the confidence shown by Japanese, German and Indian companies in UK manufacturing through their investment in Nissan, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover, so is it not a tragedy that in the past few weeks this British Government have put their confidence in German manufacturing to provide our Thameslink trains? Will the Minister confirm Network Rail’s estimate that in addition to Crossrail, between 12% and 25% of the 12,000 trains in Britain will need replacing over the next 10 years? What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that there is a UK manufacturer capable of designing, building and winning orders for those trains?
Vince Cable
I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State keeps returning to this theme. I have to repeat the point that my colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, inherited a tendering process defined in law, which, if abused, is open to judicial review and which made it absolutely imperative for him to conduct the order in the way he did. If it had been cast differently, there could have been a different outcome. We must learn from that experience. The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right that it is in the British national interest that we have a capacity to produce locomotive equipment in this country. There will of course be a significant increase in that capacity in the north-east with the Hitachi project, but we must also ensure that future tenders for the contracts that he describes are properly constructed, which they were not in 2008.
Mr Denham
That was not a strategy for the future of the UK rail manufacturing industry. Does the Secretary of State not know that the factory in the north-east is there purely and simply because Labour Ministers were prepared to challenge a procurement process and get the right deal for UK manufacturing? Will he confirm that the Department for Transport could have run a separate funding competition? Will he confirm that Siemens still does not have a proven energy efficient bogie system for the new trains, while Bombardier does? Is it not the truth that these and other issues could have been used to get the best deal for UK manufacturing? Does he realise that it is not good enough just to blame the last lot and do nothing when it is his responsibility to ensure that we have a UK rail manufacturing industry to win orders?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the Secretary of State will provide a single and pithy reply to those four questions.
Vince Cable
The shadow Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the decision to reopen the contract in relation to Hitachi was not about the tender but about the whole project. We cannot do that in the case of Thameslink—a project that was already 10 years late.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
17. What assessment he has made of the potential role of further education colleges in the work of local enterprise partnerships.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I am pleased to report that further education colleges are already playing a role with local enterprise partnerships in the north-east and elsewhere. In Yorkshire, the Leeds city region held its first skills conference with the West Yorkshire consortium of colleges and it is now setting up its own skills network. That is one of several examples.
Catherine McKinnell
I am sure that the Minister will agree that for FE colleges to contribute to local economic growth, their work forces are key. Has he engaged with Newcastle college about its plans to make 180 staff redundant and to cut the pay of some existing staff by up to £10,000 a year? Given that that is driven in part by a combination of funding cuts and Government priorities, is this not a worrying trend for the future of FE?
Mr Prisk
The hon. Lady paints a very negative picture. When I talk to local FE colleges, they say that they are delighted that we are freeing them from red tape and that they can respond to local businesses. Of course they would like additional funds, but we all know why there is no additional money any more.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
18. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on reducing regulation and promoting growth.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
Ministers and officials regularly consult their equivalents in Northern Ireland. Their discussions include promoting growth and the importance of reducing regulation, including its enforcement.
Mr Dodds
Will the Minister undertake to intensify efforts to discuss how regulation that affects Northern Ireland but is not in the remit and purview of the Northern Ireland Executive, including European regulation, may be reduced or diminished to promote growth in an area that is lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr Prisk
It is a priority to ensure that the red tape that the right hon. Gentleman talks about, which holds back business in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, is dealt with. That is one of the reasons we are ending gold-plating across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome positive ideas that come from the Northern Ireland Executive.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
19. What the outcomes were of the second round of applications to the regional growth fund; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Bidding for round two of the fund closed on Friday 1 July and we were pleased with the positive response. There appear to have been just over 500 applications for round two, with a total ask of £3 billion. We are currently processing the detail of the bids and will release summary information on the bids later in the month.
Tony Lloyd
Given that the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to give a full account of the regional growth fund, will he give a commitment that investment in basic science and engineering, and research thereon, will be at the forefront of the regional growth strategy? In particular, will he break the establishment view that only the triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge should get that investment, so that other parts of the country can benefit?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there has to be regional rebalancing of the economy, and that manufacturing and associated industries are at the core of any revival. It happens that the share of manufacturing is particularly high in areas such as the north-east, so they will benefit from a manufacturing recovery. I remind him that in the first round of the regional growth fund there were nine successful bids in the north-west, generating about 7,500 jobs, including at Bruntwood in Manchester, which I think is in his constituency but is certainly in the city.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that in the next round of the regional growth fund, the Government take into account the national benefit of regional growth, particularly in respect of the Goonhilly earth station application, which will provide the opportunity of radio astronomy for the country as a whole? It is an issue not just of regional growth but of national opportunity.
Vince Cable
I am sure that Lord Heseltine, Sir Ian Wrigglesworth and their team will hear my hon. Friend’s advocacy on behalf of one of the 500 projects. It sounds a very good one, and I look forward to seeing it in the pipeline.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Department is responsible for reducing regulation, increasing trade, growing the economy and promoting excellence in higher education and skills.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
With regard to deregulation, the Minister will have seen the report from the CEOs conference held by The Times, which suggests that an unencumbered supply side is key to growth. One of the key recommendations was moving to faster deregulation—far from one in, one out, it hoped for five out and only one in. Can he make any statement on that?
Mr Prisk
I am always keen to accelerate matters, but it is worth putting it on the record that in the past 12 months this Department alone has been able to scrap regulations that would have cost business £430 million every year. It is a good start, but, yes, we want to move forward.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. In January, at a cost of £300,000, the Prime Minister stripped the Business Secretary of his responsibility for media competition and policy issues after he declared war on Rupert Murdoch. Given yesterday’s announcement by News Corp that it is dropping the bid for BSkyB, does he expect to have those powers transferred back to him at BIS?
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I do not know the answer to that question, but I am delighted to discover that the whole of Britain and the House of Commons now agrees with me.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
T2. Central Government clearly has a major role to play in supporting and helping business, but we often underestimate the importance of local government’s ability to support, or indeed hinder, business. Does the Secretary of State believe that returning business rates to local government control will be good for business?
Vince Cable
Yes, I think it is a good idea in principle. Indeed, I announced it in a statement to the House last year. It could incentivise councils to attract businesses to their area. That is the reasoning behind it, but we have to be careful to ensure that there is an equalisation mechanism—some areas, of course, have a strong starting advantage—and to protect businesses from a very large increase in business rates, which could have the opposite effect.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the effect of the core and margin proposals for student funding on conservatoires such as Trinity Laban in my constituency, of which I am an unpaid director?
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The Government understand the particular value and needs of conservatoires, which is why we drew particular attention to their need for proper financing in our grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
T3. Using his extensive business experience, as demonstrated by his confident and oft-repeated ability to foresee the economic downturn over many years, would the Secretary of State like to impart some of his wisdom and comment on how his Department, under his expert leadership, has helped small businesses to flourish, particularly management and IT consultants?
Mr Prisk
As you can see, Mr Speaker, we are able to work closely together as a team and assume all sorts of identities.
The key thing to bear in mind is that when we look at the number of small business start-ups this year and last, we see an increase of 51,000. According to leading independent surveys, there were 470,000. That is a good sign that we are making early progress, but there is much more to do.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the British train building industry hangs in the balance following the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink contract? Unless it is reversed, it will cost the Exchequer more than £100 million in lost tax revenue. Derby does not need a task force—we need a reversal of the decision. Will he give a commitment to make representations to the Transport Secretary and the Prime Minister to call in the decision, to protect thousands of jobs and stand up for British industry?
Mr Prisk
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion, but I think that the taskforce is important. If we start to unpick the contract now—in the third year of its running—we will face legal reviews and problems with how the project progresses. We need to deal with the procurement system as a whole. I am sorry to say that his Front-Bench team failed to do that in 13 years.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
T4. University Centre Milton Keynes, in conjunction with local partners, is developing a knowledge gateway to stimulate enterprise and skills. May I urge my right hon. Friend to meet the dean of UCMK to explore how his Department might be able to support this initiative?
Mr Willetts
I would be pleased to meet the dean. Of course we absolutely support these types of initiatives, which improve the links between universities, employers and businesses. That is one reason we have invited Sir Tim Wilson to consider how we can revive the sandwich course that disappeared under the previous Labour Government.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
What consideration has been given to creating a dedicated Minister for manufacturing within the Department to promote this vital economic area?
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
T6. One of the major barriers to the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in west Wales is banks refusing to offer facilities to—or, worse still, withdrawing facilities from—companies that are perfectly viable and with which they have had a relationship over many years. Will the Minister offer any advice to those companies and ensure us that he will work with the Treasury to iron out these issues?
Vince Cable
My hon. Friend recognises a real problem—there remains an issue with the supply of finance. Indeed, an independent survey on Monday demonstrated that about 15% of companies are probably discouraged from applying for it. We must wait for the figures in August from the Merlin process, but, as I have made clear in the House before, the Government can take further action if those figures are not satisfactory.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the Minister’s answer was more fairy story than fact. What he did not tell the House was that by 2015 the number of private housing starts will be 14% lower than in 2007, that public housing starts will fall by 39% over the next three years and that road construction spending will be halved by 2014. These are the facts—what is he going to do about them?
Mr Prisk
We are investing £10 billion in the road programme, £14 billion in the rail programme and £200 billion in infrastructure. We have put in place the first national infrastructure plan, which the Labour party failed to do. We are working with industry and construction, and I am sorry that the Labour party has nothing positive to add.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
T7. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will consider the proposal for the technology and innovation centre for offshore renewables that brings together a network of key hubs across the country, such as OrbisEnergy in Lowestoft in my constituency, so as to ensure that the whole of the UK benefits from the proposed TIC?
Vince Cable
We will certainly consider the proposal, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a proper process for evaluating different bids. The third TIC will centre on renewables, substantially on wind, and existing centres, such as the one in his constituency, are eligible and may well be considered.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday the Prime Minister told us that Citizens Advice was one of the most admired organisations in the country. Given that it and Consumer Focus are boycotting the payday industry proposals on a voluntary code of practice, does the Secretary of State think it appropriate that his Lib Dem colleagues are in Parliament today hosting a reception to endorse it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
The hon. Lady will know that the Government are working very closely with Citizens Advice on all these sorts of issues and that it is important to listen to the industry on a range of issues. I would have thought therefore that she welcomed hon. Members listening to the industry. She often does not listen to the industry and so often is not as informed as she could be.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
T8. The Secretary of State will be aware that more than 80% of jobs in my constituency are in the private sector. Will he therefore congratulate the world-famous jam-makers Wilkin & Sons, based in Tiptree, on its outstanding international business, on all it is doing to create good local jobs and on all that it does to promote its brand—a great international British brand—at home and abroad?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Five independent schools send more pupils to Oxbridge than 2,000 other schools combined. What is the Minister going to ask Oxford and Cambridge to do about that?
Mr Willetts
That is why we have required of them much more ambitious programmes on access than the previous Government required. Oxford’s proposals, released this week, show a big extension of summer schools and an extra effort to reach precisely that pool of talent to which the hon. Lady refers.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The French company EDF is about to build a giant wind farm off Redcar. The main contractor will be German, and most of the materials will be imported. What more can the Government do to ensure that British business benefits more from such projects?
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the Scottish Government’s decision to charge English students tuition fees of up to £9,000?
Mr Willetts
I know that there is strong feeling in England about that, but it is a matter for the Scottish Government and therefore not one for which this Government are responsible.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I know that the Minister shares my passion for the potential of our biomedical sector to create new jobs and businesses. Will he update the House on some of the exciting developments at Sandwich, Charnwood and Stevenage, in regard to the opportunities for the UK in reorganising the pharmaceutical sector?
Mr Willetts
This morning, I will be going to the topping-out ceremony of the bio-incubator at Stevenage, which represents precisely the kind of future for our life sciences that we wish to see. It is also very good news that Pfizer has now decided that it wishes to have a continuing presence at its research centre in Sandwich.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny that his Department is giving grants to fire authorities to set up arm’s length companies that will tender for private sector contracts?
Vince Cable
I can neither confirm nor deny that; I will certainly investigate it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that Northamptonshire has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country and that it sits at the crossroads of England, will the business Minister look favourably at the bid that is now on his desk to establish a local enterprise partnership there?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State actively seek to get responsibility for competition policy in media ownership back into his Department? The fact that he was honey-trapped in his surgery does not mean that it should not be a Minister in his Department who takes such decisions. We have now seen the error of sending these matters to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Vince Cable
Unlike my predecessors, I do not see my job in terms of empire building; I am more concerned that we should get good policy. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken today on the need radically to reform policy in relation to competition and cross-ownership in the media. Indeed, we might well have to revisit the legislation, because it is clearly unsatisfactory.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
With reference to the Minister’s response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), Triton Showers, which employs 400 people in my constituency, is extremely concerned that the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive is now being aggressively enforced by the Environment Agency. Bearing in mind the Minister’s earlier answer, will he now make representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this issue, which is causing real concern in the electric shower industry?
Mr Davey
I will certainly look at this. As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, the guidance is slightly separate from the directive, so there is a need for clarity. That is why we are trying to renegotiate these matters in the recasting of the directive.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), may I ask the Minister whether he is surprised that the Scottish National party, which voted in this House against tuition fees, is planning to impose them now that it is in government in Scotland? What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government to ensure that English students can attend excellent Scottish universities such as Queen Margaret university in my constituency?
Mr Willetts
I do discuss this issue with the Scottish Government because it is important that students throughout the whole of the United Kingdom have proper opportunities to travel to universities around the United Kingdom. I also observe that, proportionally, many more Scottish students still wish to study at English universities than the other way round.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent announcement in Edinburgh by the climate change Minister of £20 million to be channelled into marine energy. Does he agree that the green investment bank could play a key role in this exciting sector and could do that best by being located in Edinburgh near to the hub of this developing sector?
Vince Cable
I am well aware—I am tempted to say painfully aware—of the volume of representations coming from Edinburgh and elsewhere on this subject. They make a very good case for themselves, but will ultimately have to be judged against a variety of criteria relating to how the mission of the green investment bank will be advanced and the talent pool available.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Will the acting skills Minister tell me whether we will definitely be able to see the equality impact assessment of the Government’s proposed changes to ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—next week? It has been promised to me twice, but we have still not seen it.
Vince Cable
Yes, I have indeed seen the equality impact assessment; it will be released very soon.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
More than two fifths of places to study medicine are awarded to prospective students living in the top fifth of areas for higher education participation. Will the Minister for Universities and Science consider the social background profile of students on longer degree courses, so that the Office for Fair Access can demand specific actions for these courses in future access agreements?
Mr Willetts
I know that the medical profession is committed to trying to ensure that it attracts talented people who can contribute to medicine regardless of their background. Of course, together with the Secretary of State for Health, I recently announced a very fair funding arrangement for medical students, which I hope will ensure that the profession will continue to be open to young people—whatever their background.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister is aware that private and public sector have been working together to try to deliver 1,200 new jobs and training opportunities to east Durham through the film studio and centre for creative excellence. Has he given any further consideration to some sector-specific measures to encourage this development?
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On Tuesday, LVMH, which produces perhaps some of the Minister’s favourite luxury brands of Louis Vuitton and Moët Hennessy, signed the “woman on the board pledge for Europe”. Will the Minister update us on what steps he will take to encourage British business to sign this pledge, and does he agree that increasing the representation of women on British boards is a matter of necessity, not luxury?
Mr Davey
I strongly support the sentiments behind my hon. Friend’s question. He will know that the report of Lord Mervyn Davies encourages chairmen and chief executives to publish their aspirations and to have a strategy for their aspirations to have more women on boards. When we consult on the future of narrative reporting, we want to consult on the proposal to make the top FTSE 350 companies disclose their performance, including on women on boards.
Mr Speaker
Earlier in this question session, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills lamented the absence of his colleague, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, and referred to the increased burden on him by virtue of that absence. I thought I would share with the House the very courteous letter received from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who wrote earlier this week as follows:
“Dear Mr Speaker, My apologies for not being present for either DfE or BIS questions as I am abroad on Government business. I hope that your disappointment is as great as mine at the missed opportunities for a heady mix of scrutiny and theatre beloved by we connoisseurs of such things.”
Petition
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I wish to present a petition.
The Petition of residents of South Northamptonshire and others,
Declares that the Petitioners are strongly opposed to the proposed High Speed Railway; declares that the Petitioners believe it to be a massive waste of money; declares that it will destroy miles of beautiful countryside, thousands of homes and villages; and further declares that there is no business case or environmental case for this railway and upgrading existing rail networks is a better alternative.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its support for the proposed High Speed Railway and support the upgrading of existing rail networks.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000944]
Common Fisheries Policy
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the European Commission’s proposed reforms of the European common fisheries policy, which were published on 13 July. The House will know of my special interest in fisheries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to apprise the House of yesterday’s important announcement and the Government’s ongoing agenda in regard to reform of the common fisheries policy.
The United Kingdom Government welcome the release of the European Commission’s proposals. The current CFP has failed. It has not given us healthy fish stocks, and it has not delivered a sustainable living for our fishing industry. Only genuine, fundamental reform of this broken policy can turn around those failures, and the proposals released by the Commission yesterday are a vital first step.
The key elements of the proposal are the introduction of a phased ban on the discarding of commercial fish; decentralisation of decision-making, away from micro-management in Brussels; a longer-term approach focused on the introduction of multi-annual plans that deliver maximum sustainable yield by 2015; integration of fisheries management with other marine policies; market measures allocating transferable fishing concessions; improvements in the sustainability and transparency of fisheries agreements with developing countries under the CFP’s external dimension; and commitments to improve scientific knowledge and encourage the development of sustainable aquaculture.
This marks the start of lengthy negotiations, and the United Kingdom will play a full part of helping to improve the proposals and get the detail right. We are ready to work alongside our allies at home and abroad to grasp this once-in-a-decade opportunity.
Sheryll Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House to give us that update, and for his efforts thus far on behalf of the fishing industry and fish stocks.
Article 25 of the proposed basic regulation states that a member state may adopt measures for the conservation of fish stocks in European Union waters within up to 12 miles, which will apply to vessels flying the flag of that member state, or, in the case of fishing activities that are not conducted by a fishing vessel, to persons established in the territory. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will not apply any restrictions to recreational sea anglers who fish from the shore around our coastline?
When he goes to the Council of Ministers, will my hon. Friend make representations to enable the United Kingdom to introduce high standards of management and conservation in respect of all fishing vessels that fish within the 12-mile limit in our territorial waters? There is a precedent: most of the new member states, and Greece, restrict fishing within their 12-mile limits to their national fleets. It would be good if the Minister could go to the Council and argue for a level playing field for British fishermen.
Richard Benyon
The short answer to my hon. Friend’s first question is yes. The Government recognise the value of recreational sea angling, and we want to encourage it. We are running a specific project to identify sea anglers and their numbers, and to support their work for both tourism and the natural environment. Sea angling from the shore has no connection with the common fisheries policy, and will remain our national responsibility. We hope to see more sea anglers fishing onshore and from vessels.
As for my hon. Friend’s second, more technical question about the 12-mile limit, we will look for any opportunity to take more control over the management of our fisheries at a local level. The thrust of our proposals has been, and will continue to be, a decentralisation of fisheries management. We, too, want a level playing field, and my hon. Friend was entirely right to suggest that. Any examples of countries’ failing to comply will be our responsibility in the negotiations.
Finally, let me say something about our marine conservation measures. We want to ensure that we do not limit the activities of our fishermen in our waters, and then see other fishermen, with historic rights that may precede 1972, coming into our waters and fishing in an unacceptable way. I assure my hon. Friend that I am determined to see a level playing field.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
May I offer the Opposition’s support for the reforms proposed by the European Commission yesterday? They present a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the current top-down, broken common fisheries policy into one that can better serve the fishing industry and consumers, and protect our marine environment.
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the potential that the reforms have to end the scandal of up to 60% of fish in some European fisheries being discarded at sea by introducing individual, nationally tradeable catch shares? Will he also support further incentives for the fishing industry to increase investment in selective fishing nets and other monitoring equipment, which could cut the levels of discards and by-catch still further? Will he take up the challenge from the WWF to call for specific measures to ensure that environmental targets are met by a new common fisheries policy, and to rebuild fisheries that the Commission said yesterday have been over-exploited by 75%? Small-scale fleets account for 77% of total EU fleet size, but only 8% in terms of tonnage. Will the Minister indicate how these proposals will secure the viability of that sector?
Finally, does the Minister share my disappointment that although a consensus in favour of these changes is building throughout the EU, the Scottish Government have chosen this moment to isolate themselves in Europe by opposing these reforms, and although their views will be respected, they will not shift the unanimous will of this House, nor of the 700,000 people who have signed the Fish Fight petition, to seize this moment for reform in the interests of the sustainability of fish stocks and the future of the fishing industry?
Richard Benyon
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s continued support for the Government’s position. I said this was a once-in-a-decade opportunity, but I rather prefer his reference to this being a once-in-a-generation opportunity. If we do not get this right this time, we all know what the state of both fish stocks in United Kingdom waters and the fishing industry could be, so a lot is riding on this. Things do not come much more important than success in these rounds.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point about discards, as that is fundamental to these reforms. Steps such as the great work that was going on before we came to government—and which I hope he feels we have continued—and the development of concepts such as Fishing for the Markets, which looks at the 54% of discards created by the fact that there is no market for these fish, are all good in themselves, but the Fish Fight campaign came at precisely the right time and has lit a fuse under what we are seeking to achieve. The Commission’s proposals are bold and we want to support that spirit of boldness, and also to make sure that they are practical. We think the commissioner is going in the right direction on discards.
I want to make sure that fishermen are seen as part of the solution, and not just hit by yet more control and regulation. Where we have worked with fishermen, such as on catch quotas and Project 50% and on Fishing for the Markets, show that this is the way forward.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the under-10 metre fleet. We have just finished a consultation on trying to improve the fishing opportunity for the under-10s. The wording in the Commission’s document offers the potential for a one-way valve. We could transfer some of the rights-based proposals to enhance the under-10 metre fleet without disadvantaging the over-10 metre fleet, which is also suffering. I am therefore mindful of the difficult balance we have to achieve.
On the final point about Scotland, I just give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I will work very closely with all the devolved Governments. I want to achieve a UK position on this, because that will give strength to our negotiating position. I do not recognise a huge difference between us and the Scottish Government. I know they have concerns about rights-based management, but I think we can get round that and I hope we can have a UK position going forward.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his negotiating skills and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray)? In respect of inshore fishing and in particular the 12-mile limit, will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the historic rights of foreign vessels operating within that zone are properly scrutinised, particularly where they are towing away the gear of some of the inshore men, and ensure that there is equality of enforcement within those 12 miles?
Richard Benyon
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I am absolutely determined that vessels from overseas respect whatever rules we bring in. Looking at the wording of this document, the means we are applying here is the marine strategy framework directive. The policies we are implementing through our conservation schemes—our marine-protected areas, our marine conservation zones under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—are entirely in accordance with that directive, so it is impossible for other countries to try to say we are acting in a discriminatory way. I got the verbal support of the Commissioner on this in my negotiations with her, and I want to make sure we underpin this issue in the negotiations going forward.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I hope that the Minister will accept that the Commission’s proposals are rather like the curate’s fish: good in parts, but very smelly in others. There is a particular problem, which I hope he will pursue, with the national input, which is now beginning. First, in the process of decentralisation, more power should be passed down to the regional advisory councils, which involve the industry and have done a good job. Secondly, in pushing the question of discards back to the national Governments, the commissioner is trying to perform a populist trick, because discards pose a particular problem for mixed fisheries—which we have—and quotas. There are bound to be discards, and the fish are dead, whether they are landed or dumped at sea. We have to deal with the problem, but it is better dealt with in the way that the industry is dealing with it now—by selective measures, which have cut discards by 50% over 10 years—than through the blanket ban that the Commission proposes. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in the negotiations.
Richard Benyon
I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about decentralisation. If I have a disappointment, it is about the tone of the document. I do not think that there is quite as much as we had hoped for on regionalisation and decentralisation. What do we mean by that? It means that we want fisheries to be managed on an ecosystem basis. It means that when it comes to the Irish sea, for example, we are talking with the Irish Government and devolved Governments to try to match what we know is a complex mixed fishery; and, when it comes to his constituency, we are proceeding in a similar way on the North sea. We will push hard for that, because we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that top-down micro-management, under which net sizes and other technical measures are decided in Brussels, has failed and would be a disaster if allowed to continue.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if most of the 700,000 people who signed the Fish Fight petition saw a headline with the words “discards” and “ban” in it, they might think, “Great! Job done,” but he and I know that it is not as simple as that. In order for the measure to be effective, particularly in mixed fisheries, we need to be nuanced and careful. That is why we have to ensure that we work closely, as he said, through the system of management that we develop and that we do not just allow a problem that at the moment happens at sea to be converted to a landfill problem, which could happen unless we are imaginative.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
One cannot ring-fence European fisheries. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what is happening on the fisheries partnership agreements with developing countries, and how that might affect what happens in EU waters?
Richard Benyon
This has been one of the most worrying developments of the common fisheries policy in recent years. We cannot get our act together just in UK waters and in EU waters while ignoring the EU’s footprint on fisheries—if one can have a footprint on fisheries—further afield. I have been visited by fishermen from Mauritania, Cape Verde and Senegal, and have been truly shocked by what I have heard about the impact not just of EU vessels, but of vessels from other countries. Those vessels have been fishing totally unsustainably, which has had a destabilising effect on the economies of those coastal communities, along with other, social effects and the increased migration that this has caused. We have to understand that we in the EU really have to get our house in order, because it will have huge implications for developing countries if we do not.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to radical reform of fisheries management policy in Europe. I also welcome his commitment to working with the devolved Governments in that process. However, I hope that he will also share my concern that according to the European Commission’s own impact assessment, the proposals could result in a 20% reduction in the Scottish fishing fleet—a fleet that has already been halved in the past 10 years. What assurances can the Minister give that the most conservation-conscious and aware fleet in Europe will not be further punished for the failures of the common fisheries policy?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns on behalf of her constituents. I can give her an assurance that we are working through the detail of the proposals. As she knows, this is a major step, but it is also a first step in the negotiations, which will take another 18 months to secure. I will be working closely with my colleague Richard Lochhead in Scotland and with other devolved Ministers to try to ensure that we represent all the UK fleets. I cannot say at this stage whether the impact assessment would have the effect that she mentioned. However, I entirely concur with her that the Scottish fleet has taken great strides in fishing more sustainably, embracing concepts such as catch quotas. I will continue to work with her and others to ensure that this is understood not just here, but abroad as well.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I have been speaking to my Thanet fishermen this morning and they very much welcome what they see as an opening up of opportunities for the under-10 fleet. Will the Minister confirm that that will offer us the opportunity to take advantage of technical measures and effort control to see a significant reduction in discards as a devolved mechanism that will be the responsibility of the Government and not determined by the EU?
Richard Benyon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for facilitating a useful meeting with fishermen in her constituency last week to hear their concerns about our under-10-metre consultation, which, like all things to do with fisheries, is welcomed massively at one end of the spectrum and treated with suspicion at the other. I want to ensure that we can keep as many happy as we can.
The point about the consultation is that it is a UK—or English, in this case—Government responsibility. We can carry it out and make changes that will advantage my hon. Friend’s fishermen and, I hope, not disadvantage others. The Commission paper offers opportunities to rebalance the industry where we feel it is necessary, without disadvantaging either side, through market mechanisms that will see the transfer of fishing opportunity between willing buyer and willing seller in a direction that fishermen in her constituency will find very attractive.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome Commissioner Damanaki’s proposals and ask the Minister to confirm that he will support the proposal to establish a legal obligation to set fishing limits at sustainable levels by 2015. On the question of discards, the requirement to land all catch of specified species and the catch limits will effectively act as a ban on discarding the species most commonly associated with the problem, but will not tackle the problem for all the species. Notwithstanding the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), the Minister will know that if we are to assess stock levels and to obtain the scientific data that we need to consider on an ecosystems basis, that is the only way of achieving the legal—
Richard Benyon
I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see the words “ecosystem approach” at the heart of the document and he is right to have pushed for that. We are committed to fishing to a maximum sustainable yield by 2015. Many people talk about that as though it is the great nirvana of fisheries management but many people do not understand what maximum sustainable yield actually means. People talk about it as a line or a bandwidth and many people do not understand its implications for a mixed fishery. The Government made that commitment in Johannesburg and it fits in with our move towards good environmental status in 2020. Those commitments are solid. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned discards. He is right that many species are discarded, as I said, because there is no market for them. Markets are being developed through good work being done by DEFRA as well as retailers and celebrity chefs and we will make sure that we extend that—
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I spent 10 years listening to warm words from the European Commission. May I urge the Minister to take as much unilateral action as possible, first, to ban discards from our 12-mile limits, at the very least, and to use that fish efficiently both to eat and to process for fish farms and, secondly, to look after sea anglers and the under-10-metre fleet? We can do much more as a nation; let us lead by example and take the rest of the European countries with us.
Richard Benyon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his experience and the cynicism born out of his many years on the other side of the channel. I assure him that I will do all that. I want to ensure that Britain continues to be at the forefront of calling for radical reform and I am concerned with outcomes, not warm words. I am sure there will be plenty of warm words, but the proof will be found in what my fellow Ministers do. Co-decision among his erstwhile colleagues in the European Parliament is now really important.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Minister that one of the more welcome aspects of what the Commission has said is the move towards longer-term arrangements. Does he share my concern that without a parallel move to local management such arrangements will not solve the problems inherent in the CFP?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is one of the problems with the cod recovery plan. We want to see a much more localised management of the long-term management plans. I like long-term management plans because to an extent, although not totally, they take power away from politicians. The frankly ridiculous process we go through every December will become less of a horse-trading event if plans are written into a solid long-term process. That is why I am pleased to see this development in the document and that the Government’s firm views on this matter have been listened to.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I commend the commissioner for her statement and the Minister for his hard work on this subject. There are two scandals with how fisheries are managed in Europe: discards, which are now out in the open; and slipper skippers, that is, people who hold and trade quota and have no connection with the industry. What is he doing to address that elephant in the room?
Richard Benyon
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I share his concern and with many issues relating to fisheries I always start by thinking, “I would not have started from here.” We have these so-called slipper skippers—although we do not have quite as many as are sometimes declared—because many of the trades of fishing opportunity were done privately. We have never created a clear right; we have created a deemed right of access to a national resource. That is why I hope that a rights-based management scheme, as I have outlined, will offer the opportunity for clarity. I believe the work we are doing in DEFRA and through the Marine Management Organisation to identify who owns quota will go a long way towards dealing with the urban—or aqua—myths about quota being held by football clubs and celebrities.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The CFP has been an unmitigated disaster and during my 14 years in this Chamber I have called many times for its abolition and for Britain either to seek its abolition or to give notice that at some point we will withdraw from it and reclaim our 200-mile historic fishing limits. Will the Minister keep that possibility open in any negotiations?
Richard Benyon
My priority, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, is to deal with an industry in crisis. I could spend all my energies trying to unpick treaties and this House might collectively decide to do that at some point in the future, but we are dealing with an industry with genuine problems that are affecting coastal towns socially through jobs, people’s livelihoods and processing industries as well as affecting our food security. That is why I want to put all my efforts into trying to get the right result out of these negotiations. I hope I have the support of the House in doing that.
Mr Speaker
Order. These are very important exchanges but they are slow—I have checked the record—and they need to get sharper as regards the speed of both questions and answers.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The proposals are very welcome, but does the Minister agree that given the finite nature of the European maritime fisheries fund, they will work only if he is able to convince British consumers to develop a taste for those species that are discarded? Notwithstanding his comments about Jamie Oliver, how does he propose to do that?
Richard Benyon
I refer my hon. Friend to the Fishing for the Markets scheme, which I mentioned earlier and is trying to do precisely that. It is trying to create new supply chain mechanisms for various species as well as to give us a more eclectic taste in the fish we eat. We basically eat five species of fish in this country and in Spain, I think, they eat 20 or 30. I urge my hon. Friend and other colleagues to start eating dab, coley, gurnard and other species that are thrown away much too readily and are absolutely delicious.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on securing the urgent question. It is good to hear such all-party support in the Chamber for the position being taken by the Minister. That is extremely important. However, he will be aware that the industry feels very strongly that what we are seeing is basically a framework with a few headline-grabbing statements but not a lot of substance. There is a considerable amount of work to do. Given that we did not have a proper fisheries debate last year, will he ensure that this year we have a proper, full day’s debate so that this crucial issue can be properly discussed?
Richard Benyon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work through the all-party group; he is very much respected in the House for his views on this issue. We had a four-hour debate on discards and working towards maximum sustainable yield not long ago. I share his disappointment that the annual fisheries debate was moved to Westminster Hall; I hope that this year it will take place in the Chamber and that we will have a full day’s debate.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
By any objective measure, the common fisheries policy has been a complete and utter disaster for British fishermen and British consumers, not to mention the fact that it has not been too good for fish stocks. Could the Minister please inform the House what benefits for Britain, if any, he thinks there have been from the policy?
Richard Benyon
I cannot. I share my hon. Friend’s view that the common fisheries policy has been a failure on every level. He rightly points out that there are fewer fishermen and fewer fish. However, we have to recognise that fish move between national boundaries and I hope he will agree that we should operate on an ecosystem basis, looking at the full extent of where fish move in a passport-free, Schengen-agreement type way. We can adapt our fishing policies to how fish behave.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. The common fisheries policy has galvanised all the fishing industry in Northern Ireland to oppose it. This morning, we perhaps have an opportunity to get things right for the future. The Minister mentioned regionalisation. Could he enlighten us further on how he sees that happening? Will control in Northern Ireland be with local representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly or will it be with the villages as well? He has not mentioned decommissioning. With regionalisation, will there be decommissioning? If so, will it ensure that the fishing industry is sustainable in future?
Richard Benyon
There has been no word of decommissioning per se in the document, but I recognise that it might be required in some areas by some fishing communities as a possible way forward. At this stage, I cannot promise any money from the UK Government or suggest that it could be forthcoming from the EU, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we talk about localised, regionalised or devolved management, I want to see much more involvement from fishermen in communities such as his. I want this to be addressed on a sea-basin basis, with consideration of where fishermen are fishing. The regional advisory councils have been a very good model for this and I believe that is the way forward.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is hard to believe that the Minister believes the twaddle he has been talking today. The common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster and the British people want to come out of the European Union—would not that be the simple solution?
Richard Benyon
That is not really on the subject and is slightly above my pay grade, but I agree that the common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The European Commission’s proposals will ban the discard of quota fish only, but many discards are non-quota, as the Minister will be aware. Do the Government propose a total ban on discards or not?
Richard Benyon
We want to work with the industry to achieve an end to discards, which means looking at the whole range of species that are discarded. I was on a trawler last week watching perfectly edible fish being thrown into the sea. I know what an affront that is to us, and the great British public are outraged by it. We have to make sure that we follow this up and do not simply follow the letter of the document. The good work being done by DEFRA and partners in our Fishing for the Markets project and other schemes really makes a difference. I think we can get there.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Minister has spoken cautiously about the need to navigate through the different interests within the fisheries group. Does he nevertheless recognise that in the past 20 years the massive benefit of the tradeable quota has largely been with the producer organisations—the larger fisheries? Can he assure us that there will be emphasis during all negotiations on ensuring that the under-10-metre fisheries are restored to their former glory?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend, like many Members of the House, is very good at standing up for fishing interests in her constituency. I assure her and them that my commitment to getting a better deal for the under-10-metre fleet remains absolutely solid. I am grateful for the work that she and fishermen in her constituency, as well as the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association and other organisations have been doing to make consultation become a reality. Let me reassure her that I want a better deal for our inshore fleet, which largely fishes sustainably and needs better fishing opportunities.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
May I return to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) earlier? The problem of overfishing is global and threatens life in the oceans as a whole. This is urgent: will the Minister give a commitment that the British Government will use the opportunity presented by this review of the common fisheries policy to internationalise this process and to make sure there is investment in the real scientific research this problem needs?
Richard Benyon
On the latter point, absolutely. Science has not been mentioned this morning, but it is very important that we develop a much closer working relationship between scientists and fishermen and that our scientific understanding of fish stocks is improved. I am very pleased to see in the document a commitment to address fisheries partnership agreements and the impact they could have on seas and ecosystems beyond EU borders. I think we should all be concerned if our taxpayers’ money is going in benign or actual subsidies to fishing practices at home or abroad that are hugely damaging not only to the marine environment but to the societies that the marine environment should be supporting.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Having worked at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the so-called tuna wars of the mid-1990s, I am keen to ask my hon. Friend what focus will be given to monitoring the practices of foreign fishing vessels under any future CFP regime.
Richard Benyon
The good news is that there is much better technology now. I have sat in the operations room of the Marine Management Organisation looking at vessel monitoring systems data on where every vessel is. One can tell precisely what those vessels are doing, and that is improving with e-log books. I went out with a Fishery Protection Squadron patrol the other day and saw the work it does, and I was really impressed by its professionalism. I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that we will work extremely hard to continue to be experts in what we do. We are respected throughout the world for our work on monitoring fisheries, and technology is on our side.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of concerns that the proposals might allow an international trade in quotas to result in Scottish fishermen’s not being able to fish in Scottish waters. Will he find time to meet me and other MPs to discuss this matter during the consultation?
Richard Benyon
I would like to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House during this process and to keep up a regular dialogue. I think there are misunderstandings about the possibility of creating a market mechanism in tradeable quotas. I want to make sure that they are retained in member states, that there is no possibility that more fishing opportunity can be grabbed by fewer and fewer people and that there is a social dimension to our fisheries policy. I want to try to get UK-wide agreement on this.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
From 2013, when the new regulations come in, would it be possible for some very clever people, perhaps in DEFRA, to design a system so that fish discards are distributed to charity, perhaps at home or even abroad?
Richard Benyon
The commissioner mentioned that as part of the process; there are mechanisms within the common fisheries policy and common agricultural policy to do that but they are a bit bureaucratic and are not very successful. I agree that it is an affront in a hungry world, when we know that people live in poverty in our own country, that perfectly edible, quality fish are being thrown away, dead. We want to create new supply chains that will address my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is it not the case that my hon. Friend the Minister would be carried shoulder-high through the fishing villages and towns of Britain and up and down every high street in the land were he to announce the UK’s withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the repatriation of British waters to British fishermen? That would be the best way of conserving fishing stocks and reviving our once-great fishing industry.
Richard Benyon
I assure my hon. Friend that I did not enter this job in any belief that it would make me popular, but I do seek to get a good result for British fishermen. I know and understand where he is coming from. These discussions will no doubt be had in our party and others in future, but we want to deal with the here and now and with the art of the possible, and I assure him of my commitment to that.
Business of the House
(12 years, 11 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 the week commencing 18 July is as follows:
Monday 18 July—Motions relating to national policy statements, followed by a motion to approve the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.
Tuesday 19 July—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
Colleagues will wish to be aware that, subject to the approval of the House, the House will meet at 11.30 am on that day.
The business for the week commencing 5 September will include:
Monday 5 September—Remaining stages of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
Tuesday 6 September—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill (Day 1).
Wednesday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill (Day 2), followed by a motion to approve European documents relating to victims of crime.
Thursday 8 September—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the remaining stages of the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games (Amendment) Bill.
Friday 9 September—Private Members’ Bills.
I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 8 and 15 September 2011 will be as follows:
Thursday 8 September—A debate on future flood and water management legislation.
Thursday 15 September—A debate on scientific advice and evidence in emergencies.
As these are the last business questions before the summer recess, may I, as usual, thank the staff of the House for all their hard work? I hope that they have a good break before we return in September.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. It is good to see him back at the Dispatch Box in his day job, after covering for the Prime Minister, who twice this week has sent someone else to the House when he should have been here himself. Last Friday, he was quite happy to be questioned by journalists on phone hacking, but he did not give Members that privilege until yesterday. So do we not now need the Procedure Committee’s recommendations on ministerial statements to be agreed as soon as possible? Will the Government find time for that?
The House knows that it took the Prime Minister a little while to get it on News International, but some others still do not get it. To argue that the story published about the son of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was acquired by legitimate means is to miss the point completely: it is never legitimate to publish medical information about a four-month-old just because of who his father is.
This has, however, been a good week for Parliament, as the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday: asking questions, scrutinising, revealing the truth and working with the Government to hold News International to account. Can the Leader of the House confirm this morning that the inquiry will now be established immediately? We need clarity about the setting-up date, to protect all the potential evidence.
Given that it has been reported in the last few minutes that Rebekah Brooks has now agreed to appear before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport but that a summons to appear is to be served on James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch, can the Leader of the House confirm that such orders apply regardless of nationality and that a further refusal to appear might be reported to the House as a breach of privilege?
Can the Leader of the House tell us how many written ministerial statements the Government expect to publish next Monday and Tuesday, given that we have had 16 yesterday and 30 today?
The Health and Social Care Bill is three times longer than the 1946 Act that set up the NHS and has now been considered in Committee twice; but second time round, only 64 of the Bill’s 299 clauses were looked at again. The Criminal Justice Bill 2003, which the Prime Minister remembers well, had three days’ consideration on Report; but given that this lengthy Bill has had to go back to Committee a second time, will the Leader of the House find time for four days’ consideration on Report, instead of the inadequate two days that have been offered?
Last week, the Leader of the House was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) about Ministers who have refused to meet Members. I am now aware of at least eight cases in which that has happened. I am surprised, Mr Speaker, because it is surely the duty of every Minister to meet parliamentary colleagues if they ask. May I thank the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Deputy Leader of the House for their willingness to help to sort this out? We will pass them the details.
When will we have a debate on the higher education White Paper? The Minister for Universities and Skills promised that fees of £9,000 would be charged only in “exceptional circumstances”. However, we have learned this week that the truth is very different: 80 universities will charge £9,000 for some courses, and the average fee will be £8,393.
May we have a debate on the north-south divide? The Yorkshire Post reports that, although 109,000 more people are in work in London compared with a year ago, there are 20,000 fewer in Yorkshire and 15,000 fewer in the north-east. Yesterday, we saw the fastest rise in the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants for more than two years. In light of that, why is it the Government’s policy that the Mayor of London has been given the London Development Agency’s assets free of charge, whereas every other council must pay for its regional development agency’s assets? Why is there one rule for London and another for the rest of the country?
Finally, as these are the last business questions before the summer recess, may I thank the Leader of the House for his unfailing courtesy in answering Members’ questions and in responding to the occasional provocation on my part? May I wish him, the Deputy Leader of the House, you, Mr Speaker, Members on both sides of the House and, most importantly, the staff, who support us so ably and work so hard, a very pleasant summer break? Who knows, perhaps the Leader of the House will find some time to start blogging again?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I used to put some light-hearted items on my website, until he started to use them against me at business questions. At that point, I am afraid, the practice had to stop.
Turning to the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised with me, I think that what he said about the Prime Minister was unworthy. The Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box for one hour and 56 minutes yesterday. He answered 78 questions from hon. Members, in addition to the questions that he answered during Prime Minister’s questions. He has made more statements to the House than his predecessor did. The accusation that he has in any way shirked his duties in the House is an unworthy one that simply cannot be sustained. I contrast my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s performance yesterday with the cry of pain that we heard from the former Prime Minister from the Back Benches.
I would welcome a debate on the Procedure Committee’s report on ministerial statements. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee to find time for such a debate.
We want to go ahead with the inquiry as soon as possible. We have made a commitment to consult the devolved Administrations and, indeed, others on the terms of reference and we will want to consult the judge on the panel’s composition, but we want to get on with it as soon as we can. In the meantime, it is a criminal offence to destroy evidence when criminal proceedings are under way. Once a tribunal has been established, additional penalties apply if evidence is destroyed.
We hope to make perhaps fewer written ministerial statements than the right hon. Gentleman’s Administration did just before the summer recess; but of course, we want to keep the House informed and let hon. Members know of planned commitments before the House goes into recess.
On the Health and Social Care Bill’s consideration on Report, we have been very generous compared with the previous Administration in having two days’ consideration on Report for the remaining stages of important legislation. We have done that twice in the past month, and it was a very rare event indeed under the right hon. Gentleman’s Administration to get two days’ consideration on Report.
Last week, I did indeed answer a question from the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). I asked for details of incidents in which Ministers had refused to see Members. To my knowledge, I have not received that evidence; if the shadow Leader of the House has it, of course I will pursue it and encourage my hon. Friends to see Members who want meetings.
On higher education, if one looks below the surface, and includes the fee waivers, one realises that the average cost of courses in 2012-13 comes down to £8,161. It will come down even further once we award 20,000 places to institutions charging less than £7,500, as we announced in the White Paper. That figure includes the extra support that students will receive, amounting to an average £368 of benefits in the form of bursaries.
Turning to the powers of Select Committees to summon witnesses, a Select Committee can make a report to the House if it is believed that a contempt has been committed. It is then for you, Mr Speaker, to decide whether that should have precedence; the issue is then referred to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which can take the matter further. A range of sanctions is available to the House for contempt. One includes you, Mr Speaker, admonishing somebody who appears at the Bar of the House—a responsibility that I know you would discharge with aplomb. There is a range of other penalties, including fines and imprisonment, but that has not been used for some time.
Finally, I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for what he said about business questions. In return, I hope that he has a very good recess. Of course, it is not the case that when the House goes into recess, Members stop working; the recess enables us to focus with even greater concentration on our responsibilities in our constituencies.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The Government have encouraged the Procedure Committee to take on the remit of the now defunct Modernisation Committee in addition to its own work load, and there are three Procedure Committee reports awaiting a decision of this House, with a fourth report on the way. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to allocate Government time to determining those matters, will he give more time to the Backbench Business Committee, and allocate that time in a less erratic way, so that we can make some progress?
Sir George Young
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he is doing on the Procedure Committee; as he says, it is now in effect the work of two Committees—the Procedure Committee and the now defunct Modernisation Committee. We remain committed to allocating 35 days in a normal Session, plus injury time in this Session, to the Backbench Business Committee. Those days may not be allocated evenly throughout the Session, because the volume of Government legislation, and the commitment to it, means that at this time in the Session, we are doing a lot of heavy lifting, but I hope that at the beginning of a Session, and perhaps towards the end, we will be able to make up any ground that has been lost. We are committed to the 35 days, plus extra days because this Session is longer than usual.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Following on from the point raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), the Leader of the House is aware that since the Whitsun pre-recess Adjournment debate two months ago, the Backbench Business Committee has been given precisely one day to allocate to debate on the Floor of the House holding the Government to account. We cannot debate matters such as ministerial statements and handheld devices, or all the business coming out of the Procedure Committee, unless the Government allocate us the time for those debates. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House to consider allocating a regular, weekly slot, in which Back Benchers can hold the Government to account on the Floor of the House. Has he considered that, and if he has, what are the arguments against it?
Sir George Young
I welcome the work that the hon. Lady does on her Committee. We have, of course, allocated a day next week to the Backbench Business Committee for the pre-recess Adjournment debate. Of the 35 days to which we are committed, we have so far provided 32, which I think is a good record, considering that there are many months of the Session still to go. She asked about a regular, weekly slot. She was a member of Wright Committee, which looked at the matter. It recognised the idea of a standard day every week, but also that leaving the matter to negotiations would avoid the rigidities of a set-day approach. The Committee’s alternative was a set number of days per Session, provided for in Standing Orders. That is the approach that we have taken. However, I take the point that the hon. Lady makes, and at the end of the Backbench Business Committee’s first year, I think we can review how it has worked and come to some conclusions on how we allocate time in future.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The Leader of the House will have heard encouraging remarks from the fisheries Minister—in the previous item of business. He will have noted the wide interest across the House in the issue of common fisheries policy reform, and particularly the interest in the plight of the under-10-metre fleet and the crucial issue of the 12-mile sovereign territory limit. Will the Leader of the House agree to put aside substantial time for a proper debate on the issue, in time for the House to influence negotiations on reform of the CFP?
Sir George Young
That, in a sense, follows on from the two earlier questions about the responsibilities of the Backbench Business Committee. Previous debates on issues such as fisheries, defence and the EU were provided for by the Government, in Government time. The recommendation of the Wright Committee was that all those days, which would include days for debates such as the one to which my hon. Friend refers, should be put in a pot and allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. That is exactly what we have done, so responsibility for finding time for the debate to which he refers falls to the Backbench Business Committee, using, in the rest of the Session, one of its 35 days plus.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I was in the unfortunate situation, on Tuesday in my housing market renewal Westminster Hall debate, of having before me a Minister who was not able adequately to answer the debate. He was clearly out of his depth and referred to very serious issues experienced by my constituents as sob stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) asked the Minister to withdraw his comments, and he did not. Realising that he had made a mistake, the Minister got his civil servants to doctor the record, which, two days later, has still not been corrected—all while the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who should have been answering the debate, was tweeting about a round-table discussion in his Department just five minutes down the road. To ensure that those mistakes do not happen again, will the Leader of the House ensure that the relevant Minister answers the very real concerns of our constituents that we articulate and debate?
Sir George Young
I understand that the debate was replied to by a Minister from that Department who has responsibilities for housing, and I am sure that he discharged his responsibilities adequately. The hon. Lady mentioned doctoring the record; it is not, so far as I am aware, possible to doctor the record. The Hansard Reporters report faithfully that which is said.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Can consideration be given to a debate on the future of animal experimentation, particularly in light of the latest statistics, which show that in 2010 the number of experiments increased by 3%?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity to ask Ministers in the Home Office questions about the number of experiments. I simply add that the experiments are often necessary. If medicines that have life-saving properties are to be brought on to the market, they need to be adequately tested to ensure that they are safe. We must get the right balance and use animals only where there is no alternative.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to see the latest National Audit Office report on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and in particular has he read that 91% of all Members asked now believe that they are subsidising their job? Could he raise that with IPSA and explore why that is?
Sir George Young
I have read the report, and the hon. Gentleman will know that IPSA gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week. The House has resolved to set up a committee to look at the legislation under which IPSA was established, and I am sure that that committee will be happy to take evidence from the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that IPSA will also take on board his comments. I think it quite wrong that Members should have to dig into their own pockets to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents and the House.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The save the pub group was delighted when the coalition Government agreed to stick to the plan put in place for pub company reform by the previous Government, based on the excellent Select Committee recommendations. The deadline is now up, and it is clear that pub companies have not done what was asked of them, so may we have a debate on that important matter, and a statutory code with a genuine free-of-tie option?
Sir George Young
I commend my hon. Friend for his activity on the issue; in the previous Parliament, he initiated a number of debates on it. I am sure that all Members of the House have, in their constituency, pub landlords who have faced difficulties negotiating with their pubcos. I will draw to the attention of relevant Ministers in both the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the fact that the period has now expired, and ask them to consider whether legislation is now necessary to rebalance the terms of trade between tenants and landlords.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I was fortunate enough to accompany Sergeant James Main and the Respect team to see at first hand the work they are doing in Scunthorpe to reduce antisocial behaviour by young people. May we have a debate in the House on the very good work the police have done in recent years to reduce youth crime?
Sir George Young
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman applied for a debate on the pre-recess Adjournment, which would have provided an opportunity for such a debate. Otherwise, there will be an opportunity at Home Office questions in September to highlight the excellent work being done to reduce antisocial behaviour in his constituency.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
May we have a debate on transparency in Government? If we are serious about reforming public services, my constituents require data at a deep level, for example on GPs’ clinical performance, if they are truly to be able to make choices about local public services.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers earlier this month committing us to publish key data on the NHS, schools, criminal courts and transport. This represents the most ambitious open data agenda of any Government anywhere in the world and will help to drive up standards in exactly the way my hon. Friend describes.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House knows that regular statements are made about the situation in Libya, but it is some time since we have had a substantive debate with an opportunity to put the motion to a vote. Given the duration of the conflict and the issues that are of concern, will he discuss with Government colleagues the possibility of having another debate on the situation in Libya and the long-term prospects?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made regular statements on Libya, and indeed on Afghanistan and Iraq, and on one or two occasions we have, exceptionally, provided time for a debate. There will be an opportunity next Tuesday in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions to press Ministers about the latest situation in Libya, and no doubt the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, will have heard the suggestion for a debate.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have a debate on the Laffer curve and petrol taxes, because figures from the AA show that the Treasury received £637 million less in revenue from petrol taxes than in the equivalent period three years ago? Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Treasury to ensure that we do not raise petrol taxes next January?
Sir George Young
As someone with an economics degree, I am always happy to debate the Laffer curve. The fair fuel stabiliser means that fuel duty will rise by inflation only when oil prices are high. As he knows, the measures we have already taken mean that pump prices are about 6p a litre lower than they would have been had we simply carried forward the previous Government’s plans. We are also encouraging retailers wherever possible to pass on savings to consumers as quickly as possible.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House update the House on whether there has been any change in the policy on meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and will he undertake to discuss with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland an early meeting of the Committee after the summer recess?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and happy to have those discussions with the Secretary of State about the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and report back to him.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Network Rail has given an abysmal performance, missing eight out of 10 of its own targets. Surely it is time we had a debate on that, given the impact it has on First Capital Connect, other train lines and commuters in my constituency.
Sir George Young
I hope that my hon. Friend will apply for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, or indeed on the Floor of the House. Network Rail needs to be made much more accountable than it is at the moment, and its corporate governance structure is obscure to say the least. If we get that right, we will be better able to hold it to account on the specific issues she mentions.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In a Westminster Hall debate on 28 June, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, speaking about his new fixed-term social housing tenancies, said:
“I am being clear, in all our language and in the tenancy standards that we will put in place, that two years is to be considered as an exceptional circumstance, and that at least five years would be the norm.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 212WH.]
Because some of us are a little cynical about Government pledges on “exceptional circumstances” following our experiences with higher education fees, I pressed the Minister on this point and was assured that there would be provision in the regulations to be issued by the Government. The Leader of the House will not be at all surprised at my horror when I saw the draft regulations appear less than two weeks later with no such provision and, even more so, when I saw a copy of a letter sent by the Minister to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who had secured the debate, stating that he had no intention of giving effect to this pledge. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is completely out of order for a Minister to give a pledge in a parliamentary debate and then break it within a matter of weeks without coming to the House to explain himself, and will he ensure that the Minister answers for this issue in the House before it rises for the summer recess?
Sir George Young
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point seriously. He and I have a mutual interest in housing matters and I know how important security of tenure is to tenants. He will understand that I would like to make some inquiries about the exchange that has taken place, as I do not keep myself as up to date on housing matters as I used to, but I will convey his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Minister and see whether we can get a reply to him addressing those concerns before the House rises.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Sixteen-year old Hayley Bates from Biddulph was killed in a road traffic accident last year. Her parents have recently discovered that a Facebook page has been created called “Hayley Smash Nissan”, displaying shocking and disgusting images relating to Hayley and the accident. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important issue so that we can determine what we can do to protect other families from this shocking crime?
Sir George Young
This is a horrifying case and our sympathies go out to the family and friends. I know that it can cause great distress if these incidents are mishandled. I will raise the points my hon. Friend has just made with the relevant Ministers and ask them to write to her.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2070, which stands in my name and those of several other hon. Members?
[That this House notes that previous Prime Ministers, including Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major, were meticulous in replying personally to letters from hon. and right hon. Members; and further notes the present Prime Minister does not.]
May we have a debate so that the Prime Minister can come to the House and explain whether he feels that he is more important than his predecessors, or is just too lazy?
Sir George Young
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. I think I am right in saying that there have been occasions when, having written to a Prime Minister, I have received a reply from someone else, which I do not think is wholly unusual. However, in view of the length of time that the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House and the fact that he is a Privy Counsellor, I will raise the matter with the Prime Minister and see whether any changes are necessary in his correspondence office.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Select Committees will have a vital role in getting to the truth behind the allegations of phone hacking and other corrupt practices, but in modern times this place has not used criminal sanctions against witnesses who lie to Select Committees. In the light of the inquiries announced this week and the public interest, would it be possible to have an urgent debate when the House returns in September on why this is?
Sir George Young
If a Select Committee feels that there has been a contempt, the procedure is that it makes a report to the House and then the Speaker decides whether to give it priority, and if he does it is put on the Order Paper and referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. If that Committee finds that there has been a contempt, it has at its disposal a wide range of penalties, including fines.
Sir George Young
It is entirely a matter for the Standards and Privileges Committee, and ultimately the House, what sanctions should then be applied to anyone who has committed a contempt.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; you are very cheeky.
As I understand it, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms has already served the summons on the lawyers of the two Murdochs, and as I understand it, there is no bar on foreign nationals being summoned. Let me make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. There is a degree of urgency about this. Parliament is going into recess next Tuesday, and the Select Committee is only going to meet on Tuesday. If the Murdochs still refuse to come next Tuesday, an alternative route would be for him to table an emergency motion on Monday to require the Serjeant at Arms to bring the Murdochs either to the Bar of the House or to the Committee. I think that he would have the support of the whole House in doing so.
Sir George Young
I think I would like to take some advice before I go down that particular route. The position is that if a witness fails to attend when summoned, the Committee reports the matter to the House and it is then for the House to decide what further action to take. As I said, there has not been a case of that kind for some considerable time. The House can order a witness to attend a Committee; apparently this has not happened since 1920. I would like to take some advice on the rather dramatic course of action that the hon. Gentleman has recommended to me, whatever the consequences might be with regard to News International.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
With regard to the terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry, will my right hon. Friend make a note of early-day motion 2088, which is signed by 14 Select Committee Chairmen from all three main parties, the chairmen of the 1922 committee and the parliamentary Labour party, and representatives of the Northern Ireland party and Scottish national party which lead the devolved Assemblies, and has been passed on to No. 10? It proposes that the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry should
“be extended to the whole media, including sound, visual and social media, and include blagging and other unethical or illegal practices”
and not be confined to phone hacking.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend made this point in yesterday’s exchanges. Of course, the broadcasting media already have their own statutory regulation that does not apply to the press. I know that the Prime Minister will take on board the suggestions that have been made about changing the terms of reference, and we will consider that before final decisions are made.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I raised under a point of order a concern that the Ministry of Justice has written to all chief probation officers announcing the commencement of the privatisation of probation services. That was done without any statement to the House whatsoever. On Wednesday, there was a written statement to the House that dealt with probation services but also announced the closure of two prisons and the privatisation of a range of other prisons. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that that warranted an oral statement to the House, and ask that a Minister attend for that purpose next week? It is important that we discuss this issue, because it is the most significant change in the criminal justice service over the past decade. If we cannot have a statement to the House, may we have a debate in Government time in early September?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman referred to the written ministerial statement. We are committed to delivering reform in our public services, and we want to improve efficiency and effectiveness in outcomes for victims, offenders and the wider community. On the question of whether the matter is dealt with in a written statement or an oral statement, I understand his point, but the Government must also have regard for the business of the House. Wednesday—yesterday—was an Opposition day with a lot of important business, and I am not sure what the reaction would have been if we had had yet another statement, compressing the business even further. We will of course always look at the balance between written and oral statements, but in this particular case I think we were right to do what we did.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House follow me in condemning the appalling bombings that took place in Mumbai yesterday, which resulted in 17 deaths? In particular, does he agree that at this very difficult time for India, this House and Britain should stand firm in its support of India?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House will want to send its sympathy to the friends and relatives of those who lost their lives in these terrorist atrocities. The Foreign Office consular team is already in Mumbai providing consular support to any British nationals who may have been caught up in these events. We are working very closely with the Indian authorities, and we are committed to working with the Indian Government and our allies to combat the threat from terrorism in all its forms.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We have only two sitting days left, and it is important that this House is reported to on the progress of the Leveson inquiry in terms of securing evidence. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on Monday, News International said that if he would give it the details of his complaint, it would investigate it. For us, that is not good enough. It is the police who should carry out that investigation, or the inquiry. All the information should be made available and secured now. We need a statement before the recess in order to understand what progress is being made on securing that evidence.
Sir George Young
The Prime Minister dealt with this in his statement yesterday. It is a criminal offence to destroy documents when a criminal investigation is under way.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
When does the Leader of the House envisage our being able to debate the opening up of public services outlined in the White Paper this week? No doubt parish councils and communities across the country, as well as in Great Yarmouth, are excited about the opportunities that this may give them to be more in control of their destiny.
Sir George Young
I am delighted that there is an appetite in Great Yarmouth to take forward the agenda that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office outlined on Monday with the White Paper. We want to give everyone the choice of helping to improve and control the services they receive and to end the big Government, top-down way of running public services. I hope that it will be possible to have a debate at some point in future to explain how we plan to take this agenda forward.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate on patients’ rights in the national health service? My constituents, Frances and Magdalen McAleavy, have been removed from the doctors’ list at their GP surgery. They have not moved home. Frances McAleavy is 75 years old and has been with this GP practice since she was five months old in 1936. Will the Government look for more protection for patients in such situations?
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear of the problems that confront the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. There will be an opportunity to touch on some of these issues when we debate the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill, but in the meantime I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
The recently published accounts of S4C, the Welsh fourth channel, showed that the interim chief executive was paid a pro rata salary of £212,000. Is it possible to have a debate in the House about how a public body such as S4C continues to prioritise high salaries at the expense of front-line services such as programming?
Sir George Young
I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I should like to share it with the Welsh Assembly, if that is the appropriate department, or with one of my ministerial colleagues, and I will let him have a reply as soon as possible.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I reinforce the fact that this is a unique opportunity for the House to make very clear the responsibilities and powers of a Select Committee in calling people to give evidence? In the 10 years in which I was Chair of the Education Committee, the situation was never really clear, and it seems to be totally unfair. People such as the rich, the famous and celebrities used to evade us—we never managed to get Jamie Oliver to give evidence. We sometimes used to brag that we had this power—at one stage, on the basis of that threat, I forced the National Union of Teachers to come and give evidence—but it was never clear and precise what it was and who we could call.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Administration there was a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. When it reported in 1999, it recommended that failure to appear before a Select Committee should be a criminal offence. The Administration whom he supported never took that Committee’s recommendations forward. We are committed to introducing a draft privilege Bill that will be based on the recommendations of the 1999 Joint Committee report. I therefore hope that we can begin to find a solution to the uncertainty to which he refers.
In reference to an earlier question, I am advised that it is doubtful whether the House can any longer impose a fine; this was last done in 1666. However, that could be addressed in the draft Bill.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
In areas as diverse as energy-intensive industries and children with myalgic encephalomyelitis, the issues cross two or more Departments, whereas debates are traditionally answered by one Department. Will the Leader of the House investigate how cross-departmental issues can be better covered by this House in future?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman may know that in the last Parliament, we had cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. The issues that he raises might therefore be dealt with by the House. I think I am right to say that that experiment was not an outstanding success and that that is why it lapsed. It might be worth looking at again, and perhaps the Procedure Committee or the Backbench Business Committee could do that.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The recent announcements of huge increases in gas and electricity prices have left many of my constituents anxious about how they will get through the next winter. They also feel angry and ripped off because Ofgem does not seem to be able to manage the small number of energy companies, which are making excessive profits. May we have an urgent debate on the energy industry and price rises, and can it be held in the autumn before this issue becomes a winter crisis?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady may know that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made his statement on electricity market reform on Tuesday, the issues that she has just touched on, such as how we tackle fuel poverty, were raised. He outlined the measures that are available through the Department for Work and Pensions to help those on low incomes to meet their fuel bills. She will also know that the green deal is going through the House at the moment, which will enable people at no cost to themselves to have measures introduced to their home to reduce their electricity bills. We are working on a range of other initiatives. I would welcome such a debate, but it would again fall to the Backbench Business Committee to find time for it.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on jobs? In one year, three out of every four jobs went to foreign workers. That seems to substantiate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Does that not demonstrate why we must be stronger on employment for Britons?
Sir George Young
It is very important that as the economy recovers and the 900,000 jobs are created, as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, more people who are already here have the skills to apply for and secure those jobs. Part of the agenda of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is to achieve the objective, through the Work programme, of enabling more people who are already here, perhaps the long-term unemployed, to have access to the new jobs, rather than having to import people to do them.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Given that the Government launched what was described as a six-month review of our reserve forces on 19 October last year, does the Leader of the House agree that this House should have the opportunity to digest and discuss the findings of that important review before the recess?
Sir George Young
I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the strong view of the hon. Gentleman that we should have a report on the Territorial Army and reserves review. My right hon. Friend hopes to keep the House up to date on a number of issues before we rise, such as the basing review. I will see whether this matter might be included in such a statement.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
There has been a correlation between the rise in the gold price over the past few years and the number of gold thefts in my constituency. The police seem to have a particular problem in tracing stolen jewellery. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the individual registration of gold dealers, which would require people who sell gold to provide personal identification? That would help the police to detect and prevent these crimes.
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear of the increase in burglaries in Wolverhampton now that the price of gold has gone up. I would like to touch base with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether such a registration scheme might be cost-effective in reducing the incidence of such burglaries or tracing those responsible for carrying them out.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I was astonished to read in one of today’s papers that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that income tax might have to rise by 12p in the pound. If things have got that bad after only 12 months of coalition Government, should the Chancellor not make a statement before the summer recess?
Sir George Young
I think that the OBR was looking ahead many decades and outlining the impact of increased longevity on the national health service and pensions. It said that if nothing else was done, that might be a consequence. For the hon. Gentleman to attribute that long-range forecast to anything we have done in the past 14 months is heroic. To minimise the impact on the public finances of the sort of demographic changes that I have outlined, we have increased the state retirement age and moved from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. We are therefore taking steps that hopefully will reduce the necessity for an increase in income tax.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the NHS, and specifically on the measures the Government are taking to reduce the number of NHS managers?
Sir George Young
Yes; we have two debates on the NHS when we come back in September. Since the general election, there are 2,500 more doctors, 200 more nurses and 2,500 fewer managers. The situation may have changed even more by the time we return.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I have been working with and on behalf of my constituent, Miriam Khan, whose mother was tragically murdered. The chief suspect, Miriam’s father, escaped justice by fleeing to Pakistan, where he lives to this day. The Pakistani authorities are aware of this case, and sadly there are many similar cases around the country. Can the Leader of the House secure a debate or at least a ministerial statement about the hope for an extradition agreement between this country and Pakistan?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity on Tuesday to cross-question Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers about our relationship with Pakistan and extradition. In the meantime, I will raise the case with Ministers. I quite understand the distress of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Miriam Khan, and her anxiety to see that whoever committed this murder is brought to justice.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Given the roll-out of the academies programme, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be timely to have a debate on the Floor of the House on academies and their progress?
Sir George Young
I would very much welcome such a debate to draw attention to the huge increase in the number of academies under this Government, from 203 in May 2010 to 801 in July this year, and the many more that are in the pipeline. Perhaps my hon. Friend would go to the Backbench Business Committee and put in a bid for such a debate.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Certain elements in our constitution are well represented in the Palace of Westminster with statues, portraits and stained-glass windows, but there is almost a total absence of memorials to progressive groups, such as the Chartists and the Tolpuddle martyrs, that did so much to shape all that is best in our modern democracy. May we debate early-day motion 2067, which suggests that we represent, for a start, the sacrifice of the Newport Chartists of 1839, 20 of whom died in what they called “a noble cause”?
[That this House salutes the work of the Head of State; notes that the role of royalty is commemorated extensively throughout the Palace of Westminster; regrets that there are few, if any, portrayals of heroic work for democracy over recent centuries; believes that the work and sacrifices of Chartists, and many other progressive movements, should be honoured and celebrated by depictions of events in their proud histories.]
Sir George Young
It is right that we have statues in the Palace of Westminster that remind us of our traditions and the roots of our democracy. I think that whether and where new statues are erected are matters for the House of Commons Commission. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to raise the issue on the Commission’s agenda, I would be happy so to do.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
May we have a debate on school discipline? Teachers, parents and pupils in my constituency tell me that the education reform they most want to see is the introduction of measures to ensure that the vast majority of young people who want to learn are not disrupted by the small minority who do not.
Sir George Young
We have published new guidance for teachers, which is greatly reduced in volume from 600 pages to 52. It restores adult authority to the classroom and makes it clear that teachers have a legal power to use reasonable force to remove a pupil who is disrupting a lesson or to prevent a child from leaving a classroom. I hope that that sets a new tone in the classroom and enables teachers to teach and children to learn.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given that a rating agency has suspended its classification of US sovereign debt pending a review and given the problems in the Italian bond market and the rest of the eurozone, may we have a debate on the adequacy of reserving policy in UK banks before, rather than after, any economic disaster?
Sir George Young
The UK banks have been stress tested. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the sort of debate that he has asked for. However, he reminds the House of the importance of having adequate fiscal policies to ensure that we do not suffer the same problems as Greece, Portugal, Ireland and other countries.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
With the growing popularity of academies in mind, may we have a debate about the school funding formula, particularly to raise the question of disparities in funding for local authorities, and to mention the need to get money where it needs to be—the schools and the pupils?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right: the funding regime for academies is no longer appropriate. It was designed at a time when there were relatively few academies, and now there are many more. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is consulting on a new funding regime for academies, which I hope will address the issues to which my hon. Friend refers.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I hope that the Leader of the House, his deputy and most importantly his courteous and professional staff have a good rest.
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), given the huge national interest in the basing announcement that is due very shortly, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House on Monday and make that announcement rather than slipping it out either on Tuesday or in written form?
Sir George Young
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his tenacity on this subject. My right hon. Friend certainly plans to update the House on the basing review before we rise for the summer recess.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Government can be rightly proud that we have done more in 13 months than the Labour party did to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal. However, there remains one group of people—the pre-September 1992 annuitants—who are trapped and vulnerable, and their cases are not even being assessed. Will my right hon. Friend find time to lean on the Treasury and encourage it to come forward with a statement on the progress of payments so far, so that we can question it on what will be done for that small group of people?
Sir George Young
My experience of leaning on the Treasury is that it tends to lean back, but I am very happy to raise with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the issue of those annuitants. Speaking from memory, I think the finding of the ombudsman was that the regulatory failure began after 1992, which may be why those who had policies before 1992 were excluded from compensation. None the less, I will raise the matter with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and ask him to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House share my disappointment that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has still not published the equality impact assessment of cuts to the provision of English for speakers of other language? He will be aware that many Members are seeking to raise the issue of ESOL provision in Tuesday’s Adjournment debate. Will he ensure that the assessment is published by then and not sneaked out over the summer recess?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I believe that the matter was raised a few moments ago during questions to BIS Ministers. They will publish the document to which he refers as soon as possible.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This year has been an amazing one for the scrutiny of Parliament, the best in decades. That is down partly to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Back Bencher of the year, who chairs the Backbench Business Committee; partly to the shadow Leader of the House, who has done such a good job in parliamentary terms; partly to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership from the Chair; partly to the star Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who gives us a lot of suggestions, none of which I take; and partly to the Deputy Leader of the House, who has gone from poacher to gamekeeper very easily. Of course, it is mainly down to the Leader of the House, who, when I ask him a question, always gives a full, frank and honest answer, but never to the question that I asked.
To move things forward a little, has the Leader of the House had a chance to ask the Chief Whip whether, in the first week back, the Government are going to support my private Member’s Bill, which would just slightly amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975?
Sir George Young
If my hon. Friend is referring to some personal vendetta that he has with the Whips Office, and a Bill that I think would disqualify the Whips from being Members of Parliament, I have to say that I have a very good relationship with the Chief Whip and would not be minded to support any measure that removed from me the pleasure of having his company next to me on the Front Bench at every Prime Minister’s questions.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
In a week when the House has rightly been focused on the phone hacking scandal, there is of course an emerging humanitarian crisis in east Africa, with thousands upon thousands of people without access to adequate food and water. Will the Leader of the House monitor the situation over the summer recess and, if necessary, find parliamentary time to debate the UK’s response to the tragedy?
Sir George Young
It is an important issue, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a statement about our aid policy not so very long ago. There were also questions to DFID Ministers yesterday. Of course we will keep the humanitarian crisis under review. I cannot promise that the House will be recalled if there is any deterioration, but we will do all we can to keep Members in the picture on the steps that the UK is taking to reduce the human suffering.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the Floor of the House on the quality of care provided at Medway Maritime hospital? An independent report found that there were actions that could be construed as bullying of a senior surgeon, Mr Mufti, the former medical director at the NHS trust. Since then, other professionals at the hospital have contacted my office to say that they have encountered such behaviour. That followed a recent survey showing that one in five workers at Medway hospital had encountered harassment or been abused. My constituents are very concerned about the implications that that may have for patient care.
Sir George Young
Bullying and harassment of NHS staff by patients, members of the public or other staff is wholly unacceptable, and the NHS constitution specifically refers to measures that should be taken to reduce bullying. I understand that the Medway trust is aware of the concerns to which my hon. Friend refers, and is having discussions with the trade unions to come up with a policy that reduces such incidents to a bare minimum.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
My question follows the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). A little over a month ago, Scottish Power announced an energy price increase of 20%, I asked the Leader of the House for an urgent statement from the Energy Secretary detailing what discussions he had had with energy suppliers, and what measures would be taken to reduce the impact on hard-working families right across the country. Given that this week British Gas has announced that gas prices will increase by 18% and electricity prices by 16%—perhaps a cynical attempt to hide bad news when everyone is focusing on the hacking scandal—may we now have an urgent statement from the Energy Secretary and not, as the Leader of the House suggested, a Backbench Business Committee debate?
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary made a statement on electricity market reform on Tuesday, and he addressed precisely the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses. He outlined the measures that we were taking to provide security of supply and stability of prices in future. He was asked many questions about the rising cost of fuel, and he outlined the measures that the Government were taking to address it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks in Hansard, where he will find an answer to some of the questions that he has raised.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Later this year, private sewers will be transferred to water and sewerage companies, and many householders will be relieved of concerns about future maintenance bills. May we have a debate to consider the implementation of the change, so that we can acknowledge the work of those who have campaigned on the issue, including the all-party group on sewers and sewerage, previous Members for Rugby and my constituent Pam Brockway of Woodlands residents association?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is quite right that later this year, responsibility for private sewers connected to the mains will transfer from householders to the water authorities. That is a welcome step forward that will remove the incidence of householders suddenly being confronted with huge bills for sewers for which they simply did not think they had any responsibility at all. I commend those who campaigned for that enlightened measure. It will have an impact of roughly £5 on the bills that people pay, but I think that is an acceptable price to pay for the security of mind that goes with the policy.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the Leader of the House outlined the position with regard to criminal sanctions for contempt of the House and the proposal of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999. I am sure that it is totally coincidental, but those were the very points that I made in a letter that I copied to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House yesterday. However, we are living in a very fast-moving world. Will the Leader of the House examine the two specific provisions made in the 1999 report, and incorporate them into emergency legislation that I am sure would command support from both sides of the House?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. He is asking us to do as an emergency something that the previous Administration had 11 years to do and did absolutely nothing about. The answer that I gave the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) earlier was that we are considering a draft parliamentary privilege Bill. I welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) that contempt should be made a criminal offence, as suggested in the 1999 report. I can assure him that it will be considered, and he will have a chance to feed his comments into future consultation on the Bill.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I think everyone in the House is agreed that our pensions should be no different in principle from the pensions of others in the public sector. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the House will have an opportunity to make it clear that we consider that our pensions should be reformed in line with the principles set out in the Hutton report, and when will he table a motion that will unequivocally pass responsibility for MPs’ pensions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that a written ministerial statement today outlines the Government’s position on MPs’ pensions, which is exactly as my hon. Friend describes. We should be treated no differently from other public servants, and I will table a motion before the House rises, but for debate subsequently, that asks the House to endorse that position. It will also propose that we transfer to IPSA responsibility for a new pension scheme for MPs. That motion will reassert the importance of the independent determination of MPs’ remuneration.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Scottish National party has decided to impose huge tuition fees on English students who go to Scottish universities. Given that the SNP previously called those tuition fees both “discriminatory” and “anti-English”, and that it has said that the
“added cost of a 4 year degree means we won’t see English students going to Scottish Universities”,
may we have an urgent debate on the impact that those politically motivated policies, which are designed to promote a separatist agenda, will have on both English students and our wonderful Scottish universities?
Sir George Young
I gather that that matter was raised during Business, Innovation and Skills questions. How the SNP Executive manages tuition fees is a matter for them. What the hon. Gentleman describes is a consequence of devolution.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I am loth to ask the Leader of the House this question just before the recess, but may we have a debate on IPSA? Earlier this week I spoke to the operations team at IPSA, which tells me that it now processes and pays claims, on average, in six or seven days, but in my experience it takes twice that long, which is in breach of its service level targets and places a real difficulty on some Members in managing their cash flow. May we therefore discuss how we can help IPSA to improve those service levels, so that it can help us to do our job?
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s problems. I understand that the director of operations at IPSA has offered a meeting with my hon. Friend, which I hope addresses his particular concerns. As he knows, we have just set up a Committee to look at the legislation that covers IPSA. He will have an opportunity to feed in to the work of that Committee his suggestions as to how we might make future changes.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House imagine the reaction there would have been if Tony Hayward, the then chief executive officer of BP, refused to appear before the congressional committee in the US? My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out to the Leader of the House that he has the power to introduce a motion that would require the witnesses who are refusing to come to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to attend, and for the Serjeant at Arms to go and fetch them. Will he at least pledge today, on the Floor of the House, that he will use whatever powers are at his disposal to ensure that those witnesses turn up next week?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. My view is that that is a matter for the House rather than for the Government.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
When does the Leader of the House expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on tuberculosis? Twenty-five thousand cattle a year are being slaughtered, and it costs £100 million of taxpayers’ money, and yet that pall of disease out there in the wildlife is not being tackled. A statement from the Secretary of State is urgent.
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. TB causes real difficulties for farmers in many parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been consulting on a range of options to tackle that disease. I cannot promise an immediate response from her, but I will convey my hon. Friend’s interest and see whether we can get a reply on the timing of any Government announcement as soon as possible.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this week, I was surprised and just a little shocked to learn from the National House-Building Council that only one house was started in my constituency in the last six months for which figures are available. With the massive cut in grant funding for affordable housing, and with the shambles that appears to be developing over the Government’s so-called affordable rents policy, may we have an early debate, preferably in Government time, in September, to discuss the future of affordable housing in this country?
Sir George Young
I understand that there was a debate on housing market renewal on Tuesday in Westminster Hall. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes the measures announced in the Budget to help first-time buyers, and that he recognises that house building starts fell to an all-time record under the Administration whom he supported.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that, four times now, Opposition Members have objected to the setting up of the Committee to scrutinise the draft Financial Services Bill. Does he know what they have against better scrutiny of financial services, and in particular why they do not want that Committee to start its important work?
Sir George Young
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that we have been unable to establish that Joint Committee to look at the draft Financial Services Bill. I very much hope that when the motion comes before the House later today, it will be possible to make progress and set up the Committee. I cannot endorse what has happened on the Order Paper, where Members of one political party have sought to interfere with the nominations of another.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
With the publication this morning of the national crime statistics showing that burglaries have gone up 14%, and that domestic violence, worryingly, has gone up 35%, may we have a debate on the risks that the Government are taking with the 20% cuts to the police force and on the 12,000 police officers who will lose their jobs?
Sir George Young
I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from on this, but I must just remind her that before the last election, the then Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that he could give no guarantee at all that the number of police officers would not be reduced were the Labour party to be re-elected. A Labour Government would have been confronted by the same sorts of decisions as this Government were, but we believe that our police reforms will put more on the front line and enable the police to make further progress in preventing and detecting crime.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a statement and debate on the increasing amount of our national debt? That would give the House the chance to highlight the fact that, despite all the measures being taken to control public spending, because of the sheer size of the budget deficit bequeathed by the previous Government, the national debt will actually increase by around £350 billion before the next election, and not decrease by that amount, which, according to a poll out this week, seven out of 10 of the British public wrongly believe will happen.
Sir George Young
I listened, as I am sure my hon. Friend did, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the same theme—the size of the national debt. One reason that continues to increase is the very high interest bill on the outstanding debt, which we inherited from the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) will know that we have made some difficult decisions to reduce the pressure on public finances, including bringing forward the state retirement age, changing to the consumer prices index for benefits, and accepting Lord Hutton’s recommendations to reform public service provision. I very much hope that my hon. Friend agrees that what we have begun to do will help to reduce the escalating nature of national debt.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In the next few months, Southern Cross will be broken up. During that period, the 30,000 residents in 400 constituencies will be very concerned about the place they call home. May we have a proper debate on this topic directly on our return in September?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity on our return in September to discuss health-related issues during debate on the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill. The hon. Gentleman will also have heard the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), reply to an urgent question on Tuesday following Health questions. Our primary concern remains the welfare of the residents. Whatever the outcome, no one will find themselves homeless or without care, and we are working closely with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Care Quality Commission to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place in the event of any need.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May we have a debate on the Yorkshire Post “Fair Deal for Yorkshire” campaign, particularly regarding the need for a fair deal on tourism funding between Yorkshire and Scotland, and the huge benefits of locating the green investment bank in Leeds?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend might be opening a bidding war in stating that he wants the green investment bank to be located in Leeds—I am sure that other hon. Members think it could be located in their constituencies. I would have thought that the benefits of Yorkshire spoke for themselves as a holiday destination, but I am sure that VisitBritain will do what it can to promote York, along with—I hope—Hampshire.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Like so many ex-servicemen, my constituent Mr William Young has found it difficult to enter the domestic labour market. May we have a debate on what more the Government, the armed forces and the nation can do to help ex-service personnel as they transition from the forces to civilian society?
Sir George Young
The purpose behind one of the key components of the military covenant was precisely to help those leaving the armed forces to develop alternative careers. One particular opportunity was to encourage them to join the teaching profession, for which many of them have the necessary skills. However, I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary the question of our progress, through the military covenant, on finding work for those retiring from our armed forces.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in the Vale of Glamorgan has fallen by 25% over the past year, and according to the latest figures unemployment fell across the whole of the UK. May we have a debate on unemployment to establish what policies are working best and why they are working in some areas better than in others?
Sir George Young
I am delighted to hear that unemployment has fallen in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope that we will continue to make progress in bringing it down. As I said a few moments ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that there will be 900,000 extra jobs between now and 2015. There are encouraging signs in the labour market figures. The Work programme, which has just been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is encouraging new providers into the market to provide long-term jobs for those who are unemployed. I hope we will make some progress there. The challenge is to help people into employment and to help the recovery. The Work programme is up and running and will offer jobseekers flexible support tailored to their needs in order to help them into employment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Food prices continue to rise at an alarming rate across the whole of the United Kingdom. In the past year, they have risen by 6.5%, whereas the overall inflation rate for June was 4.2%. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on an issue that affects everyone in the UK?
Sir George Young
Food is every bit as important as fuel. I cannot promise time for an early debate on food prices, but of course the Government are taking appropriate action to try and bear down on inflation. However, for those confronted by rising food prices, support is available through the index-linked benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and all 62 Back-Bench Members who took part in this session.
Coastguard Modernisation
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s intentions for taking forward the process of coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the consultation that ended on 5 May 2011.
The key drivers behind the modernisation proposals are the need to address the limited resilience of current arrangements, distribute more effectively the work load experienced by different coastguard stations and provide enhanced opportunities for coastguard officers to develop professional skills, with pay levels reflecting enhanced responsibilities. There is also a need to contribute to the wider deficit reduction agenda.
The consultation set out proposals to create a nationally networked coastguard system with two maritime operations centres—one in the Southampton/Portsmouth area and one in Aberdeen—together with a 24-hour centre at Dover and five daytime-only centres. In addition to delivering greater resilience and better career progression, the proposals identified ways of managing costs while still delivering high levels of service to seafarers and the public. The proposals also set out our commitment to increase by 32 the number of regular uniformed coastguards deployed to support the front-line volunteer coastguard.
These drivers for change and our strategic objectives in this exercise remain unaltered, but throughout the consultation process. I have been clear that we are willing to listen to the views of the public, coastguard staff and other interested parties on the best way to deliver the outcomes we need to achieve. More than 1,800 responses were received, including many from serving coastguards. Of the total, 27 submissions suggested specific alternative solutions, all with a reduced number of stations but with differing concepts of operations. We are very grateful to all those who responded to the consultation and to the Transport Select Committee for also looking at the issues. This has been a model consultation, with many serious and thoughtful responses recognising the need to deliver the overall objectives but proposing alternative ways of doing so.
A number of common themes emerged from the consultation responses: first, widespread acceptance, as illustrated by all the alternative solutions put forward, that change is necessary; secondly, concerns about the potential loss of local knowledge and local contacts with volunteer coastguards and other search and rescue partners; and, thirdly, concerns over how the detailed concept of operations for the MOCs and sub-centres would work in practice, particularly how a handover between a daytime centre and a 24/7 MOC would work in practice. A review of all the consultation responses has been produced under the leadership of a non-executive director of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, involving a number of serving coastguard officers and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, and has been placed in the Library of the House. A formal response from the Government to the report of the Transport Select Committee will be provided separately.
In the light of the consultation responses, the Government have now concluded that it remains right to continue with the proposals for a nationally networked system with the introduction of one MOC capable of managing incidents anywhere and ensuring optimum distribution of work load across the system. Establishing one MOC, rather than the two previously proposed, allows us to address concerns over local knowledge and the robustness of the future concept of operations by retaining one of each of the current paired stations, with the retained centres operating as part of the nationally networked system 24 hours a day rather than during the daytime only. Staff in each of the current pair of stations are already familiar with, and frequently experience, managing incidents in an adjacent area.
We have also decided that the Northern Ireland coastguard station at Bangor should be retained because of the specific requirement to manage the civil contingency arrangements unique to Northern Ireland and the relationship with search and rescue partners in the Irish Republic with whom we co-ordinate closely in air sea rescues in the waters around the island of Ireland. In the light of the decision to retain one station from each pair and concerns raised about Welsh language communication, it has been decided to retain the Holyhead station, rather than the one at Liverpool. In response to concerns expressed over the resilience of infrastructure and communication links within the Scottish islands and between the islands and the Scottish mainland, we have decided to retain coastguard centres in both Stornoway and Shetland. A further review of the potential costs of vacating the existing sites in Swansea and Milford Haven has shown that there are no financial or operational reasons to favour either location, and in view of my Department’s already substantial levels of employment in Swansea, we have decided to retain the coastguard centre at Milford Haven rather than at Swansea.
In summary, subject to consultation on the changes to the previously announced approach, we will now proceed with the creation of a modernised coastguard service providing a nationally networked system comprising: one maritime operations centre in the Southampton-Portsmouth area with a disaster recovery back-up facility at the Dover station, which will retain its responsibilities for the Channel Navigation Information Service and will also serve as a sub-centre; and a further eight sub-centres, all operated on a 24-hour basis, located at Falmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, Belfast, Stornoway, Shetland, Aberdeen and Humber. The stations at Clyde, Forth, Portland, Liverpool, Yarmouth, Brixham, Thames and Swansea will close progressively over the period between 2012 and 2014-15. The station at Solent will be replaced by a new maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area. The small London station is unaffected by these proposals.
These revised proposals will deliver the modernisation required, and they are capable of delivering the same level of savings in the longer term as our previous proposals. They are right for the future of the coastguard service. I recognise, of course, that they will none the less represent a huge disappointment to those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the proposed closures.
The additional costs generated by retaining a total of 10 centres overall, plus London, all operating on a 24-hour basis, and the higher coastguard numbers that will be needed to do so, will be offset by operating only one maritime operations centre, in the Southampton-Portsmouth area, with a back-up centre, equipped but not staffed, at Dover. By moving to more efficient watch patterns, we will still be able to offer higher pay across the service to reflect higher levels of responsibility, while ensuring that costs overall remain within our planned funding for the coastguard as a whole.
The changes to the original consultation proposal that I have announced today will be the subject of a further period of consultation. This will run for 12 weeks from today, ending on 6 October 2011. Specifically, this includes the decision to retain Holyhead rather than Liverpool; the choice of Milford Haven rather than Swansea; the decision to retain stations at Shetland and Stornoway; and the decision to operate a single maritime operations centre, rather than two. These changes to our original proposals will deliver the modernised and more cost-effective service that we need for the 21st century, while also responding to the genuine concerns raised during the consultation process. I therefore commend them to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement today, and for giving me early sight of it. I also thank him for coming to the House today; this is the first time that a Minister has made a statement at the Dispatch Box on this issue at any stage of this process. I must also tell him, however, that it was wholly inappropriate for him to brief The Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror at the weekend, both of which reported a “senior Government source” as confirming the changes to the proposals. He has clearly given even more detailed information on the fate of specific stations to regional newspapers and broadcasters for use this morning. Does he not understand that it is outrageous that our brave local coastguards should be hearing about their future through anonymous briefings to the press from Department for Transport officials? This is not the way to treat those who work to make our coastline a safer place. The Secretary of State should not have sought to spin such an important announcement in advance in the way that he chose to do.
The changes that the Secretary of State has announced today are a partial victory for the tireless campaigning of coastguards up and down the country. They are the people who best know the level of provision needed to keep our coastline safe. It has been an honour to meet and hear from so many of them over the past few months and to see at first hand their dedication. The campaign that they have fought has been based entirely on their concern for the safety of the communities that they serve, and today’s changes are a tribute to their commitment and tenacity.
It is incredible to think that the Secretary of State believed that the majority of our coastguard stations should not provide round-the-clock cover. It is right that he has abandoned those plans and recognised the need for stations to operate 24 hours a day, and I commend him for doing so. However, today’s announcement will result in the loss of just under half of all of Britain’s coastguard stations. That will be a devastating blow to the stations that he proposes to close, to the coastguards, to their families and to the communities that they serve and in which they are held with such respect.
These closures are driven entirely by the Government’s decision to cut the transport budget too far and too fast. It is incredible that the Secretary of State’s statement today focused almost entirely on issues of cost, rather than on the safety considerations that should have driven this review from the start.
The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was very clear when he appeared before the Transport Select Committee on 8 February this year. He said that he had been
“required to find 22% budget reduction in my programme between now and 31 March 2015”.
He went on to say that the closure of coastguard stations was
“part of an overall strategy to bring my....expenditure into line with the budget provision I have been given now for the comprehensive spending review.”
These reforms are about cutting budgets, not about improving the safety of Britain’s coastline.
All along, the proposals have been ill thought out, careless and rushed. It was quite clear that Ministers had already decided exactly which stations were to close when the original consultation was published. The leaked early draft of the consultation that I was sent showed clearly that the public were to be asked for their views not on alternative options but on a decision that had clearly already been made in the Department. Only just before publication did Ministers decide to put in the choices between Liverpool and Belfast and between Shetland and Stornoway, making it clear that this was done for no other reason than to give the impression of a consultation when it was nothing of the sort.
Most incredible of all is the fact that no risk assessment was published alongside the proposals. The Select Committee found that
“by failing to publish a risk assessment of the current plans or an impact assessment of the previous round of closures until prompted, the MCA management has badly miscalculated. It has mishandled the consultation and made it appear opaque rather than clear and open-minded.”
It is clear that, had it not been for the campaign fought up and down the country, and the impressive expert work of the Transport Select Committee—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for her chairmanship of that Committee—Ministers would have implemented these spending review-driven closures.
Throughout this process, there has been a failure by the Secretary of State adequately to ensure joined-up government with the Ministry of Defence, or even within his own Department, on the cumulative impact of the planned cuts. The coastguard station closures are compounded by the separate decision by his Department to end funding for emergency towing vessels. Let us not forget that they were a recommendation of Lord Donaldson’s inquiry into the Braer disaster. The Select Committee report found:
“The decision to cease the MCA’s provision of the Emergency Towing Vessels, which was made without consultation and against the findings of an independent risk assessment, is unwise and short-sighted. It is, quite literally, inviting disaster”.
The Secretary of State failed to consider the cumulative impact of the cuts being proposed by the MOD, not least the loss of the Nimrods and Sea King helicopters. The chief executive of the MCA told the Select Committee:
“It is fair to say that with the demise of the Nimrod we do not have the extent of search and rescue top cover that we had before.”
As a result of its own cuts, the MOD will be without maritime surveillance capability after 2015, leaving a massive capacity gap that will only compound the impact of the Secretary of State’s decision to close nearly half Britain’s coastguard stations.
May I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House exactly how many jobs will be lost as a result of the closures that he has confirmed today? What is the grade and post breakdown for the jobs that will be lost? What estimate has been made of the cost of redundancy payments? Will he agree to carry out and publish a new detailed risk assessment of the revised proposals, so that it can be considered before the period of consultation begins? It is difficult to see how a genuine consultation can take place without such an assessment being carried out first. Will he also ensure that this new risk assessment is carried out jointly with the MOD? It is essential that we have joined-up government when it comes to the safety of our coastline. Will he commit to coming back to the House in person, following this further period of consultation, rather than briefing any further changes to the media—out of respect for our coastguards, if for no other reason?
The excellent report of the Transport Select Committee into these closures concluded:
“The evidence we have received raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed”.
The confirmation that certain stations will remain open and the decision to retain 24-hour cover will be welcomed, but the revised set of proposals that the Secretary of State has set out today will not provide the reassurance that the public need and expect. The communities served by the stations that are to close in Clyde, Forth, Portland, Yarmouth, Brixham, Thames and Swansea, and my own local station in Liverpool, will be devastated at the loss of their local coastguard. The reality is that coastguards have seen their work loads increase in recent years, as our shipping lanes have become busier and they are called out to deal with more incidents. How can the answer be fewer operating bases? Improving the interoperability between the existing centres is surely possible without a reduction in the number of coastguard stations, with the loss of local expertise that this will entail. Axing one out of each paired station will lead to a considerable loss of local knowledge; it is incomprehensible that staff based in Belfast will have the same local knowledge about Liverpool bay as the existing local coastguards.
What the right hon. Gentleman must do now is not have a consultation on the changes announced today, but have a full new consultation on the entire set of proposals, following a fresh risk assessment and covering all of the proposals across government, including from the Ministry of Defence, that impact on the future safety of our coastline.
Mr Hammond
I do not remember the hon. Lady being quite so sanctimonious about briefing during the years that she was in government. She says that this is a victory for people who have protested up and down the country. I will tell her what it is: it is a victory for common sense and a victory for the consultation process. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the shipping Minister, has been around coastguard stations up and down the country and received delegations from every coastguard station and every major seafaring community in the country and talked to them about their specific concerns. Working with the professional team at the coastguard agency, we have woven those concerns into the revised proposal that I have presented today.
The hon. Lady says that she cannot believe that the original proposals I presented included the loss of round-the-clock cover. That is a little strange, because the proposals I presented were those that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister found on his desk when he inherited the post in May 2010. The Labour party had failed to present those proposals publicly for fear of dealing with the fallout.
I recognise, of course, that the loss of a significant number of local stations is a blow to the communities that host them, but it is absolutely wrong for the hon. Lady to say that this process is driven only by the need to save costs, although there clearly is a need to save costs in the light of the chronic fiscal situation that we inherited from Labour. The fact is that the current structure of the coastguard does not reflect the technology or the concept of operations current today. We have to reinforce the ability to share work around the system, to deal with fluctuations in work load and variations in work load between different parts of our coastline.
I can tell the hon. Lady that risk assessments have been published and, in answer to her specific question, a further risk assessment relating to these proposals will be published. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tells me that he thinks that will be done within the next week.
I am somewhat bemused by the hon. Lady’s foray into the area of Sea Kings and Nimrods since we are talking here specifically about the coastguard control centres. I would be happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I do not believe that he wishes to make any further input into this process.
The hon. Lady asked me specifically about the total job losses. The total number of uniformed coastguards will, as a result of these proposals, fall from 573 at present to 436 once the transformation is completed by 2014-15. That includes coastguards based in the operational centres, coastguards deployed to support the front-line volunteer coastguard and a small number at Maritime and Coastguard Agency headquarters. I cannot provide an exact breakdown of the grades of the jobs that will be lost, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my letter in the Library in the usual way. I am also quite happy to confirm that I will make a further statement, either written or oral, once the consultation process is over.
If the hon. Lady had looked a little more closely at what we are proposing, she would understand that we have responded very effectively to the central thrust of the responses that we have received, which was about the loss of local knowledge and concerns about handing over from daytime operations to the 24-hour marine operation centre. The retention of one centre from each pair does answer the local knowledge question, and the example the hon. Lady gave, relating to her own constituency, is ill informed since Liverpool is actually paired with Holyhead, which will now be retained. She will find that the coastguards at Holyhead routinely deal with operations in Liverpool bay and have a working local knowledge of conditions in the bay.
I believe that these proposals are a robust solution to deliver a future coastguard service that will be resilient, effective and affordable into the 21st century.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I did not hear an awful lot about safety in the Secretary of State’s statement, but I did hear an awful lot about cost. Will my right hon. Friend please tell me why he has not already published the risk assessment relating to the proposals? A Minister told the House about three weeks ago in an Adjournment debate that there would be full consultation on the new proposals, so will my right hon. Friend explain why that Minister did not say then that the consultation would relate only to the adjustments? Will he reconsider and consult the experts—the coastguards themselves who work at the front line of every co-ordination centre around the coast—about these proposals and take on board what they have to say?
Mr Hammond
I understand my hon. Friend’s specific local concerns; she has campaigned extremely hard on behalf of her local community and its concerns. Of course safety is paramount. This whole process is about making the coastguard service more resilient and more effective, and creating a proper career structure that will attract and retain the quality of people we need in a service that, frankly, has not had a good experience of industrial relations and personnel issues over the last few years. My hon. Friend says I should consult the experts; that is precisely what we have done. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been around the country, talking to coastguards and has received countless delegations here, tapping into their expert knowledge. The proposals I have announced reflect that very useful input that they have made.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State comment on two points along the same lines as questions already asked? First, with the announcement that the coastguard station on the Clyde in Greenock in my constituency is to close, I must ask the Minister whether he feels that safety has been compromised, especially on the west coast of Scotland, which is a particularly challenging coastline with demanding waters and a big increase in shipping in the area. Is safety on the west coast of Scotland being compromised? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the number of job losses in my constituency that will result from the closure of this station?
Mr Hammond
On the safety issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal in the original consultation was also to close the station in the Clyde—and that position still stands. This questioning of whether the closure of local stations will compromise safety betrays, I think, a failure to understand how the coastguard works and operates. What is really important is that the part of the service that receives calls and directs front-line rescue operations is effectively networked together. At the moment, we have what I consider in the 21st century to be a frankly shocking situation whereby each coastguard station is able to communicate and share work with only one other coastguard station. If there is a surge of work on the west coast, for example, due to a particular weather pattern, it is impossible at the moment for that work load to be shared with stations on the south coast, the east coast or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is to deliver that resilience that these proposals have been brought forward. The professionals who have evaluated them and who advise us are quite clear that this will enhance the resilience of the system and thus the safety of seafarers and coastal communities around the UK. I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman specifically on the job loss issues relating to his constituency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A great many Members wish to contribute. If questions and answers are shorter, most of them will, I hope, be able to.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed that Great Yarmouth will not retain a station. However, I have supported the modernisation programme from the outset. The good news is that our twin station at Humber will now be open for 24 hours, so local knowledge will be retained, but I should appreciate some information about the number of job losses at Great Yarmouth. I know that the station is already slightly under-resourced, but if vacancies arise at the Humber station will Great Yarmouth staff have an opportunity to relocate and take their knowledge there?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has dealt with the issue. We certainly hope that it will be possible to transfer staff from some of the stations that are closing to some of those that are remaining open. I can tell my hon. Friend that 25 full-time equivalent posts will be lost at Great Yarmouth; I can also save the taxpayer a stamp by telling the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) that 31 such posts will be lost at the Clyde station.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The news that Crosby coastguard is to close comes as a bitter blow to staff and to the public in my constituency and much further afield. Other Members have said the same about the closures of their own coastguard stations.
Many will view this as a cut too far, which poses a risk to public safety. Crosby has a number of experienced and outstanding staff who have key relationships with search and rescue staff, police officers and firefighters. They want to make the most of new technology, but they want to do so by using the existing network rather than through large, remotely located operations in Southampton and Aberdeen. In retaining the 24/7 stations that he has mentioned, the Minister has presumably accepted that new technology is most effective when combined with existing local knowledge and relationships, so why has he not allowed that to obtain at Crosby and the other stations that are set to close? Is the truth that this move has been driven by the Treasury?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman talks of “using the existing network”, but, as I have just explained, there are no existing networks except between the paired stations. He talks of the local knowledge at Crosby, and asks why we have not applied the principle of retaining it there. We have: we are retaining the station at Holyhead, which is paired with Crosby and routinely operates in tandem with it, using the same areas of local knowledge around the north Wales coast and Liverpool bay area which both stations cover.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend predicted huge disappointment, and in that respect at least I can agree with him. The proposed closure of Forth in my constituency will be received with profound disappointment, not least because of the unsatisfactory nature of the public meeting held by the MCA in Anstruther in February. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Aberdeen, which he proposes to retain, is the most expensive station in the United Kingdom—that excludes staff costs—while Forth has the lowest running costs in the UK? Is he also aware that in 2010, 40% of lifeboat launches in Scotland took place within Forth’s area of responsibility?
The Forth station offers value for money, and is increasingly busy because of the increase in leisure and commercial traffic in and around the River Forth. Why on earth should it be a candidate for closure?
Mr Hammond
As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, given that we have decided to retain one station from each pairing in order to respond to the concerns about local knowledge, there will inevitably be a series of questions such as his from Members representing the station in each pair that has not been selected for retention. A multi-criterian approach was adopted to the decisions about which station in each pair should be retained. I should be happy to explain to my right hon. and learned Friend the detailed logic behind the decision in this case.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
There is widespread concern at the prospect of the closure of coastguard stations, especially among the many people who use pleasure vessels and fishing vessels. Their concern matters as much as that of those in the commercial sector. I welcome the Government’s acceptance, in full, of the Select Committee’s recommendation of 24-hour cover in all stations, and their acceptance of the strong point made by the Committee about the significance of local knowledge. However, I must ask the Secretary of State whether he considers it credible that eight local closures will enable local knowledge and local team working to save the maximum number of lives.
Mr Hammond
First, let me restate my gratitude to the Select Committee for the time and trouble that it took over the inquiry. The hon. Lady will know, because she heard the evidence herself, that people who are closely involved with the service do indeed accept the need for change. As for local knowledge, it is precisely because the point about its importance was made so powerfully that we decided to look again at the original pairings of stations and see how the network could be organised around the retention of one station in each pair. Because of the way in which the pairs work, people working in either one of a pair of centres have full local knowledge of the entire coastline covered by both. We have addressed the concern expressed about local knowledge, while still building the resilience that the network needs for the 21st century.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the news that there will still be a station in the Solent area, which, after all, is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider also retaining the new command centre in the Lee-on-the-Solent area, where it is currently located? Not only does it benefit from the experience and local knowledge that, as we have learnt, is so important, and also from an ideal location between Portsmouth and Southampton, but the MCA already owns a big site at Daedalus, where there is a runway, so its retention makes good financial sense.
Mr Hammond
The Daedalus site is certainly one of the sites being considered by the agency as a possible location for the marine operations centre, which will provide 96 jobs, but no final decision has yet been made.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
While I obviously have sympathy for Clyde and Forth, I am, of course, over the moon for Stornoway and Shetland. This has been a good campaign for my constituents in Stornoway. Praise to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and praise to Shetland Isles council; praise also to the shipping Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who visited, listened and genuinely consulted, and has the respect of many in the islands. The decision took account of distance as well as local knowledge. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that this is now a settled situation, and that we can look forward to a period of stability at the coastguard operation centres in both Stornoway and Shetland?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the shipping Minister. It is nice to receive an acknowledgment of some of the effort that goes into getting some of these things right.
Of course the proposals are subject to the consultation that I have announced, but we envisage this as a settled situation that deals with the long-running question of how we can modernise the coastguard not just to make it technically resilient, but to create a career structure and, indeed, a pay structure that will solve the deep-rooted and long-running industrial relations problems that have existed in the service.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team for listening to the representations that I, and others, have made about the Humber coastguard. While this is clearly good news for my constituents who are employed in Bridlington, is not the overriding issue the need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole service? As the Humber station is in effect being asked to take on more responsibility, what will be the ultimate effect on staffing levels? Will they be increased rather than decreased?
Mr Hammond
What my right hon. Friend must take into account is that there will be a marine operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area, with 96 staff operating 24/7. That will provide a great deal of back-up for all the operations in the country. At Humber there will be a loss of six full-time equivalent posts. The station, like all the other stations and sub-stations that are remaining open 24/7, will operate with a total of 23 staff and will work in networked tandem, 24/7, with the marine operations centre on the south coast.
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has completely failed to justify his decision to close Swansea and keep Milford Haven open. That makes absolutely no sense, certainly in maritime and coastal safety terms; it may make sense in terms of narrow party political advantage. Swansea is better strategically placed than Milford Haven and deals with twice as many incidents. Swansea also has a history of liaising with different police services across south Wales and south-west England, while Milford Haven has only ever dealt with Dyfed Powys. The MCA’s original proposals recognised that if we had to get rid of one of the pair, Swansea was the one to retain. What is now proposed is a huge mistake. The consultation should not be about something that is settled; it should be a real consultation where we can make the case for Swansea.
Mr Hammond
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) a few moments ago, I recognise that in the case of every pair there is likely to be some internecine warfare over which of them is to be selected. The hon. Gentleman says the original recommendation was to close Milford Haven and retain Swansea. That was based on an understanding within the agency then about onerous obligations in respect of the site and buildings at Swansea. It has subsequently become clear that they do not impose as great a financial cost as was first thought, and the view within the agency now is that there are no operational or financial considerations that dictate that the choice should be either Swansea or Milford Haven. The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to recognise that my Department already employs more than 5,000 full-time equivalent staff in and around Swansea. I am not sure whether we employ any staff in Milford Haven at present, but if we do the numbers will be very small. I believe that in these circumstances, and with no financial or operational drivers, the right decision is to distribute the employment opportunities as equitably as possible.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
When the Government brought forward the original proposals, I greatly appreciated that they clearly said they were not a done deal. There has genuinely been a huge change from those original proposals, as the Government have listened to what coastguards such as mine in Falmouth have told them. However, it is clear from the contributions of my hon. Friends that there are still considerable concerns. Therefore, may I have a reassurance from the Government that over this 12-week period they will properly listen and take into account any further concerns that are raised about these proposals?
Mr Hammond
The consultation is about the parts of this proposal that differ from the previous proposal that is already being consulted on, so we will not receive further responses to the original consultation proposals, but we are open to responses to the changes in the four areas I outlined in my statement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the hard work he has clearly done. I also want to put on record my thanks to my colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who along with me fought a strong campaign on behalf of the people of North Down and Strangford. I pay tribute, too, to the staff who have worked hard as well, and been very supportive. I should add that the shipping Minister was very courteous and helpful. He came over to Northern Ireland, and to Bangor, to see exactly what needed to be done and to hear the views of the people and explain the options.
The decision that has been made reinforces the position of Bangor and its status as a 24/7 station. It was a 24/7 station before this consultation process, but there was a proposal to downgrade it to a daytime station. The current proposal, however, is to maintain it as a 24/7 station, for which we are thankful to everyone involved. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done.
In the penultimate paragraph of the statement, the Secretary of State refers to the consultative process that will take place. He does not specifically mention Bangor, however. Can I take it that in respect of the process outlined today the position of Bangor is secure? If that is the case, we will be very happy to welcome the shipping Minister and the Secretary of State to the Bangor station in the near future.
Mr Hammond
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we consider that the issue of the potential closure of the station at Bangor was addressed in the previous consultation and there is no need for further consultation on that. I acknowledge the local issues he raised, but I should say that the decision to keep Bangor was made primarily on the basis of the national importance of having a station that could deal with the specific civil contingency issues in Northern Ireland and the very important relationships with the Irish Republic in search and rescue.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement today, which is most welcome in relation to Holyhead. May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for his leadership of what was a strong cross-party campaign? Does the Secretary of State agree that the waters around north Wales will be safer as a result of this announcement because of the retention of local knowledge in Holyhead, not least the ability to recognise Welsh language place names?
Mr Hammond
I am glad that there was that outbreak of cross-party consensus. My hon. Friend is right that the concerns about Welsh language competence, and particularly recognition of Welsh place names, was one of the factors that determined the ultimate decision.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Choosing to close one of each pair is more like a party game—or “The Apprentice”—than any rationale for designing a service. I do not want either Milford Haven or Swansea to close, but given what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton) said about Swansea’s expertise in covering the whole of the Bristol channel and north Devon and the volume of its work compared with that of Milford Haven, am I to understand from the Secretary of State’s comments that he has made his decision not on who is best qualified and most experienced to do the job, but on what alternative employment is available, and is that really a rationale for providing the best service to the public?
Mr Hammond
If the hon. Lady had listened more carefully, she would have understood that there is no difference between Swansea and Milford Haven in terms of operational, technical or financial considerations. The professional advice we received was that either of those centres could provide the service required. Before the hon. Lady gets on her high horse about this, she should remember that the proposal my hon. Friend the shipping Minister inherited from the previous Administration when coming into office in May 2010 would have provided a single coastguard station in the whole of Wales. What we are proposing today gives Wales two coastguard stations and a very effective solution to protect the safety of Welsh coastal communities and seafarers.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
The shipping Minister should be applauded for the fact that the consultation process has led to the remaining stations being a 24-hour operation. That was very important, but can the Secretary of State clarify how these stations will operate alongside the proposed single maritime operations centre and can he assure me that this will not lead to any scaling down of operations at the remaining centres?
Mr Hammond
We have already set out how the local stations will operate, with 23 full-time equivalent staff. They will be permanently networked with the marine operations centre, which will have 96 staff in total, so that each centre will deal with a core base load of work, but will easily be able to transfer overload work via the marine operations centre, either to be handled at that centre or to be transmitted on to another centre elsewhere in the UK that is experiencing low work load at the time. This will be a genuinely national networked solution.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I am obviously very pleased that there will still be a coastguard station at Aberdeen, but I am deeply disappointed that it has been downgraded from a marine operations centre to I do not know what status. Aberdeen is a crucial location because of the North sea oil and gas industry. My disappointment is mitigated somewhat because we have managed to keep the stations in Shetland and Stornoway, which is one positive measure. The station in Aberdeen has been gearing up for its new status, and there has been investment in new technology. What are the jobs implications of the fact that its status has been downgraded?
Mr Hammond
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I appreciate the measured way in which he has presented it. He will, perhaps, have to discuss the decision that has been made with my hon. Friend the shipping Minister. It is only by deciding to go for a single marine operations centre that we have been able to provide the resources to allow 24/7 operations to continue at eight other sub-centres around the country, and to deliver the result that reflects the consultation responses we received and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport in respect of local knowledge. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, Aberdeen currently has 31 staff. As a result of these proposals, it will lose eight full-time equivalent posts, operating like all the other sub-centres 24/7 with 23 full-time equivalent staff.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Twenty-five staff are employed at the Brixham maritime co-ordination rescue centre. I pay tribute to their dedication. Can the Secretary of State reassure those staff that they will be treated fairly when applying for jobs either at Falmouth or at the maritime operations centre? That is a real concern and will be essential to retaining local knowledge. I am concerned at the suggestion that those staff will not have an opportunity to contribute to the further consultation, because neither I nor anyone else in south Devon can understand how safety can be preserved with the closure of that maritime operations centre.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured way in which she makes her point. First, her constituents, like anybody else, will of course be able to respond to the consultation, but the consultation itself is limited to the issues that represent changes from the previous consultation. The coastguards employed at Brixham are civil servants. They will be entitled to be considered for deployment elsewhere in the civil service. Wherever possible—and where they are willing—we will look specifically to secure their knowledge and experience by redeploying them to other stations that will remain open. This process will take place over a number of years; it is not going to happen overnight. If at the end of that process there are people remaining who cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the service, they will be offered voluntary redundancy terms. We hope that it will not be necessary to make compulsory redundancies, and any that are made will be made only as a last resort.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
There will be considerable anger in Liverpool at the Secretary of State’s announcement today. Can he tell the House how many jobs will be lost in Merseyside as a result of this decision, and what account, if any, he has taken of the concerns expressed by the Merseyside fire service about the implications for safety at sea?
Mr Hammond
We have taken account of all concerns that have been expressed to us through the consultation process. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous proposals, the Liverpool centre would have been reduced to 10 posts; therefore, today’s announcement that it will close represents a net loss of 10 further jobs. He should also know—as he indeed does know—that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister has bent over backwards to try to accommodate the aspirations of Liverpool city council to change the status of the cruise liner terminal in Liverpool in a way that will create jobs and enhance the status of the city.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and I take some assurance from the fact that we are keeping the 24-hour service on Humberside. When it comes to harnessing local knowledge, my concern relates to leisure and tourism. Norfolk has a long coast, with remote beaches and currents that change, and Suffolk and Essex have plenty of estuaries. We are about to embark on the holiday season. I would be grateful for an assurance that it will be possible to transfer that detailed local knowledge to Humberside.
Mr Hammond
The Humber station already covers the coastline of Norfolk and part of Suffolk, and the people working there will have the experience and knowledge that my hon. Friend talks of. I would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that part of the proposal involves reinforcing professional coastguard support for the volunteer coastguard operation. An additional net total of 32 uniformed officers will be deployed in direct support of the volunteer coastguard, further reinforcing the resilience and effectiveness of the service.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
When the Minister was proposing two marine operations centres, he proposed to have 96 staff at the Solent centre. Now that he is proposing one marine operations centre, he is still proposing to have 96 staff at the Solent centre. Does he envisage the service being half as good nationally or the staff working twice as hard?
Mr Hammond
Neither. The point about reducing the proposal to a single marine operations centre is that resources that are not deployed in the other centre will remain deployed in local stations around the country, which is the thrust of most of the representations that we received—that we should seek to protect and maintain local knowledge deployed in local stations. Resilience in the event of disaster will be provided by a ghost facility at Dover, which would allow the marine operations centre in the Southampton-Portsmouth area to be transferred en masse to Dover in the event of any catastrophe befalling the Southampton-Portsmouth area.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the news that, subject to the consultation, Milford Haven will remain open. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work of the Save Milford Haven Coastguard group, the Western Telegraph and the Milford and West Wales Mercury, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on the measured way in which they put the case for our area and the wider Welsh community? Can he assure me that during the consultation, the unique nature of Milford as an energy hub for the whole of the UK will be taken into account?
Mr Hammond
I am happy to congratulate all those who have taken part in the process for the measured way in which, on the whole, they have done so. As he has travelled round the country, my hon. Friend the shipping Minister has found that behind what can sometimes be the public rhetoric, well thought through, well argued and sensibly considered proposals and cases have been put to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has asked me about the status of Milford Haven as a major port. I have said before—I will repeat it—that the professional advice that we have received is that either Milford Haven or Swansea could have delivered the requirement in south Wales from a technical, operational and financial point of view. Ultimately, we made the decision to come down on the side of Milford Haven in the interests of equity.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to all the volunteers, coastguards and full-time search and rescue crews operating helicopters and lifeboats around our coastline. I welcome the retention of the Holyhead station, which is based not only on the importance of the Welsh language, as has been noted, but on the links with 22 Squadron at RAF Valley. The Secretary of State mentioned a nationally networked system, as well as consultation. When that is set up, will he ensure that there is internal consultation of individual front-line coastguards, so that they can contribute to the best and safest network, one that is fit for the 21st century?
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Well, well, what a surprise! Faced with the choice, a Tory Minister decides to close a facility in Liverpool. I genuinely do not believe for a moment that the closure of the Liverpool coastguard station was agreed for any reason other than political expediency. If it was not, why was Liverpool left out of the original consultation document? The Minister cannot justify his decision. He has just mentioned that Liverpool may well get a cruise liner turnaround facility that will increase traffic along our corridors, but he has taken the easy political way out. He should reconsider his decision, based on the information that he has just presented—that Liverpool could indeed get a cruise liner turnaround facility.
Mr Hammond
Perhaps I am guilty of making a rod for my own back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the cruise liner turnaround facility simply to demonstrate that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister is leaving no stone unturned in trying to help the maritime community around Liverpool, but the decision has been properly made, after a full assessment. The station at Holyhead will provide proper cover for the maritime areas that were previously covered by Crosby. To suggest that there is some kind of party political advantage—[Hon. Members: “Shameful!”] Frankly, it is not just shameful; it is also illiterate. The hon. Gentleman should look at the map.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I welcome the retention of both Stornoway and Shetland on a 24-hour basis, which is a big improvement on the original proposals. However, the closure of the Clyde station leaves a huge area of sea between Bangor and Stornoway without any station, as can be seen from the illustrative map. As I said in the Westminster Hall debate, that coastline presents unique challenges. So far, we have had a genuine consultation. I think that the Clyde coastguard station should be kept. Will the Secretary of State agree to receive representations on that in the coming consultation?
Mr Hammond
No. I have made it clear that that will be outside the scope of the coming consultation. My hon. Friend said that the Clyde station covers a “huge area of sea”. I understand that it is difficult to get out of that mode of thinking, but that is not the way to think about a networked 21st-century coastguard service. Belfast has been twinned with Clyde. The station in Belfast has the working local knowledge of the huge area of sea that has previously been covered by the Clyde station, and the arrangements that we have put in place are resilient and will serve us well for the 21st century.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport, so I know that he has clearly listened to many of the concerns that were identified, particularly on daylight-only operating. When we spoke to coastguards as part of our inquiry we were very struck by their willingness to modernise the service. May I invite him to say a little more about how the new maritime operations centre will harness new technology to augment the safety that the existing stations provide?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Committee for the work that it did. I suspect that he may get the prize for being the Member with the constituency furthest from the coast who has contributed to this discussion today. I would be happy to talk to him offline, but I sense that Mr Deputy Speaker would not encourage me to explain in detail the technical features of the new maritime operations centre.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the new Welsh Government about the proposal to aim the axe at Swansea rather than Milford Haven? Has he received any representations from new Welsh Ministers?
Mr Hammond
No, I have received no representations about the choice between Swansea and Milford Haven.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I welcome the improvements to the original proposals that were floating around for some years. I particularly welcome not only the switch to 24-hour cover, which is essential, and the increase in the number of stations from that originally proposed, but the opportunity to improve coastguards’ pay. Morale in the coastguard service has been very poor, and under the previous Government strikes took place—a very rare thing in this service. Ultimately, the purpose of this whole system is not about providing jobs, but about public safety. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that public safety will be preserved or improved by the modernisation and changes that he proposes?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and I can give him that reassurance. I can assure him further that the result we have come to and announced today is based on the input of professionals, who understand the needs of the system and the safety issues at stake. As he rightly says, not only the communications resilience and the IT resilience, but, above all, the improvement in morale that will be delivered by lancing the boil of the long-running industrial relations problem that has been festering in this service for many, many years will hugely improve the way in which the service is delivered and the safety it affords to our communities.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Given what the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) about the loss of jobs under the new plans at the Aberdeen centre, it is hard to see that there will be any opportunity for workers from the Forth coastguard station to be redeployed to Aberdeen. Therefore, there is a real risk that their local knowledge will be lost. Does the Secretary of State really expect us to believe that two stations on the entire east coast mainland of Scotland and England, at Aberdeen and Humber, will be able to provide the same kind of local knowledge that we have at the moment?
Mr Hammond
I am sorry to be repetitious, Mr Deputy Speaker, but those stations will be working fully networked with the marine operations centre at Southampton, which itself will have a much bigger complement of staff, and much better equipment and communications technology, 24/7. It will deliver the level of resilience and safety that we require.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I understand why he made the statement that he did, but there is a degree of turnover going on within coastguard stations now, and we expect that, even in areas where the natural twin will not be recruiting additional staff, there will be opportunities for the redeployment of many, if not all, of the staff over the next three or four years.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that he had listened to the consultations. All the coastguard stations said that they should remain open, reluctantly accepted that there should be change and also said that there should be more than 10 stations, so it seems to me that they were not particularly heard. I am disappointed that he is limiting the next bit of the consultation to the few points he has listed. Will he reconsider that decision, particularly if safety issues are raised?
Mr Hammond
No, I am afraid not, as a very extensive consultation has taken place. It lasted for 20 weeks, which is much longer than the Government’s normal standard for consultation. We have responded in detail—the response is in the Library today—to that consultation process. The further consultation is simply about the changes that we have proposed since that document was published.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful for your generosity in calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that my Public Bill Committee duties meant that I could not be here earlier. The Minister may recall that I tabled a written question on the number of vacancies for watch officers at Fife Ness station, and I was alarmed to hear the number given. On Saturday, I will be at the Dunbar lifeboat day, celebrating, with the local community, the bravery, service and sacrifice of the Dunbar crew. I want to be able to reassure them that this decision was not taken before the end of the consultation and that Fife Ness was not being wound down. Did the Minister visit Fife Ness during the consultation?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady makes the important point that the uncertainty that this process has inevitably introduced has led, in some cases, to recruitment difficulties; there are unfilled posts within the coastguard service as we speak. Our hope is that the signals we are sending today on certainty, better pay, better conditions, better career progression and improved industrial relations will make it possible for the coastguard service to man up to the level it needs to be at to implement these changes and keep our coasts safe for the future.
Points of Order
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871 for the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, if it so chooses next week, to require witnesses appearing before it to do so under oath? Can you confirm that if they did appear under oath, any false evidence would be subject to the penalties for perjury under the Perjury Act 1911?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
You are correct about the Act; the decision on whether to take evidence on oath is a matter for the Select Committee and therefore it would be for the Committee to do that. On perjury, you are absolutely correct.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Transport to table a written ministerial statement, as he has done today, that says only that an oral statement will be made later the same day? This appears to be a clear attempt to avoid committing to an oral statement on a matter of great importance prior to seeing whether Members of the House apply for and are granted an urgent question. It was only after an urgent question was granted that he agreed to make an oral statement today, thus leaving a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper purposeless and empty of content. Is this not an abuse of the WMS procedure? Surely it cannot be right for Ministers to attempt to manipulate the procedures of the House to attempt to avoid facing it in person in this manner. May we have your guidance please, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of that point of order. I do not believe that there has been any breach of the House rules.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recently tabled a question for oral answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In fact, I believe that it would originally have been Question 11 on the Order Paper today. I subsequently received a letter telling me that my question was outwith the Department’s remit. It was about the computer games industry, which is a big business in my constituency—I repeat the word “business”. Many people are involved in developing the games, which is innovation, and most people involved are graduates from the university of Abertay, which would suggest a high level of skills. I am at a loss as to why the question was refused. In which circumstances can Departments refuse to answer questions from people in this House?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I can completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration at losing the opportunity to ask an oral question, and that frustration builds up. Transfers are the responsibility of the Department and not me, and I know that the Table Office does its best to advise hon. Members of a possible transfer. The frustration carries on, but this is not a matter for me to decide.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are just about to proceed to our business on the Sovereign Grant Bill, but because of the timetabling that has been agreed there will be no Second Reading. I know that you are not responsible for that, but it is worth putting down a marker that these are very important subjects. We have waited since 1760 for this important reform but I am not sure that it is so desperately urgent that we do not need Second Reading. Perhaps in future we can so conduct our business, particularly with sensitive matters such as this, which concern the Head of State, so that we get a Second Reading of important Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Let us see what the Minister says when he moves the motion.
Bill Presented
Cycles (protective Headgear for Children) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Annette Brooke presented a Bill to require the wearing of protective headgear by children while riding cycles; to prescribe penalties for contraventions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 4 November 2011, and to be printed (Bill 220).
Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)
(12 years, 11 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 the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Sovereign Grant Bill:
Timetable
1.–(1) Notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of a Bill brought in upon a financial resolution, proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 pm.
(3) Proceedings in Committee and on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall (notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3.–(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.
Miscellaneous
8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
9.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
10. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
11.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
12.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
13. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
14.–(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
15. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
16.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 3.00 pm at today’s sitting shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill today.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 3.00 pm and the conclusion of those proceedings.
We are going to follow a rather unusual procedure here, I think, because we have run out of time for Second Reading. I looked to the Chair for guidance on how to handle that and I suggest that as we have some time for debate in the Committee of the Whole House this afternoon we should use the time on clause 1 stand part to have, in effect, a Second Reading debate. Since no amendments were tabled to that clause, either, that is fine. As I understand it through the usual channels, the official Opposition are happy with that. That will address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and we can have what feels to the House like a Second Reading debate albeit on clause 1 stand part.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
We are clearly making a momentous decision today with the biggest change in the royal finances since 1760, so it is obviously important that we should have a full debate. We had a full debate a fortnight ago and we have that opportunity again today. Given the fact the statements have run on so long, the Chancellor is correct to say that we have a difficulty. The Opposition will be happy to have a full debate on clause 1 stand part and obviously the sooner we start that debate, the better.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just need your guidance as I have a particular general point that I wanted to make. It pertains to clause 13 but I would normally have made it on Second Reading. Will you immediately call me to order if I seek to raise it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think we will need to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I emphasise that my remarks have nothing to do with the measure we will debate today. We can express our views on that one way or the other if we wish. My concern is that we are going to take all stages in one day—we are not, in fact, because we will not even have Second Reading. When Ministers come along, as the Chancellor has today, and argue that it is important to deal with all stages of the Bill in one day they might make their case, but that does not mean that the House should be complacent about the procedure. Last Thursday, the same procedure applied. We had all stages of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill in one day and the Home Secretary explained its urgency, but even on that occasion I expressed my concern over the way in which we were hurried.
I consider this way of presenting measures to the House and telling us that everything has to be done quickly in one day to be undesirable. What will happen when the Bill goes to the other place? It will have a Second Reading, perhaps, which it has not had here, but the rest of the stages will be taken formally. I want to ask a question about motions such as this one on the allocation of time. What other measures are going to be introduced in the same way? The procedure being pursued shows disrespect to the House. Yes, Ministers always have an excuse for why things must be done in such a hurried way, but it is undesirable and it should not be repeated except on very rare occasions. I want to register my protest accordingly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I will detain the House for only a very short time. First, I strongly agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South—
Keith Vaz
Walsall North (Mr Winnick); my hon. Friend is definitely not my sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—I would have recognised that. I agree with what he said and I thank him.
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the shadow Chancellor are trying to be helpful but there were issues that I wanted to raise on Second Reading concerning the Act of Settlement and my Bill on the removal of primogeniture, which is currently before the House and ought to be considered alongside the very sensible changes being made by the Chancellor in clause 9 of this Bill, which gives a female heir of the Duke of Cornwall the chance to get a settlement equal to a male heir. I agree with what the Chancellor and shadow Chancellor have said, but there is no opportunity to raise these issues if we simply have a debate on clause stand part instead of on Second Reading. Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I should like to know whether it is your intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow a clause stand part debate to proceed as if it were Second Reading, thus enabling us to raise concerns about the modernisation of the Act of Settlement, which as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have been waiting to do for two centuries.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The stand part debate on clause 1 will be quite broad.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
May I raise an issue in support of the points that many people have made about the role of the monarchy outside the well-known ceremonial role—the crucial role of Head of State? This matter gets little or no attention. The Conservative historian, Robert Rhodes James, a former colleague of ours, gave a lecture in Cambridge, which was largely ignored, about a time when the role of the monarchy might have been absolutely crucial in our history. It was at the time when the skids were under Margaret Thatcher and everyone wanted her to go and tearful members of the Cabinet were coming to No. 10 Downing Street asking her to go. Robert Rhodes James, who was a very distinguished and respected Member of the House at that time, said that the Conservative party suddenly became terrified because there was a possibility that Mrs Thatcher might call a general election and she could not have been stopped by the Conservative party, the Cabinet or the House of Commons.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are talking about the allocation of time. I know that history is part of time but I am not sure it is relevant to the Bill.
Paul Flynn
This point is crucial to why we need extra time. This issue is virtually unknown, but it is important because the only person who could then have stopped Margaret Thatcher from acting in her own interests rather than in the national interests, as she might well have been elected, was the Queen. This is a question about the personality of the monarch, because the strong personality of the monarch might have been vital then. This matter is so important that we should have a greater allocation of time and a full debate.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a serious point that we are rushing through today a fundamental change. Reference has been made to 1760, so we are proposing in two hours, if that, to change what has been in place for more than 200 years. There has been virtually no publicity in the press. For obvious reasons, we have been dominated in the House and in the public sphere by other events since the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor first spoke on this issue and since the Bill was read the First time two weeks ago. At that time, of course, none of us would have imagined what would be the only story dominating the press.
This is profoundly important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, has made his significant points; there are others. The one that most concerns me is that if passed—I have questions about the level of financial support—there can never be any change, because the provisions will not be debated in the same way as the civil list is debated each time the monarch changes.
We are setting in perpetuity a system for paying the royal family that cannot be challenged thereafter. Even George III would have baulked at that—[Interruption]— even though some Conservative colleagues from a sedentary position seem to think that it is a good idea. Therefore, should we not put this off? Festina lente. We do not need to rush this through today. We could return to the Bill in the autumn. We could then have a proper debate and proper public discussion, and deal with it properly.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Members want to go back to 1700 and something. I am happy to go back to 1690. [Interruption.] Given the week that we are in, we are close enough. At home, we often say, “We won the battle, but they kept the river.” In this instance, I am happy to support the Government and go with the proposal.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am not going to go back to 1066, but I am not sure whether it was auspicious to schedule the debate for Bastille day. Debating the monarchy today of all days might not have been wise, but to limit the debate so much is not necessarily as constitutional as it ought to be, and perhaps Her Majesty’s Government might like to bring the Bill back, as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) suggested, when we can have a little bit of time for a proper debate on Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Sovereign Grant Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 241 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The Committee will have seen from the provisional selection list that I have selected a number of manuscript amendments tabled by the Minister this morning. I would not as a rule select such manuscript amendments without good reason. I can see no reason why they were not tabled in the proper time, but in the unusual circumstances of the Bill, I am prepared to select them.
Clause 1
The Sovereign Grant
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
I concede that we are engaged in a rather unusual procedure. To have what I hope will amount to a Second Reading debate, we will debate clause 1 stand part. Clause 1 will create a sovereign support grant and so, in effect, it lies at the heart of the Bill. I completely respect and understand what has just been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I would point out that we had something akin to a debate on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, when we debated the principle for several hours. I freely concede that we did not have the Bill in front of us.
I was following the procedure established over many decades, and I worked with the Clerks and, indeed, through the usual channels to try to create something akin to a debate on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago. Our intention was to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report on the Floor of the House, because it is a constitutional Bill. In effect, the House of Commons will have two days on the Floor of the House to debate the legislation, but I am the first to accept that we have adopted a rather archaic procedure. I am glad that we used a bit of modern innovation to allow this debate to take place under clause 1 stand part.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Obviously, I have listened to what the Chancellor said, but will he bear in mind that we did precisely the same thing last Thursday, on a subject that is not his responsibility? It is all the more irritating that on two successive Thursdays we have had this situation in the House.
Mr Osborne
I cannot speak on what happened last week, but I would just draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to this distinction: two weeks ago, on the Floor of the House, we had something like a Second Reading debate about the principles of the Bill. In the comprehensive spending review statement last October, I set out how we proposed to proceed on the subject; that was quite well known. There is not a great deal of surprise about the idea in the Bill of a sovereign grant, linked to the revenues of the Crown Estate and so on. As I say, I accept that the procedure is rather unusual, but the effect is that the House had something akin to a Second Reading debate a couple of weeks ago, and we will use the debate on clause 1 to have something akin to a Second Reading today, too. I hope to address all the issues that people raised two weeks ago in my response on clause 1. Of course, we will have time later today to go through other parts of the Bill.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
A fortnight ago, the House was exceptionally thinly attended, even for a Thursday. Will the Chancellor tell the House when Back Benchers were informed that the Bill was coming before the House?
Mr Osborne
The problem that Parliament had was that under the procedures of the House, we had to receive a gracious message from Her Majesty the day before. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with the procedure, given his broader views on the monarchy, but we had to wait for that gracious message before making it publicly known that we would have a debate in the House. That is what happened. I spoke to the official Opposition, and the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition a week earlier, but I accept that the debate was not as fully attended as it might have been. However, we did spend a couple of hours discussing the matter a couple of weeks ago, and there were quite a number of speeches made, so even though the debate was not as fully attended as, for example, yesterday’s proceedings in Parliament, attendance was not that dissimilar to attendance today. Of course, there has been lots of notice of today’s debate.
Mr Osborne
I will give way, and then I should probably make some progress on clause 1 stand part.
Paul Flynn
I do not think it is fair to blame the monarch for the way in which the measures were rushed into the House. Normally, if there is a change to business, a business statement is made to the House as early as possible; I cannot remember one being made at all in this case. Most hon. Members had other pressing business on that day, and only those who were here in the morning had any idea that the measures were going ahead.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but we have just decided on the process that we are following; we now have to stick with where we are.
Mr Osborne
All I would say is that I have followed the advice of the House authorities throughout. The procedure has been unusual. People have said that this is the most important change since 1760, but of course in the early 1970s the House made some significant changes, so we are partly following procedures laid down then.
Let me get on to the substance of the Bill. Everyone has now had a chance to read it. Amendments have been tabled by Opposition Back Benchers, Opposition Front Benchers, and Government Front Benchers, and I shall say something about that. We have basically accepted some of the amendments that the shadow Chancellor and his team tabled, and I will explain why later.
I will begin, as we should do on such occasions, by putting on the record the House’s gratitude for the service that the Queen has provided to our country over many decades. Indeed, her time on the throne recently exceeded that of George III and she now has Queen Victoria in her sights. The recent visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and California reminded us that other members of the royal family also make an enormous contribution. As I said a couple of weeks ago—it is a view shared by nearly everyone in the House—we want a system that provides the Queen with dignity and allows her and her family to do their official jobs, which in her case is Head of State, but to do so in a way that is accountable, transparent and delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
The current system of financial support has some very serious shortcomings. It is very inflexible, so money saved in one spending area such as travel cannot be spent in another area such as the maintenance of royal palaces. It is not very transparent, as the National Audit Office is not the auditor of royal finances; that is done by the permanent secretary to the Treasury. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, for the work it did in recent years to look at value for money studies on particular areas of royal financing, which has been quite opaque and which this Bill seeks to change. Critically, the current system has relied on a reserve of public money that was built up over the past 20 years and is now depleted. That was a crucial part of the royal household’s annual funding for the continuance of their official duties. That money has run out, so in other words the system is broken and we have to fix it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to have true transparency in the costs of the royal household, we need to know about all expenditure, including, as I suggested a couple of weeks ago, the contribution made to the household by the Ministry of Defence in terms of staff? We learnt last week from The Mail on Sunday that Prince Charles has apparently objected to the full costs of the royal flight being put on the royal household, which effectively means that the MOD is subsidising the household. If we are to get the true costs, do we not need full transparency on everything paid to the royal household?
Mr Osborne
I will move on shortly to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised two weeks ago on the use of accommodation on the royal estate, for example by the MOD, and say something on that and other areas of royal spending. The Bill establishes a distinction between the royal family’s public expenditure and their private finances. It is a long-established principle of the system that their private finances, for example from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, are their private money. There are checks and balances on that, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster having to be a member of the Government. We are saying that all the royal family’s public expenditure, which goes to their official duties and those parts of the royal estate that are not part of their private income or assets, should all now be auditable by the National Audit Office and that the Public Accounts Committee should be able to look at it. That is a fairly dramatic increase in the transparency before Parliament.
Mr Osborne
Let me just answer this point before giving way again.
Although I do not want to speak for the Comptroller and Auditor General or the PAC, I suspect that if they wanted to look at the funding arrangements between the MOD and the royal family, they would be able to do so under the provisions of this Bill.
Mr Jones
A couple of weeks ago I welcomed the increased transparency in the auditing process that the proposals bring forward, but if we are to determine the size of the sovereign grant—it is £30-odd million a year—surely a good starting point would be to find out what the actual cost of the royals doing their public duties is. I accept that some of the things the Ministry of Defence does are directly linked to the royals’ public duties and I do not suggest for one minute that the royal household should subsidise that, but surely to determine the size of the sovereign grant we need a better understanding of all costs coming from the public purse, whether from the Ministry of Defence or any other Government Department.
Mr Osborne
Let me give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and then I will answer both hon. Gentlemen’s points.
Mr Davidson
The Chancellor mentioned his view that income from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster is private money of the royal family. Surely he recognises that in the previous Parliament the Public Accounts Committee established quite clearly that that is not the case—that this is not the private property of the monarch or her family but a trust established by the nation in order to fund the various members of the royal family. That is different from saying that it is the private property of the royal family themselves.
Mr Osborne
I should make it clear that it is an established principle that the income from that property, which is held in trust, is for the private purposes of the royal family.
In response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I point out that there are of course some areas of royal financing—I will come on to say something about royal protection—where it is very difficult to be public about some of the sums of money involved. The Bill—I hope that we will soon get into the meat of it—is a mechanism for helping to continue the current level of spending. As I say, it is perfectly within the rights of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, if they want to, to look at payments from the Ministry of Defence, but that has to be a matter for them.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
As the most senior member of the Public Accounts Committee in the Chamber—because I am the only one here—I think that I speak for everybody on that Committee when I say that we welcome the additional transparency and very much look forward to bringing the royal household before it to answer the questions that have rightly been raised across the Chamber.
Mr Osborne
I thank my hon. Friend. When the Chair of the PAC, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), spoke in the debate two weeks ago, she was very generous in her tribute and made it pretty clear that the PAC would be getting to work on its job. I served on the PAC, as its most junior member, with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, and I remember us making an interesting visit to Kensington palace to investigate royal finances. For some years, therefore, the PAC has been establishing a reputation for examining the books in this area.
Mr Osborne
I would like to make a little progress, if both hon. Gentlemen will allow me. Let me say a little more about the Bill, and then I will be happy to take questions.
Clause 1 proposes the creation a sovereign grant designed around three principles. First, it is sustainable, so that it provides reliable, long-term financing for the sovereign that is free from annual political argument but gives the House of Commons proper checks and controls. Secondly, it is flexible in dealing with the problem I described whereby money saved on travel cannot be spent on palace maintenance and vice versa. Thirdly, it is accountable, as I have been saying, because of the historic increase in parliamentary scrutiny of royal expenditure.
The Queen is one of the few Heads of State in the world who is genuinely completely above the party political fray. I want to take this opportunity to thank my opposite number, the shadow Chancellor, and his team for conducting themselves in a very proper way as the loyal Opposition in asking questions. We will come on to the questions that he has rightly asked. [Interruption.] I suggest that his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), banks this moment, because it might not come again in this Parliament. We have tried to be as open as possible. I know that members of the shadow Chancellor’s team met the Treasury officials on the Bill team yesterday. As I will explain, I propose to accept a couple of his amendments.
The shadow Chancellor asked four questions in the debate two weeks ago. I propose, for the rest of my remarks, to answer those four questions. It will be up to him and the House to decide whether they are adequate answers, but I thought that that was the best way to approach this matter. His first question was about the level of the sovereign grant, the second was about the mechanism for uprating it, the third was about the new arrangements for greater parliamentary scrutiny, and the fourth, which relates to some of the interventions we have just heard, was about the way in which the Government provide other forms of support to the royal family. I will take each question in turn.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the theoretical circumstance that a new monarch decided to keep the Crown Estate revenues, it would be open to such a monarch to do so?
Mr Osborne
I think that that is pretty unlikely and pretty theoretical, to be honest. Since 1760, it has been an established precedent that the monarch hands over the revenues of the Crown Estate to the Government of the day. There are many powers that we vest in our monarch. The Queen has wisely, like her predecessors, chosen not to use those powers. As I say, I think that that question is pretty theoretical.
Paul Flynn
In the debate two weeks ago, the Member who represents the middle ages, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), suggested that the Queen paid income tax at a higher rate than any other citizen. Will the new arrangements be so transparent that we know the precise rate of tax the monarch pays and whether the monarch gets the expected windfall of revenue from wind and tidal generation in their 15%? If that revenue becomes excessive, will it be curtailed to a suitable level?
Mr Osborne
I will deal in my remarks with that specific point about what will happen if the revenues of the Crown Estate suddenly grow beyond people’s expectations, or even in line with the expectations of those who think that there will be a windfall from the marine estate.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
The guidance to the Bill suggests:
“The Crown Estate is not the sovereign’s private property”.
However, we know that in 1760, as the guidance states, George III
“surrendered these revenues (but not ownership of the capital assets)”.
Where do we stand on the clarity of ownership?
Mr Osborne
It is understood that there are certain pieces of property, such as Buckingham palace, Windsor castle and the Crown Estate, that belong to the institution of the monarchy, and certain pieces of property and assets that are the private property and assets of the Windsor family. That is a well-established precedent and has been recognised by the House for many decades. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Mr Osborne
I will give way on that point and then make some progress on clause 1.
Mr Davidson
I am very grateful. The Chancellor is undoubtedly correct that some pieces of property are tied in with the institution of the monarchy, such as Buckingham palace, but the coastline of Scotland and the undersea surface are not intimately connected with the monarchy and have never, as far as I am aware, been visited by the monarchy. In those circumstances, I am not clear why the two categories are being conflated. Surely it would be better, if the Chancellor wants a method that is tied to growth in the economy, if it were simply tied to, say, gross domestic product. If GDP went down the Queen and the monarchy would suffer the same as the rest of us, and if it went up, they would benefit in line with the rest of us. That would be better than tying the fund to a measure that I envisage will make it grow at a far greater rate than the economy as a whole.
Mr Osborne
First, I do not want to speak for the Queen, but I think she is quite familiar with the Scottish coastline.
Mr Osborne
Let us try to keep focused on the issue at hand.
Secondly, I completely accept that I could have brought other mechanisms before the House, but the Crown Estate is a large commercial property company that is run in a pretty conservative way. It is not a bad proxy for how the country and the economy are doing. That is why we are proposing this mechanism, but of course if people want to propose something else they are entitled to do so.
Mr Osborne
May I make some progress before taking a few further interventions?
I should just mention, although the change to the Duchy of Cornwall is in a later clause, that as I explained to the House a couple of weeks ago, all Dukes of Cornwall are heirs to the throne, but not all heirs to the throne are Dukes of Cornwall. As a result, there is potential for there to be an heir to the throne who was not the Duke of Cornwall, because the Duke of Cornwall can only be the eldest son of the monarch. The heir to the throne could be either a daughter, granddaughter or grandson of the monarch, and they would not have access to the duchy’s income. The Bill proposes a change to that, but does not propose to change the Act of Settlement.
Mr Osborne
I suspect that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee wants to intervene on that point.
Keith Vaz
I feel very guilty that the Chancellor has been speaking for so long and, because of all the interventions, is only on clause 1. I will not detain him for long, but I thank him for giving way. Will he update the House during the course of his speech, if he ever gets to complete it, on the negotiations that have been conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister with the Prime Ministers of 17 other Commonwealth countries, and let us know whether there has been any progress on the matter?
Mr Osborne
I think I will leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to update the House on that. It is one of the many benefits that come from being Deputy Prime Minister that he gets to conduct these important negotiations. [Interruption.] They are extremely important negotiations. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) makes a good point in reminding the House that this question involves a lot of other countries. That explains why something that people assume would be quite simple to deal with in the House of Commons is not.
Let me talk about the actual numbers. How much is 15% of the Crown Estate profit, and how does it compare with what the royal family has spent in recent years on its official duties? In 2006, they spent £33 million; in 2007-08, they spent £35 million; and then £37 million and £34 million. The latest annual accounts, which were last week, showed that they spent £32 million. The amount varies a bit, because one-off capital projects are either undertaken or not in given years, but the average of the past five years is £34 million. It is interesting to note that it was £49 million 20 years ago, so the latest figure shows quite a dramatic reduction compared with what they used to spend. In real terms, the reduction is more than 50%.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is very interesting, but if we do not know which Government Departments are subsidising the royal household, how can we tell whether those efficiencies are real ones? I suspect that in some cases, Departments are cross-subsidising them. At the moment, the grant in aid for certain palaces comes from, for example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I know that in 1999, Marlborough house was included as part of that. Will there be limitations on what other royal properties can be added so that the sovereign grant can be spent on them?
Mr Osborne
I will get back to the hon. Gentleman specifically on that point—I do not have specific information on Marlborough house with me at the moment—but on his broader point, for the first time, we will allow the National Audit Office to crawl over the arrangements that he describes.
I was going to go on to explain that some senior members of the Ministry of Defence and our military live in properties that are rented from the Crown Estate at below the market rate. The properties are within extremely secure zones, and it would not be possible to rent them to virtually anyone else. That arrangement suits the MOD, because it gets properties—not very many—at below the market rate, and equally, it suits the royal estates, in that they can rent out properties that they would not be able to rent out otherwise.
Let me talk about those sums. As I have pointed out, the average over the past five years is £34 million, which is much less than 20 years ago, when it was £49 million. In 2013-14—the first year in which the new sovereign grant mechanism will apply—the level will be determined by the profits in 2011-12, as I said earlier. We do not know precisely what those profits will be, because we are in the middle of the financial year, but the recently published Crown Estate annual report for last year showed profits of £231 million, and the Crown Estate confirms that that is pretty much what it is expecting in profits for 2011-12. The result of all that—this is the key point for the House—is that the sovereign grant in 2013-14 would be £34 million, which is in line with the average for the past five years. I would not say that that is a coincidence, because we have partly designed the mechanism to ensure that that has happened.
If projections for the Crown Estate are correct over the rest of this Parliament, we should see a real-terms cut of up to 9% in the funding for the official duties of the sovereign in that period.
Mr Davidson
The Chancellor will be aware, from discussions on the Scotland Bill, of a proposal for part of the Crown Estate to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or handed to local authorities, community groups and so on. What would happen to the Crown Estate and the money going to the royalty if that proposal were passed?
Mr Osborne
That is not something that the Government are proposing today. If we were to propose it, we would of course address the impact of such a decision on the royal finances. I am assuming that even under such arrangements, the Queen would remain the Queen of Scots. I believe that most of us are happy with the current arrangements.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr MacNeil
Will the money from the Crown Estate be paid directly to the royal family or will it go to a third party?
Mr Osborne
The money is not paid directly. It comes into the Exchequer, like other revenues, and is then paid out to the royal family. It is paid out of general public funds through estimates voted by Parliament. The only link is that we have a formula for how much we give the royal family. However, there is no direct transfer of money from the Crown Estate to the royal family.
Mr Osborne
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
I hope that I have answered the shadow Chancellor’s first question about the level of funds. In the end, it is a matter of judgment whether £34 million or so is the right amount for the future. The newspapers’ reaction to my statement a couple of weeks ago was not much of a guide. The Independent headline read, “Queen guaranteed £35m ‘recession-proof’ income”, while The Daily Telegraph wrote, “Monarchy ‘shorn of its dignity’ to save money”. I think we probably got it about right somewhere in between the two.
That leads to the second and probably most important question that the shadow Chancellor asked: how can we ensure that the sovereign grant is neither too high nor too low, and what can we do about it if it is judged to be either? Basically, the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards. First, it provides for a reserve fund so that any unspent surplus from the sovereign grant that year will go into a reserve fund. Under the civil list, there has always been a reserve fund. Indeed, it reached £37 million early last decade. We propose that the reserve fund should be capped so that it does not go above about 50% of the annual grant. In other words, assuming that the grant is likely to be £34 million, the reserve fund would not be allowed to rise above £17 million. However, it is right that the royal household has a reserve to call upon for major capital works that it needs to undertake, although, as I said, we are introducing for the first time a cap on that reserve.
The Bill retains as the three royal trustees the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. It is our responsibility to act in any given year to ensure that the reserve remains within that 50% cap. If it is going to be higher, we can act to reduce the cash going to the royal household through the grant to below 15% of Crown Estate profits. That is one check.
Mr Osborne
May I set out the checks and then invite questions—I mean interventions? I am not going to make the mistake of some right hon. Members in thinking that interventions are questions.
The second check concerns the in-year controls that the Treasury operates for all public expenditure. The permanent secretary to the Treasury remains the accounting officer for the disbursal of Treasury funds, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse will be the accounting officer for the royal spending we are talking about and can be summoned and asked to give account for that. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) asked whether Buckingham palace will be able to open for longer this year than it did last year. I can confirm that that will be the case, as the palace is looking for additional sources of income.
The key check, however, for ensuring that the level of funds is appropriate and that the 15% amount is being paid will be the review of the 15% mechanism. The legislation requires that a review is carried out seven years after the Bill comes into effect and every seven years thereafter. The shadow Chancellor and his team have suggested some amendments. I have discussed them with him and I am now proposing, through Government manuscript amendments today, basically to accept his amendments. That means that the first review will be carried out four years after the grant comes into effect—he suggested three years, but having discussed it, I have decided on four years—and therefore that the first review will be carried out in 2016. That will be one year after the general election, which is a good and sensible moment for us to review royal finances.
I am also accepting the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment that proposes a five-yearly, instead of seven-yearly, review thereafter. In other words, in every Parliament, assuming that the fixed-term Parliament provisions are adhered to, the review will take place one year after the general election. There will be a review in every Parliament, assuming that they are five-year Parliaments.
Mr Kevan Jones
Will the Chancellor explain how the controls over the reserve will work? Who will take the decisions about how it is spent? It does not take a genius or a financial wizard to work out that, if we draw down the reserve, we can certainly keep up the annual income at 15%. Who will have a say over how the reserve is spent? Will the Government of the day have any control over how it is spent?
Mr Osborne
First, the reserve will be audited by the National Audit Office, as the Bill makes clear. Secondly, the trustees of the royal finances—the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who is the Queen’s appointment, but also the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of the day—have oversight of the reserve. That is similar to the current arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—who undertakes this work more than the Prime Minister—and the Treasury will ensure that the reserve is used for proper purposes. As I have said, the reserve is also accountable to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Paul Flynn
I have listened carefully to what the Chancellor has said, but I am still baffled as to why a simple mechanism that could be easily understood has not been used, perhaps similar to the one used to change pensions every year. Instead, we are to have a complex system under which, if the Crown Estate does well, royalty will win, and if it does badly, the taxpayer will lose.
Mr Osborne
As I have said, we could have chosen another mechanism, but I thought that it was not unreasonable to take a large, conservatively run property company to determine expenditure by the royal household, given that a lot of its expenditure is on property maintenance and the like. I completely accept that not every Member of the House will agree with that, but the effect, which is surely the important thing, is that the amount of money going from the public purse to the royal family will be broadly the same. They were receiving about £34 million on average from the civil list, the palaces grant and the travel grant, plus the money put into the reserves by the taxpayer, and they will go on receiving £34 million. We can have a debate about the mechanism, but the effect will be pretty much to continue through this Parliament with the sums that they were getting during the last one. We are of course talking in cash terms, which will mean about a 9% real cut, coming on top of a more than 15% real cut over the past 20 years.
I know that we are still debating clause 1, but I hope that the Committee will acknowledge that, in accepting the shadow Chancellor’s amendments to clause 7, we have tried to show that we are open to argument and open to trying to work on a cross-party basis. We want to ensure that the Bill proceeds with the consent of those in all parts of the House of Commons.
I want briefly to deal with the shadow Chancellor’s third and fourth questions. He asked about the issue of accountability, and he has tabled amendments proposing annual value-for-money studies. I would much rather leave the discretion with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. If they want to undertake such studies, they may do so, but I propose to leave that discretion with them. I remind the Committee that we are undertaking a pretty historic transfer of accountability to Parliament here. Parliament has fought for many decades to get scrutiny of the official expenditure of the royal family, and that is now happening through the Bill. Of course, the Public Accounts Committee will be able to ask the Keeper of the Privy Purse, as the accounting officer, to come before it to give evidence.
Let me deal with the fourth question, which was about royal protection. I am afraid that I will not be able to answer the shadow Chancellor’s request here. I have looked into it and made quite a number of inquiries to probe whether it would be possible for me to give the Committee more information about how much is spent on royal security. I have to say that I have run into a metaphorical brick wall in Whitehall, probably for very good reason, which is that it would not be appropriate—this was a view taken by Home Secretaries over many years—to reveal how much was spent on royal security because that might present a security risk. Unfortunately, I am not able to accede to the shadow Chancellor’s request. Let me reassure the Committee, however, that in the process, I have taken a look at the protection arrangements and costs, and I certainly satisfied myself that they are reasonable, proportionate, in line with the current threat assessment and pretty cost-effective. I am fairly confident that the Queen and her family are adequately protected.
I hope that I have answered the various questions asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked a question about Frogmore, particularly the mausoleum for Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The royal household has confirmed that it expects to carry out conservation work on the mausoleum over the next five to eight years, so in a few years’ time, my hon. Friend will be able to visit a much restored and improved mausoleum at Frogmore.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Given that the mausoleum is currently on the English Heritage buildings at risk register, will the Chancellor confirm whether what he announced means that it will shortly be removed from that register?
Mr Osborne
The honest answer is that I have absolutely no idea, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. I might even be able to find out during this debate.
Mr Jones
Has not the Chancellor just confirmed that we are giving the royal household freedom to spend the sovereign’s grant on additional properties? [Interruption.] It is an additional property if the facts are understood. At the moment, the properties covered by grant in aid are Buckingham palace, St James’s palace, Clarence house and Marlborough House Mews, the residency opposite Kensington palace, the Royal Mews royal paddock and Windsor castle and the buildings in the Great park. Are we thus going to see an extension? Who in the royal household makes the decision on that, or does the Chancellor have any say over which other properties not currently covered by the grant in aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be added in, increasing costs?
Mr Osborne
We do not propose to add anything in. Frogmore is part of the Windsor castle estate, or part of the Windsor Great park, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman knew before he made his intervention.
Let me sum up this rather lengthy clause 1 stand part debate. We do not want a cut-price monarchy; nor do we want an excessively lavish monarchy. What the country wants is a monarchy properly funded to do the job we ask of it. It does that job well. Long may that continue. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend your patience and flexibility, Mr Hoyle, in allowing this clause stand part debate to include the status of mausoleums and the role of English Heritage, which somewhat stretches the clause. Having a Second Reading-type debate on clause stand part in this way is probably a revolutionary approach to parliamentary procedure. After the events of the last few days, that may not be surprising. However, I should reassure the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that he need not feel destabilised by my use of the word “revolutionary” in this context.
A fortnight ago, during the debate on the financial motion relating to the Bill, the Opposition made it clear 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… be financed in a proper, open and fair way”.
We expressed our intention to support the Chancellor’s proposals to reform the current 250-year-old arrangements and
“to strike a fair and workable balance between the legitimate needs of the household and the interests of the taxpayer.”
However, we also made clear that it was
“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”.
Those are the guiding principles that lie behind today’s debates on clause 1 and, more widely, our amendments.
In that debate a fortnight ago, I cautioned the Chancellor that
“At a time when many families and businesses are under real financial pressure”
there was more work to be done, and a need for more “detail and reassurance” on Second Reading—which we have not had—or in Committee
“to establish a consensus not only across the Dispatch Box but in the country as a whole in support of these reforms.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1150.]
I also asked the Chancellor to provide more clarity and detail on the level of the sovereign grant and the wider costs of the royal household, the arrangements for regular parliamentary scrutiny, and the mechanisms for uprating the grant.
I thank the Chancellor for the detailed way in which he has sought to answer those questions in the debate so far, and for the serious consideration that he has given to our amendments. I am also grateful to him for giving Members more information than they were given two weeks ago. However, it is difficult to hold a debate such as this when time is so constricted, and I share the concern expressed about that by Members on both sides of the House. As I said to the Chancellor earlier, I think that he could have provided even more information to help Members to understand the debate.
Mr Kevan Jones
I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but unless we know the full amount of money that is being paid to the royal household by other Departments—for instance, the Ministry of Defence—how can we determine, first, that those efficiencies are real and this is not just about moving money across and, secondly, that 15% is the right level?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if those costs are indeed taken into account the reduction between 1991-92 and the present day becomes even greater? The figures do not include, for instance, the royal yacht, which has been decommissioned and is no longer a burden on the Ministry of Defence.
Ed Balls
What concerns me is not the fall in expenditure over the past 10 or 20 years, which most people would consider sensible—notwithstanding the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—but the fact that we are set to see real-terms rises in the years ahead. That is where we should focus our scrutiny.
On the other hand—on the side of the ledger that does not feature efficiency savings—we are seeing rising pressures on the royal family. As I said a couple of weeks ago, the combination of the success of the wonderful royal wedding and the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and the USA, following Her Majesty’s historic visit to Ireland, has resulted in a rise in both the popularity of the royal family and the demands on them around the world, and that trend is set to continue. It is important that we scrutinise whether the resources that are in place are sufficient and right.
I raised in the last debate the fact that it has been reported that a number of members of the royal family have had their security reduced or removed over the past year. I accept the Chancellor’s assurances that there are no concerns in that regard, but it was right that we raised the issue. We have tabled amendments to clauses 2 and 4 that are designed to ensure both that there would be full and independent scrutiny of all the different aspects of royal expenditure, including the level of the grant and, more widely, value for money and the effective spending of resources across the piece, and that the National Audit Office would have sufficient powers and resources to do that job. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked about wider expenditure outside the sovereign grant. As I understand it, it should now properly come within the purview of the NAO to look across the piece. In our upcoming debate on those clauses, perhaps we could receive an assurance that the NAO will be able to look at all the budgets, not just this particular one. Clearly, the NAO will not be able to reach a judgment on value for money in terms of royal household expenditure under this grant unless it can do so in the context of the other expenditures by Government Departments for the royal household. It is important to maintain royal protection and security, but protecting value for money is also important. The NAO and the Public Accounts Committee will need to respond to the issue my hon. Friend has raised and make sure they can see the full picture. I say again that we seek assurances in the upcoming debate on those clauses that the NAO will be able to look right across the royal household’s expenditures, rather than only at the expenditure financed by the sovereign grant.
The Chancellor has moved very much in our direction on our second issue. I argued a couple of weeks ago that, given the historic importance of these reforms and the inevitable uncertainties at the beginning of a new financing regime, Parliament would need to keep a closer eye on the arrangements. I also said that that needed to be consistent with the Chancellor’s proper desire to give the royal household stability and certainty. In our judgment, waiting seven years for a review, and certainly seven years for the first review, was too long. In our amendments to clause 7, we propose that the first review should happen in the period up to April 2015—three years from now—with five-yearly reviews after that. The Chancellor has gone pretty much to where we would like to be on these matters. Therefore, we thank him for taking our concerns seriously and making sure Parliament will be able to take an early view on these arrangements.
On our third issue, however, I have a continuing concern, which has prompted our amendment 8 to clause 7. The issue is the level of profits from the Crown Estate. The Chancellor has told the House that
“we need a funding mechanism that prevents the sovereign coming to Parliament each year for resources, and that provides funding broadly in line with the growth of the economy…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.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1146.]
We do not know that the figure of 15% of Crown revenues will prove to rise in line with the overall performance of the economy. That obviously depends on the performance of the Crown Estate and Crown revenues. As I pointed out, the Crown Estate income from renewables grew by 44% in the year 2009-10, and it is widely expected to increase again in future years because of the financial potential of the exploitation of wind and tidal energy on the foreshore around the country.
The Crown Estate’s annual report describes current growth as “exponential” and growth over the next 10 years as “significant”. Given the potentially significant changes in income from renewables and, perhaps, wider sources, as well as the prospect that this could lead to an unintended rise in either reserves or, as described in the Bill, simply the overall level of expenditure, it is important that the proposals are robust in meeting significant unintended rises in revenues.
Some have called for a cap on the overall level of the sovereign grant. Instead, we have tabled amendment 8, which would require the trustees to review the arrangements if the Crown Estate’s income were to rise faster in the previous financial year than the underlying trend growth rate of the economy. I think that the public would expect the trustees to review matters immediately if revenues were to rise much faster than had been expected. I also think that the amendment is fully consistent not only with the spirit of the Chancellor’s reforms, but with their detailed intention, as he set out in his spending review speech. Therefore, I ask him to look at the issue again over the next hour and a half. Our proposal is fully consistent with protecting stability for the monarchy and the proper role of Parliament in scrutinising the arrangements. In order to ensure that his reforms are implemented as he intended, we should agree to the amendment.
Paul Flynn
As I understand it, the royal trustees are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. Does my right hon. Friend not think that we would get a more balanced decision if Members of this House were represented among the trustees? They would give a much better opinion than the establishment one on this issue.
Ed Balls
It is obviously nostalgic for me to be back in Committee debating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the Dispatch Box, although I would remind my hon. Friend—these moments have been rare in my parliamentary career—that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are both Members of this House. Therefore, they are representatives of both the Government and the House of Commons in those discussions. The important thing is that the trustees should not be able to sit on their hands if there is an unexpected surge in revenues that is faster than the trend growth rate of the economy. When the trustees produce a report, Parliament should be able to scrutinise it properly, after a report of the NAO. The latter is clearly set out in the Bill, but at the moment, whether there is a review in the five-year period is at the discretion of the trustees. Parliament should legislate today to say, “If you see something happening to revenues that is outside the Chancellor’s intentions as clearly set out by him, then there should be an immediate review.” It would still be for the trustees to decide what recommendation to make. We are not imposing a cap, because although some would like that, it would be outside the Chancellor’s intentions. I said from the beginning that I would support his reforms, and our amendment 8 delivers his reforms in detail. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider and support our amendment.
Mr Kevan Jones
I think the Chancellor has tried to have an effect on that by, for example, putting a cap on the reserve, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important to see how the reserve is spent? I said to the Chancellor that it does not take a genius or a financial wizard to work out that the way to do it is by keeping the reserve as low as possible by spending the money, so the Government’s proposals will actually lead to more inefficiency, rather than driving up efficiency.
Ed Balls
As I said, part of the motivation behind our amendments to the clauses that deal with the role of the NAO is precisely to ensure that the value-for-money question is at the centre of the NAO’s thinking and the PAC’s reports to this House. I am happy with the Chancellor’s view that it should be for the PAC and the NAO to decide when to do those reports, but they clearly cannot have a report looking at value for money without looking at all aspects, and that includes all expenditure that is financed by the taxpayer, and the use of reserves. For Parliament, that is the right mechanism. I understand that not everyone in the House will agree with those proposals, which is why it is important to get on to that debate.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am humbled, Mr Evans, that you should have called me before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I am grateful that there is somebody who is even more royalist and reactionary than me in the Chamber; my hon. Friend reminds me of one of the French courtiers who was plus royaliste que le roi—more royalist than the king—and that is no bad thing.
Of course I agree with the substance of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is trying to do today, but I hope that he will accept a couple of bits of advice or warnings. The constitutional position of the monarch and Back Benchers is rather similar: we warn and we advise. The difference is that the Queen does so in private and is listened to and we do so in public and are never listened to, but we will try our best. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps we are listened to sometimes. I am a bit worried about some parts of the Bill, particularly about how fixed in concrete the sum of money is.
We all know that there is no point having the British monarchy as a cycling monarchy or having it on the cheap. I know from my experience of looking at the accounts during the last two Parliaments that they are right on the edge of the £34 million. If one was trying to maintain extremely expensive buildings—I am not just talking about Frogmore now, but about large and complex buildings such as Buckingham palace or places such as Windsor great park—one would struggle. Some people, particularly in this House and particularly those with a slightly republican bent, might say that we are all making sacrifices, but this is part of our national heritage and it is not as if they are living in anything like the whole palace. They have a modest flat: as we know from one of the tabloid stings, the Queen lives very modestly with her Tupperware in a small flat in Buckingham palace. Ultimately, we, the public, are benefiting from Buckingham palace, Windsor and St James’s palace and they must be properly maintained. I am not sure whether we might need looser arrangements so that—I will not use the phrase “raid the reserves”—there is some sort of mechanism to handle that. Will the Chancellor comment on that when he sums up? It is terribly important that there should not be a constant constraint on the treasurer of the royal household to skimp on maintaining the royal palaces, because that is clearly happening at the moment.
Paul Flynn
One example of many of royal spending was a trip by Prince Charles and Camilla from Buckingham palace to Balmoral for which the taxpayer—[Interruption.]
Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you would rule on the correct way of referring to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think that respect for members of the royal family is warranted and it would therefore be appropriate to show proper respect in referring to them in the House.
Paul Flynn
I shall ask the question again. Is it an example of people with financial limits skimping when the heir to the throne and his wife take a journey that costs £29,000 without any public engagements being involved—the journey was a private one—and send that bill to the taxpayers?
Mr Leigh
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. He is making the precise point I want to make, although we come from different directions, of course. That is the danger. As so often happens in the House of Commons, we are rushing at things and there are many unforeseen consequences; it would have been preferable to consider the Bill more closely and for longer. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made will be made in the Public Accounts Committee and such subjects will be dragged into the public debate.
Why do I think that is dangerous? Let me make it clear that I am not against the move in any way. I welcome it and I am grateful that the Chancellor had a private word to brief me on this before he made his announcement. I am grateful for what he is doing, which is in response to the constant campaign that we members of the PAC have waged for many years to have greater transparency. No present or previous member of the PAC and nobody in Parliament doubts that we want more transparency about the public duties, the official travel, the official expenses and so on. That is modern, transparent and right.
The difficulty is where we draw the line. I am worried that the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General will gradually be dragged into the debate on precisely the sort of point that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has made. How will the system work? The CAG will effectively be able to look at everything, but a defence is built into clause 13. The clause states:
“Any reference to the support of Her Majesty’s official duties includes the maintenance of Royal Palaces and related land.”
That is fair enough. Subsection (9) states:
“Any reference to the Royal Household if limited to that Household so far as it is concerned with the support of Her Majesty’s official duties.”
The clause also states:
“Any reference to the use of resources is to their expenditure, consumption or reduction in value.”
I suspect that subsection (9) was included to try to prevent the whole debate from widening to cover the private travel, private expenses and private servants of the royal family. Why is there a danger?
Mr Leigh
May I make some progress first? I want to develop this point and if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied he can come back to me.
If the PAC was a normal Select Committee that set its own agenda, we would have some people who were very pro-royal family and some who were not so pro, and there would be tremendous pressure on the Chairman in private sessions, with people saying, “We want to look at this aspect of travel,” “Why did the Prince of Wales make this official trip and spend all this money,” or “Why did they bring all their servants?” There would be a great argy-bargy. At the moment, our defence is that, uniquely, the PAC’s agenda is set not by the Committee or politicians but by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That acts as a kind of backstop to protect the royal family, but the changes could bring a real danger for them. Why? It is because we do not live in an entirely fair world.
The royal family is not like the Department for Work and Pensions—I shall not labour this point because I made it in the last debate on this. When the PAC looks at the DWP or another Department, it does its work and investigates the spending of billions of pounds, which is sometimes spent wisely and often not so wisely. With those reports there is limited public interest and the report tends to get into The Times, the Financial Times or the serious pages of The Guardian. With the royal family, things are completely different: not only is there massive public interest and huge pressure from journalists, but some newspapers have an agenda of constantly attacking the royal family and its members.
Mr Leigh
Let me go on a bit and then I shall give way to both hon. Members, as I want to be fair to both sides.
When I was the Chairman of the Committee I put no pressure on the Comptroller and Auditor General, but members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who is present, Mr Alan Williams and others quite rightly had serious questions about the royal family. They took a particular view and were always agitating for us to do more work, but I was able to say that it was not my decision. It was the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General who, frankly, took quite a conservative approach and did not allow many reports to come to the Committee or do much initial work. Although there is massive public and media interest in this issue, particularly in the tabloid press, there is much more important work that we need to be doing on public expenditure.
Hon. Members might ask what I am worried about, given that we can surely rely on the Comptroller and Auditor General—although I think that he will be under a lot of pressure via members of the PAC because they are eternally under pressure from the media to raise these sorts of questions. Why am I worried about all this? It is because I wonder whether clause 13 is an adequate defence. How do we define exactly what are the private affairs of the Queen? We know what she does in the homes that she owns—in Sandringham or Balmoral. We know about the gardener and the cook she employs and about private travel around the estate. That is completely out of all this. but what about what goes on in Buckingham palace and Windsor great park? Is the Comptroller and Auditor General going to be under pressure to investigate value for money, the number of servants and what happens with the private office? When does official travel start and when does private travel start? There have been attacks on Prince Andrew for taking official trips and then going on elsewhere to play golf. There will be more and more pressure mounting all the time and that could be extraordinarily damaging to the royal family, which is a very fragile institution. In no other major country is there a royal family; it survives on public opinion and I am afraid that there are some people, particularly in the tabloid press, who simply are not fair and who want to go on pushing and pushing because they want as damaging a story as possible. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Newport West because he asks about precisely the sort of story that they will try to raise through the National Audit Office and the PAC.
Paul Flynn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I am sorry that he has not answered my question about why a multi-millionaire should send a bill to the taxpayer for a private visit. May I take him back to his previous speech to the House on this issue in which he spoke as the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—the guardian of the taxpayer’s interest—when he said that he had approved royal spending that he described as “fantastically wasteful”? Is that the way to guard the taxpayer’s interest?
Mr Leigh
The fact is that we must take everything in the round. I was making comparisons with the Heads of State of Germany and Italy, which are republican institutions that cost more and have virtually no public impact whatsoever and do nothing for the economy. I am afraid that it makes absolutely no sense in providing value for money to Great Britain plc to get rid of the monarchy. I do not accept that the institution of the monarchy is fantastically wasteful.
Mr Spencer
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are talking not only about the Head of State but about the next in line to the crown of this great nation of ours, they should be allowed to travel in such a manner? Can he imagine a circumstance where the President of the United States arrived in the UK on easyJet? We should be proud that the head of this nation is allowed to travel in such style.
Mr Davidson
I am grateful to the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for giving way, and I have to tell my colleagues that he is not nearly as bad a man as he often appears. Does he accept that there is a difference between what the royal family undertake as their public duties, which should, quite rightly, be examined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or a similar organisation, and what they undertake in their private lives, which should not be accessible to the public? Does he accept that extravagances in their private lives should not be charged to the public purse? That really is the difference. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise that we do not wish to intrude into every element of that family’s life; but if they do not want us to intrude, they should not charge such things to the public.
Mr Leigh
I am not sure whether the Queen or the Prince of Wales charges “extravagant” aspects of their private lives to the public purse, but what worries me is that if Prince Charles went on an official trip to America and took so many hairdressers, butlers, private secretaries and all the rest, the media and the hon. Gentleman, if he was still a member of the PAC, would immediately demand a public inquiry, and there would be a gradual drip, drip of attacks in the tabloid press against the royal family. We should be aware of that and warn about it. That is why the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is absolutely crucial; he is not a politician. The reason I am making these remarks—if he reads Hansard—is that he must stand firm and make an overall judgment.
Mr Davidson
I can assure the House that, when I have travelled abroad, I have certainly never taken a hairdresser with me.
The sort of rules that apply to the Prime Minister ought to apply to the royal family in this context. The Prime Minister and senior members of the Government must have a certain degree of support and status when they travel abroad on parliamentary and official business. The royals similarly ought to have some status when they travel abroad. However, the two ought to be comparable. To be fair, the Prime Minister has never taken hairdressers, butlers, valets, chauffeurs or anything similar with him.
Mr Leigh
This debate is useful in a way, because it shows precisely the problem. I understand that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have taken extremely modest entourages and staff on previous trips. Apparently, the Duchess has had more than 37 different changes of outfit in America and Canada. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister or even the hon. Gentleman changes his outfit 37 times when he goes on Select Committee trips abroad. There is a completely different order of scale between a Head of State, who is part of the ornamental part of the constitution and who represents our country, and even the Prime Minister. If we are now to have questions and relentless pressure in the PAC about how many dresses need to be taken on every royal trip, it will be ridiculous, and it would start to make the royal family look more and more ridiculous. That is what I am warning against.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman think that this country’s defence budget should subsidise the royal flight? If we believe what was reported in The Mail on Sunday last week, the Ministry of Defence did the right thing by charging the going rate for use of the royal flight. Only because of complaints to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Prince of Wales was that amount reduced. Therefore, every flight that the royal family takes is being subsidised by the defence budget. That cannot be right.
Mr Leigh
All that I know—the Public Accounts Committee having had all those accounts over the past two decades—is that steps are constantly being taken to deliver a better-value-for-money monarchy. If that is not true, why has the cost gone down from £49 million to £34 million? I shall sit down now, because we are only on clause 1 stand part.
Mr Leigh
I will not give way; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to emphasise this point to the Chancellor: I hope that there is a flexible arrangement, so that we can protect the structure of the royal palaces. I sincerely hope that the Comptroller and Auditor General will take a very conservative view of his responsibilities when he draws up reports, and that he will focus them absolutely and firmly on the public duties of the royal family, in the spirit of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Is the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) giving way, or has he sat down?
Stephen Phillips
I am not sure that I have ever been desperate to get into anything. I think it was in 2005, when my hon. Friend was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that the Committee published a report, which he will probably remember, that drew attention to a potential conflict of interest between the Duke of Cornwall and future Dukes of Cornwall. That is not addressed at all in the Bill. Does he share my hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with that point in his wind-up, and that the Government will look at the issue in future?
Mr Leigh
That is a serious and important point. We have had mention of the Duchy of Cornwall; I should say that we did some trailblazing work in our hearing about the duchy. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West will remember that we ranged widely over all aspects of its management. One of the issues that we raised was whether we should maximise resources—income and capital—for the present Duke of Cornwall, or for future generations. I hope that the Chancellor can also reply to that point when he winds up.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Members can see, there are at least six people trying to get in on the debate on this clause; we are incredibly time-limited, and I ask people to respect that.
Mr Kevan Jones
The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.
On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.
I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department. My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.
A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.
Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.
Mr Spencer
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that defending our nation includes defending our Head of State?
Mr Jones
Yes, but what I am talking about does not relate to security. I am talking about equerries and other people who play a vital role in running the royal household and who are important in Her Majesty’s representational role. In the previous debate people tried to conflate the two issues, but I am talking about ceremonial duties that are being paid for from the defence budget.
Dr Murrison
Until recently the hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister, and a very good one, so I wonder, since he feels so passionately about this, what efforts he made to identify those costs.
Mr Jones
I also chaired the value for money group in the Ministry of Defence, and those costs were on the radar screen for the work it was carrying out. There is a sense of grievance in the MOD and the armed forces that this money comes out of the defence budget. There should be some recognition of this vital work, but it should not come out of the defence budget. That would also avoid the nonsense that we saw last week in The Mail on Sunday, which claimed that the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family stopped using the royal flight because the cost was being charged to the royal household. I understand that after representations were made to the Treasury the cost was reduced by £6,000 an hour for the use of one of the royal flights. Therefore, a basic subsidy is going to the royal household from the defence budget, which I do not think is right. If the full cost of the royal flight is £13,000 an hour, the Government should pay for that to support members of the royal family who need to travel on official duties. I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with where it comes from and how it is accounted for.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that these military equerries and the like are on secondment from military duties? They remain military officers in the service of the Crown via the Ministry of Defence, so it is quite appropriate that they should be paid by the Ministry of Defence?
Mr Jones
No, I am not suggesting that somehow they should be taken out of the military while they do these duties, because there is an important link between the royal household and the military, but I do not think that they should be paid for from the defence budget while they are on these duties. In trying to get full transparency in what the royal household costs and therefore what the sovereign grant should be, we need to know about all these other costs so that we assess what is needed to support the sovereign in her work as Head of State. There needs to be transparency.
The Chancellor said earlier that the NAO could look at this, but there is nothing in the Bill that says it will look at costs in kind in relation to the Ministry of Defence and other budgets. If we are to ensure that the royal household has the money needed for the royal family to do their official duties, it is important that there is transparency and that the costs do not fall on the Ministry of Defence, for example.
Some people argue that there should be a cap every year on the sovereign grant. That is possibly a bit too blunt a mechanism. I accept what the Chancellor has said about the size of the reserve. However, if we are to ensure that the efficiencies that have taken place so far in the royal household continue, we need to consider not only how the sovereign grant, but the reserve, is spent each year. It would be quite easy to run the reserve down each year to ensure that more money is needed every year. There needs to be some scrutiny of exactly how the reserve is spent.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman refers to concern about value for money. Does he accept that the royal family bring in hundreds of millions of pounds to the state every year as juxtaposed with the few millions that it costs to run the royal family, most of which is spent on public buildings?
Mr Jones
That is another debate and it is difficult to quantify what the hon. Gentleman says is brought in. I do not just look at this in terms of money, but take the more fundamental view that we have a Head of State and should support her in the work that she does on behalf of this nation. What I am saying is that we need to be clear about what that costs. We should be honest about how much it costs, even if it costs more than £34 million, and not hide the way in which moneys are spent.
I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I hope that the NAO report looks not just at how royal expenditure is spent on the sovereign grant, but at other moneys that are paid to the royal household. It might suggest, for example, that the money that comes from the Ministry of Defence should not come out of defence expenditure.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The shadow Chancellor concluded his remarks by saying that he had looked up the Commons Journal for 1760. He is, of course, a very modern man. I went a little earlier and looked up the Commons Journal for 1575. I thank the Library for its assistance in helping me to find what I was looking for. I was looking for the behaviour of the House towards a Mr Peter Wentworth, a man who represented a Cornish seat and had the temerity to criticise the then sovereign, Elizabeth I. He said that
“none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen”.
For this “prepared speech” and
“divers offensive matters touching Her Majesty”
he was taken prisoner to the Tower and held there for a month at the insistence of the House of Commons. I must say that I think they knew how to behave in 1575, and it is a model for us today.
I want to come on to who really owns the Crown Estate, because that is important in this discussion. That is why I intervened on the Chancellor, and I am grateful to him for taking my intervention. It is important to remember that the Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign in an ultimate sense, though gifted for a reign. The importance of that is that the sovereign therefore has a right to ask for money. One might think that they would get the money anyway, but sovereigns have been promised money by Parliament that has been stopped. One just needs to go back to Charles II, who handed over all his feudal dues to the Government for £100,000 a year in perpetuity for all his heirs and successors. I am not sure that that £100,000 has been paid once in the last three hundred and some odd years. The Crown, by virtue of owning the Crown Estate, can guarantee that it is entitled to a revenue. The fact that at the beginning of each reign it could theoretically demand the Crown Estate back is important reassurance and a reassertion of that right.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that at the time of the secret treaty of Dover in 1670, the Crown would not recall Parliament because Louis XIV insisted that we should do what the French and the rest of the Europeans wanted, in return for which he would give enough money to Charles II to keep him in with his mistresses and the royal household in the manner to which he felt he should be accustomed?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I remember the secret treaty of Dover well, although I was not an active participant. However, it is not particularly relevant to this debate. It has to be borne in mind that Louis XIV did not deliver the cash, which is always a slight problem in such negotiations.
The Crown Estate belongs to the sovereign. Any other great landowner who has inherited land owns that property outright and is free to pass it from generation to generation. The Crown Estate is in that position. We have discussed before whether, because it is exempt from death duties or because it used to be used to pay for Government expenditure, it is in some sense different and the nation’s. I would argue that that reasoning is not accurate. In the same way that the feudal duties that fell upon other landowners were abolished as time went on, so the Crown Estate would in all normal circumstances have become the Queen’s outright.
I therefore go back to my point, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) dislikes, that the Queen pays an 85% tax rate. There would be £200 million or more in income for the Queen every year, but in fact there will be only about £30 million. So Her Majesty is the highest-paying taxpayer in this country. Members of Parliament might like to think that we could do a deal with the Government, hand over our salary and be given £9,000 a year back.
Mr Davidson
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a distinction between the monarch as an individual and the monarchy as an institution? The Crown Estate is the property of the state, inasmuch as it is the property of the monarchy as an institution, not the monarch as an individual. It is therefore untrue to say that the monarch as an individual is paying 85% tax.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think it is immeasurably confusing when we start trying to divide the Queen up in that way. Her Majesty is our sovereign, full stop. She is one person, indivisible. She is not the trinity—Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty Mrs Windsor and Her Majesty the third party of the trinity. It does not work like that. She is one sovereign individual.
The next point that I want to make is one on which I agree, as I often do, actually, with the right hon. Member for North Durham. [Hon. Members: “Honourable.”] I am so sorry, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). It is in Her Majesty’s gift, of course, to promote him, and perhaps she might have looked more favourably on that if he had been a bit more loyal in his comments. However, I agree with his point that we have to pay for the constitution that we have. The Queen is not here to bring in tourism and things like that. She is here as an essential part of our constitution. That is why it is worth the military taking on the costs of sending attachés and so on and so forth. The military owe their loyalty to the Crown, not to politicians, senior generals or people who could abuse that power to change how this country is run.
Our constitutional settlement, which works extraordinarily well and has worked well for hundreds of years, is worth paying for. On that basis, we get stability as a nation and the effective operation of our constitutional system. The judges owe loyalty to the Crown; the military owe loyalty to the Crown; we, as Members of Parliament, swear an oath to the Crown. It is the Crown that is at the pinnacle of our constitution, outside and above politics and a defender of our liberties. Indeed, as Charles I said at the scaffold, he died the martyr of the people, because he had been defending the liberties of the people, as the Queen has done now for jolly nearly 60 years. We must be willing to pay the right price for our constitutional settlement, and I think that should be a generous price.
Michael Ellis
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that each sovereign since 1760 has been asked by successive Governments to sign over the proceeds of the Crown Estate, in and of itself, proves that the estate belongs not to the country but to the person of the sovereign?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is of course right.
It is often said that Her Majesty is the golden thread that binds our nation together, and the key part of that phrase is the word “golden”. Her Majesty is not the cotton thread, or the silver thread, or the woollen thread, she is a golden thread that binds the nation together as one unique, great and noble nation.
Paul Flynn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way before he goes into hyper-rant. Does he realise that the fantasy that he is describing has been changed by the fact that many hon. Members, who are forced to say an oath—they have no choice—put a preamble to that oath that alters its meaning? The process of a decision to go to war was changed when the House decided to vote on wars in 2003, and probably on all future wars.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
There is a completely separate question, outside the remit of this debate, on the prerogative powers. It has well been established that the prerogative can be bound by legislation, and legislation comes from this House. However, that has very little to do with the Crown Estate and the financing of our sovereign, which, as I said, is something that we should do properly.
We then have the question of scrutiny and the Public Accounts Committee. I make no bones about it, I think it is inelegant, ungallant and improper to look at every biscuit that Her Majesty wishes to buy. I think Her Majesty should have as many biscuits as she likes, and if they are chocolate Bath Olivers rather than Rich Tea, so be it. I just do not think it right for a Committee of this House to look into that.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Follow that, Mr Davidson!
Mr Davidson
It is difficult to follow a speech like that because in many ways, it took the biscuit.
Mr Davidson
Of course, as my hon. Friend says, that biscuit would be a Bourbon.
It is worth while clarifying the question of the ownership of the Crown Estate. Is it owned by the monarch as an individual or the monarchy as an institution? When the Public Accounts Committee looked at this matter, there was a consistent attempt by officers of the monarchy to confuse and conflate the two. We need to ask ourselves this question: were the monarchy abolished, would Crown Estate moneys and properties belong to the deposed monarch as an individual or would they remain with the state? It is quite clear that they would remain with the state. Therefore, the moneys and the estates are not the property of the individual who happens to be the monarch at any particular time. That clarifies a number of things.
Mr Davidson
No, I want to proceed because we are short of time.
I am seeking clarification from the Chancellor, who, I remember, was on the Public Accounts Committee when he was a young whippersnapper—I have often wondered what happened to him since. Will the National Audit Office, the interventions of which I will welcome, also be able to look at all elements of royal involvement? In particular, can it look at the royal art collection, about which there were serious discussions and disputes in the past? That would seem to be covered by what he has said, but it is not immediately clear.
Is the Crown Estate the right body to take into account when determining the monarch’s income? Those of us on the Public Accounts Committee who examined the Duchy of Cornwall’s accounts were absolutely clear that the Duke of Cornwall was manipulating the money involved, by playing a major role in determining the amounts of expenditure and income, thereby determining how much money came, or was available, to him as an individual.
Quite clearly, the Crown Estate could be leant on by the monarchy to make decisions on expenditure and income in the short term to affect the amount of grant that the royal family receive. The grant would then be on, as it were, a golden ratchet—a bit like EU expenditure, it would always go up, and never down. There is clearly scope for abuse in those circumstances. Will the Chancellor clarify those points?
Will the Chancellor also take into account the fact that there is due to be a windfall from wind and wave power? Will he assure the Committee that all of that will be taken into account when the review takes place in due course?
Mr George Osborne
I shall deal briefly—because time is short—with the points raised. I should say first, however, that I am grateful to the Committee and the Opposition Front-Bench team for the general support they have given to clause 1 and indeed the whole Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) raised the key question: how do we create a mechanism that preserves the dignity of the monarchy while ensuring that the House is accountable for the expenditure of public money? As I said in my opening remarks, there is the question of whether the money provided is enough or too much. I said that we do not want a cut-price monarch or a lavish monarchy. As a general guide, I have looked at how much the monarchy has spent over the past five years. On average, £34 million of public money has been given per year through various forms of grant and money drawn from a reserve built up using public money. I have said that that is not a bad guide for the future and that 15% of Crown Estate revenue will provide that amount over the rest of the Parliament. In 2016, we will review whether that is the right amount.
Mr Cash
The Chancellor referred just now to something that I found difficult to accept. He distinguished between a cut-price monarchy and a lavish monarchy. Given Her Majesty’s incredibly distinguished performance over the past nearly 60 years, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) referred, does he appreciate that this is not about being lavish, but about effectiveness and dignity?
Mr Osborne
I agree that it is all about effectiveness and dignity, and I think that the Bill strikes the right balance between those who say that the monarchy is spending too much and those who say that it is not getting enough money for its official duties. The Bill has been discussed with the royal household, and it is content with it, which is why the whole process began with a Gracious message.
I want to clear up a misunderstanding. There will be a real-terms increase in the annual sums that Parliament provides, but that is because the royal household has been relying on a reserve of public money that has built up over time. That reserve has come to an end, and as I said a couple of weeks ago, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, perfectly reasonably when confronted with this issue before the general election, said, “I think we’ll wait until after the general election and let whoever are the Government then deal with it.” We are here because we have been relying on a reserve of public money that has run out. However, with the mechanism we are putting in place there will be a real-terms reduction of up to 9%—on our estimates—in public support for the royal household.
The shadow Chancellor and others, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), asked what would happen if there was a windfall from, for example, the offshore marine estate. At the moment, that constitutes a very small part of the revenues of the Crown Estate—about 1%, as I understand it. It is perfectly possible that, in the latter part of the decade or in the next decade, there will be a big increase, but, because I have accepted the spirit of the Opposition amendment, we will now have a review in 2016 and will be in a much better place to assess whether there will be such a windfall. However, I think that it is highly unlikely. No one is predicting a massive windfall in the next three or four years leading up to that review.
The reserve provides a check. The expenditure of the royal household is audited by the National Audit Office and if the money is not being spent for purposes for which it is provided by Parliament, it will come out in the audit. If there is an excess—in other words, if the sovereign grant is more than it needs—it goes into a reserve. That is a long-established principle. There is now a check on that reserve so that it cannot rise above 50% or thereabouts of the money from the sovereign grant, which was not the case before the Bill was presented to the House. The trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—have to provide an annual report to the Treasury, and through the Treasury to Parliament, on that reserve.
A couple of specific points were made about Marlborough house. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised this point a couple of times. Marlborough house will remain the Government’s responsibility and is currently used by the Commonwealth Secretariat, as I am sure he knows. It will be up to the royal household to decide what premises it needs. It would, for example, be able to rent premises if it needed to, but I do not think that that is relevant to the support that we are providing.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who is no longer in his place, asked about the mausoleum. It will stay on the English Heritage buildings at risk register until it is repaired in five to eight years’ time. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked about the governance of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. I did not think it appropriate to open up that issue in this Bill, which is more narrowly focused on the official support that Parliament provides to Her Majesty.
I hope that I have now answered all the questions that have been raised, and that clause 1 can now proceed to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Accounts of the Royal Household
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 1, page 2, line 31, at end add—
“(4A) The statement must be accompanied by information showing the numbers of directly or indirectly employed hourly-paid staff of the Royal Household working in or in connection with the Royal Palaces in London who in the financial year in question were paid at or below £8.30 an hour.”.
I shall be as brief as possible, given the time constraints. The amendment is straightforward. Clause 2 proposes that the royal household’s accounts are to be reported. I am asking that a statement be included in that report to show the number of employees who are directly or indirectly employed by the royal household and who are being paid at or below £8.30 an hour. The reason that I have arrived at the figure of £8.30 is that that is the London living wage, as set by the Mayor of London, who has described it as the wage level designed to provide a
“minimum acceptable quality of life”
for people working in the capital.
The London living wage was started by a group of religious organisations, churches and trade unions 10 years ago, as part of a campaign by London Citizens. They came together to try to tackle poverty, and recognised that the national minimum wage did not allow people to avoid living in poverty in the capital city. They have campaigned over the past decade to press employers to pay the London living wage. They have targeted cleaners, in particular, who are living in poverty. They campaigned and they won. First, they won in a number of banks at Canary Wharf, then they came to Parliament and ensured that we paid our cleaners the London living wage. The campaign continued right through the capital, and more than 200 major companies have now signed up to the London living wage campaign. The Prime Minister himself described it as
“an idea whose time had come”.
The Leader of the Opposition appeared with him on a platform before the general election with members of London Citizens to sign up to the London living wage. Every mayoral candidate has supported it. Why? They did so because all of us want to see people living out of poverty. Yet in the royal household, which is only a mile and a half away from here, the workers who are employed by contracting companies including KGB—
John McDonnell
It is an unfortunate name, but there we are.
People working in the royal household for companies such as KGB and GreenZone are being paid £6.45 an hour, maximum. We have discovered that many of them are organised by the Public and Commercial Services Union, which is not recognised by the companies. Many of those people do not even have written contracts, which is an illegal practice. The number of jobs there has just been cut, and the work load has increased. Some people have had their hours increased, but they are still living on poverty wages.
The amendment would simply ask the royal household to publish the information on how many people working for the royal family, cleaning their rooms and corridors and serving them in different ways, are being paid below the London minimum wage. In this way, I want to recruit the royal household to support the London Citizens campaign. I want it to lead the campaign. As the Mayor of London himself has said, no company in London should be paying less than the London living wage. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, I believe, the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor have signed up to the campaign in the past. The amendment simply seeks to tackle poverty wages in London. On that basis, I hope that we can expect the unanimous support of the House.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Question is proposed that the amendment be made.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Evans. I do not wish to move the amendment at this stage. Having made my statement, I do not wish to delay the Committee, as there are more important amendments to consider.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Review by Royal Trustees of Sovereign Grant
Manuscript amendment proposed: A, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7’ and insert ‘4’.—(Mr George Osborne.)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.
Government manuscript amendment B.
Amendment 7, page 6, line 8, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘5 years’.
Amendment 8, page 6, line 8, at end add—
‘(6) The Trustees shall also review the percentage for the time being specified in Step 1 of section 6(1) as soon as practicable if, over the financial year immediately preceding the base year, the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate increased by more than the trend rate of GDP growth.
(7) In subsection (6), “the trend rate of GDP growth” means the estimate of the trend rate of GDP growth most recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility which is applicable to that year.
(8) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply to a review carried out under subsection (6).’.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 8. This would introduce a check on potential future rises in income from the Crown Estate. At a time when Departments and the public generally are having to take very difficult decisions to make their limited budgets cover the essentials, we should at least apply careful analysis to what sort of income the 15% figure would bring in for the royal household over future years. I would appreciate any information Ministers have on forecasts for the sovereign grant over the coming years, particularly regarding this spending review period.
We are very short of time, but I shall press on with the issue of meeting the royal household’s needs. When I met the Economic Secretary yesterday—I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her and the Bill team—we had a discussion about the fact that the civil list has not adequately reflected the needs of the royal family in the past. At one point, it was being paid too much money and amassed significant reserves; then, it was not paid enough to meet its needs and had to draw down on the reserves. I appreciate that the current formula may not be appropriate, but a formula fixed to income on the basis of something like the Crown Estate is not necessarily any more likely to meet royal spending needs.
In 2010-11, the Crown Estate profits were £230.9 million. If the new mechanism were already in use, that would mean a grant in two years’ time of £34.7 million. Instead, the 2012-13 grant has been set at £31 million in recognition that 15% would not be appropriate or proportionate. This is why we are asking the Government to consider a more flexible mechanism in future.
When the Chancellor spoke in the preliminary debate the other week, he said that the grant to the royal family should reflect generally how well the economy is doing. The particular concern we have—it has been touched on already—is that the Crown Estate includes investment in offshore wind, particularly the new wind-power projects that are coming on board. I think the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association said that the carbon capture and storage industry is likely to be very big in the future, probably measured in trillions of dollars. We think that could have an impact on the accounts, too.
We were grateful for the Chancellor’s assurances during the debate on the funding resolution that we will not allow revenues from offshore wind to lead to a disproportionate rise in revenues for the royal household. I would be grateful for any further information about what safeguards could be put in place.
Amendment 8 would help. It would limit disproportionate increases to the royal household. I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled manuscript amendments in response to our amendments which would provide an earlier review period. As the Bill was originally drafted, the first review of the new arrangement would not have taken place for seven years and there would then have been a review every seven years after that. We thought that the first review should take place within three years and that subsequent reviews should take place every five years. We have listened to what the Government had to say about three years being unfortunate in that it would coincide with the next general election. We are happy to accept the Government manuscript amendments that the first review should be four years and subsequent reviews every five years. We do think, however, that there should be another mechanism to address the fact that no cap is in force. There is a cap on the reserves, but there is no cap on the potential increases that the 15% figure, linked to the income of the Crown Estate, could generate.
I shall skim over much of what else I was going to say, but we think it important to have some upward cap. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister or the Chancellor have to say in response.
Mr George Osborne
As was acknowledged by the shadow Chancellor, we have taken on board what I consider to be the most significant amendments in tabling our own manuscript amendments. There will now be a review in 2016, and there will be a review every five years after that. If the House accepts our amendments we shall be able to prevent some windfall from offshore renewable energy from not being taken into account before it comes about. We will have a chance to do that in 2016, and that is partly because we have accepted the Opposition’s amendments.
I have already dealt to some extent with the point raised by the shadow Chancellor, and by amendment 8, about whether some other mechanism is needed. A fair number of checks are already in place. If the grant turns out to be more than the royal household needs—and the assessment of need will be checked by the National Audit Office—it will go into a reserve. If the reserve hits 50% of the grant, the trustees will step in and reduce the amount of money coming in. They will turn down the taps. That is a sensible mechanism, and it means that we will not be having an annual debate in the House about royal finances, entertaining though the last few hours have been.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) specifically asked why the figure for 2012-13 was £31 million. In a sense, that question lies at the heart of the issue. I accept that this is a complicated concept. The royal family have been relying on grants from Parliament—either the civil list or the royal travel or royal palaces grant—and supplementing them with a reserve which has been built up, with the use of public money, in the last decade or two. In 2012-13 the royal family will get the £31 million, but they will also expect to draw on the last of the reserve that was built up in the 1990s and 2000s. They will, in effect, receive more than £1 million from public money—money raised through taxation—because they will be using the last of that reserve.
Ed Balls
When I said that there would be a 3.2% real-terms rise from next year until the end of the Parliament, I did not mean a rise in the grant; I meant a rise in total expenditure. Total expenditure in 2012-13 will be £33 million and will rise to £35.5 million, which, in 2010-11 prices, is a rise from £31.3 million to £31.9 million. Although the Chancellor has made an important historic point about the reserves, the 3.2% real-terms is not driven by the reserves: it is merely an overall rise in total expenditure. I do not think that the Chancellor was entirely right on that point.
Mr Osborne
The point I was making was that, although there are lumpy movements in individual years—in 2010-11, for various reasons, some capital works were delayed and will be undertaken next year—the average of £34 million, which was £37 million two years ago, amounts in effect to a cash freeze and a real-terms reduction.
Mr Osborne
Over the Parliament. But the point is that it strikes the right balance between too much and too little.
I think that the checks are adequate, and for that reason, although I have accepted a couple of the Opposition’s amendments, I do not wish to accept amendment 8.
Manuscript amendment A agreed to.
Manuscript amendment made: B, page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) every period of 5 years beginning at the end of another review period.’—(Mr George Osborne.)
Amendment proposed: 8, page 6, line 8, at end add—
‘(6) The Trustees shall also review the percentage for the time being specified in Step 1 of section 6(1) as soon as practicable if, over the financial year immediately preceding the base year, the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate increased by more than the trend rate of GDP growth.
(7) In subsection (6), “the trend rate of GDP growth” means the estimate of the trend rate of GDP growth most recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility which is applicable to that year.
(8) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply to a review carried out under subsection (6).’.—(Ed Balls.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr George Osborne
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall be brief. I want to thank the House for the two days of debate and for the scrutiny and entertainment that has been provided. We have discussed chocolate biscuits, Tupperware, secret treaties and what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said in 1971, the year in which I was born. I particularly want to thank various participants, such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who is not in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). They all showed a passionate interest in this subject and knew what they were talking about. They argued from different points of view but helped to enlighten the debate.
Of course, it is not just Ministers and the Chancellor who do the work on such proposed legislation. An official team at the Treasury have been working on it for more than a year and I want to thank them for their hard work. I thank the royal household for its engagement as well as Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, with whom I have been liaising throughout. We have got the balance right between providing the funds to allow the monarch and her family to do their official duties with dignity and the kind of support we would expect for our Head of State while at the same time providing checks and balances on how that money is spent and allowing Parliament to scrutinise those resources for the first time. I suspect that such scrutiny would have been unthinkable decades ago.
Many people have referred to the fact that in 1760 the arrangement was put in place whereby the revenues from the Crown Estate were handed over for the lifetime of the monarch in return for a parliamentary grant. I do not know whether the arrangements in the Bill will last for 250 years—that is probably a bit ambitious—but I hope they last for many years and decades to come. That might mean that the House will miss the entertaining debates we have had over two days, but it will also ensure that our monarchy is properly funded, that it is above the annual political fray and that it can get on with doing what it does so well: representing our country and being our Head of State.
Ed Balls
I echo the Chancellor’s thanks to Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have participated in the debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends for the way in which they have helped us play the Opposition’s proper role in scrutinising such legislation. There have been many historical references and when we look back to the last serious debate in Parliament, in 1971, we can see that the tone of those debates was very different from that of our debates today and a fortnight ago. That shows that there have been many changes since the early 1970s, including more pressure on and exposure for the monarchy, as well as an unprecedented degree of international exposure. The consensus on the role of the monarchy in our constitution and in our country is stronger now than it was during the previous debate, which has been shown by the speeches from both sides of the House as we have scrutinised the Bill. I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for being willing to brief us and to be involved in serious discussions that have led to changes in the Bill. The manuscript amendments that he was willing to table following our suggested amendments were welcome.
The change will lead to an unprecedented increase in the scrutiny of the royal household by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament. As the Chancellor has said, that is a good thing in building further trust and support for the monarchy in our country. Obviously, I regret the fact that we did not manage to get agreement on our trigger mechanism if revenues from the Crown Estate rise rapidly in coming years, but there are measures, checks and balances to make sure that we can properly do our job as parliamentarians in ensuring that money is well spent but also that the monarchy is properly financed.
Let me conclude by saying it is of great regret that the—oh, he is still here. For a second, I feared that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) had left and I wanted to thank him for his contributions to the debates. It is an open question whether the financial settlement for the Crown Estate that the Chancellor generously set out will make affordable the finest horses and the gold-gilt carriages that the hon. Gentleman called for in the debate a fortnight ago as befitting Her Majesty. However, I assure him that it will certainly be enough to pay for Bath Oliver biscuits with chocolate on the outside; there is no doubt about that. His contributions have been welcome. As I said, this has been an important debate about history as well as the future and it is good to have present an hon. Member who has a great grasp of that history. Indeed, some of us sometimes think he might have been there in 1760—more in style than in substance. We thank him and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The job of scrutinising these matters now starts for Parliament and I thank the Chancellor for helping us to ensure that that will be done properly in the years to come.
Tristram Hunt
In Committee, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said that the monarchy was a fragile institution, but I beg to differ. The monarchy has shown itself to be a very powerful and strong institution, lasting over the centuries. If the British state was beginning again, we probably would not start by creating a monarchy: it is irrational, inequitable, inherently sexist, myopic and averse to many of the principles of progressive politics and the social democratic future that we on the left hold dear. However, we are where we are and there is no enthusiasm for dismantling the monarchy.
Tristram Hunt
Among the public as a whole.
We in opposition should be brave and confident enough to think about some of the monarchy’s strengths, which is partly what the Bill is about ensuring. First, the monarchy gives a broader notion of citizenship. We on the left often get in a lather about being subjects rather than citizens and whether that holds back our politics, but the virtue of the monarchy is that it creates a notion of citizenship that is not necessarily linked to ethnicity. It is not a blood-and-soil notion of citizenship. The political scientist John Gray put it rather well when he wrote:
“The monarchical constitution we have today—a mix of antique survivals and postmodern soap opera—may be absurd, but it enables a diverse society to rub along without too much friction.”
It also points to a wonderful thing about Britain—that we have no purpose in the world, unlike the great republics of France, America or Italy, where there is an endpoint, or telos, to do with happiness or improving equality. Britain has no ultimate endpoint and monarchy is part of that.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has demonstrated that he has a far superior knowledge of history than perhaps any other Member of the House who was not actually there during large sections of it. Does he agree that the histories of the United States and France are histories of violent revolution, whereas we have had a period of stable evolution, apart from a dark period in the 1650s and so on, largely because we have had a constitutional monarchy?
Tristram Hunt
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but we should not over-emphasise our Whiggish stability over the years. We often used to think of the 18th century as the age of equipoise and stability. In fact, underneath that monarchy, all sorts of revolutionary fervour was going on. The campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to have the Chartists properly recognised in the House hints at a slightly different history. It is a source of great sadness to many people that, although the House was rebuilt in the 1830s and ’40s, it took until mid-1890s for the statue of Cromwell to appear outside.
For all its narrow, Eurocentric and white family structure, the royal family also has a curious internationalist sensibility, for to understand the British royal family in the 19th and 20th centuries is to understand empire and the nature of Britain in the world. As we have heard today in respect of reforming the Act of Settlement, the monarch was also monarch of imperial nations across the world, then the British Commonwealth and then the Commonwealth. That points to the unique nature of Britain: its openness and sense of citizenship, which is, again, above and beyond blood and soil. Part of the strength of monarchy is that it speaks to the multicultural, multi-faith age in which we live. There is a curious modernity about the nature of monarchy, which, again, keeps its strength going.
The real virtue of the royal family today is the soft power embodied within it. We have heard, quite rightly, detailed discussions about £35 million or £37 million costs this afternoon, but the royal family as a brand vehicle for Britishness is worth huge sums more than £35 million or £37 million. The sums regained from the world’s media focus on London during the royal wedding recently were far in excess of its cost. Although our beloved former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, used to describe Britain as a young country, it is, in fact, a very old country.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that we do not need a new, written constitution because we have gradually evolved as a country. Other countries look at us and at Parliament—the mother of all Parliaments—because we have been through a great, long history. We have managed to achieve something. We stand for things in the world. We stand for democracy, freedom of speech, common law and the rule of law, whereby this country has made the sort of decisions that it has over the past few days.
Tristram Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he knows far better than I do that, of course, in the quote about the mother of Parliaments, John Bright was referring to the whole country, rather than to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman points to the dangers of a written constitution, although my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) would vehemently disagree and do so in quite some detail if pressed.
Part of our strength as an old country is connected to the royal family and monarchy, which has taken different forms over the years. We have in this country a natural resource in history. As other nations have oil and diamonds, we have the past, and we need to use it as a source of leverage in the world.
In addition to soft power, the royal family also brings hard currency. I am privileged to represent Stoke-on-Trent, where the Chancellor will soon visit many successful businesses in the area. Many ceramics companies in my constituency have enjoyed record profits on the back of the royal wedding. The profits of Bridgewater, Portmeirion and Hudson and Middleton show that the ceramics industry is booming on the back of the royal wedding.
According to VisitBritain spokesman, Paul Eastham,
“Our culture and heritage reputation is very strong around the world. At the heart of that lies monarchy.”
Many historians and I would disagree that the nature of Britain is innately bound up with monarchy, but we should not kid ourselves about the fact that, as the success of the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and California has shown, it brings remarkable attention to Britain. I was involved in constituency business in Australia at the time of the royal visit to Canada and California, but the media attention focused on that young couple—and another great global icon, Ms Kate Moss—from right around the world was remarkable.
There is a job to be done, and many members of the royal family do it very well. We come to the tricky question of financing it. I share my Front Benchers’ concerns about making sure that we have a proper vehicle to ensure that excessive profits and marked changes in the amount of money flowing to the royal family are properly looked after. I, too, still have questions about the shared ownership of assets when it comes to the royal family. I also share concerns about security costs. We in Stoke-on-Trent were greatly privileged to have a visit by the Earl of Wessex recently, but I have to say that I thought that the security costs and the entourage involved were not wholly necessary.
On timetabling, the move from seven to five years is quite right. When we return to government in the imminent future and return, hopefully, to four-year Parliaments, that period can go down to four years from five years, to reflect the length of a Parliament.
The Chancellor has come up with the least worst option for financing the royal family. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested, the royal palaces are in real danger of decay. Many of them have not had the infrastructure investment that they demand, and demands on their fabric will grow. As part of the quid pro quo of the settlement, we need from the royal family further opening-up of some of the royal palaces, and we need to think more creatively about the art collection held by Her Majesty. We need to continue bearing down on costs, and we need the kind of public accountability and audit that the Bill brings to bear.
The Chancellor and shadow Chancellor spoke of the language of utility and satisfaction, in terms of the relationship between Parliament and monarchy, and this settlement sets us on that road.
Michael Ellis
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who is clearly a royalist, and who is a founding member of the all-party parliamentary group on the Queen’s diamond jubilee, and I congratulate him on that.
It is easy to try to put a price on monarchy, as I think the hon. Gentleman was saying. Of course, to a certain extent, one has to do that, especially in such a debate as this, but the monarchy, personified so ably by our sovereign, is not bounded by monetary value; it is about honour, nobility of conduct, its historical nature, and an institution of which we can all be proud. If we look in some detail at the mischief that the Bill is trying to redress, the finances of the royal household, designed to support Her Majesty, are currently overly complex. There are no fewer than four grants, which are themselves hidebound and bureaucratic. They have a tendency to be inflexible in that if there is a depletion of one grant, there cannot be a transfer from the other grants to fill the gap. Consequently, the system clearly does not work. That, in and of itself, irrespective of one’s ideological views about monarchy as an institution, needs to be redressed.
However, it goes deeper than that, because the sums we are talking about—approximately £35 million—are, in governmental terms, de minimis. They are minuscule. I dare say that this area of expenditure is more scrutinised, deeply analysed and debated in various forums, including this House, than other areas of the public finances, where hundred of millions, or even billions, of pounds are spent, so there is no shortage of scrutiny whatsoever. It is clear that for the first time since the early 1970s Parliament is looking at a proper modernisation of the finances of the royal household and the monarchy.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman refers to the level of scrutiny that the household finances receive, but this debate will last less than three hours. Does he not think that that is a flaw?
Michael Ellis
I think one can tell from the number of Members in the Chamber that the matter has been debated perfectly clearly.
The Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign and is in the right of the Crown. In the generations since George III’s accession in 1760, successive Governments have gone to the sovereign of the day and asked, “May we have the proceeds from the Crown Estate?” All sovereigns since, including George IV, William VI and so on, have signed away those rights. However, from a legal perspective, the fact that the application has been made and the request granted on each occasion perhaps indicates how the law would look at the matter. It seems clear to me that the revenue is surrendered to the Exchequer and that the legal implication of that act of surrender is that the revenue belongs to the Crown.
The sovereign grant is normally set as equal to 15% of the profit from the Crown Estate, as has already been alluded to. It could be argued that that is sufficient, but it is not over-generous, and no one could reasonably argue that it is disproportionate to the affairs of the Crown. If one takes the care to look at where Crown expenditure actually goes, one will see that much of it goes back to general public usage. For example, most of the communications allowance is spent on writing paper, stationery and clerical costs for responding to items of correspondence received by the royal household. With regard to entertainment costs, tens of thousands of British subjects receive hospitality at garden parties, for example, so costs are incurred in that way.
The royal palaces account for a huge part of royal expenditure. If we did not have a royal family, it is reasonably safe to assume that we would retain the palaces—one would hope that they would not be knocked down to build car parks—and consequently there would be museums that would need to be maintained, although no doubt few people would visit them. The roofs would still need to be fixed and leaks repaired, so the Exchequer would not save. When one takes the care to look at the expenditure, one will see that it is extremely modest and, as has been alluded to, extremely impressive savings have been made over the past couple of years.
The current system is inflexible, overly bureaucratic and has not been as transparent as it could have been. One cannot rationalise romance, and I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and others that the institution of the monarchy is about more than just money, but one must bear in mind that although the monarchy is an emotionally unifying institution and, in my view, crucial to the success of this state, it is also susceptible to proper analysis of its finances, which is what the Bill will do. Consequently, I give it my full support.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I have a series of concerns with the Bill. First, it creates an artificial link between the profits from an estate given up by the royal family in 1760 and an amount required to carry their official duties in the present day. My major concern is with the escalator process that is put in place, whereby the amount that is received each year will be the same as or greater than that of the previous financial year, either through the floor introduced in the Bill or because 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits is greater than the floor. I am disappointed that the Opposition amendment on that was defeated in Committee.
There are curious oddities in the Bill. Why is there a need to round up the Crown Estate’s profit to the nearest £100,000? Why round it upwards and not downwards? Why round it up at all? The profit of the Crown Estate is a red herring. There is no link between the successful organisation of the estate’s affairs and the amount received by the royal family. This is not a business arrangement. I recognise that there are arguments that the royal family should receive a lump sum and be able to transfer funds for better use. I also recognise the argument that the money provided is given for a specific purpose. However, if it is not being used for that purpose, on what grounds is that amount of funding being given?
As many Members have said, there should be a regular needs-based analysis of the royal family’s expenditure, with grants provided accordingly. Having said that, I like the idea of a reserve fund for money that is not used. This sounds like the end-of-year flexibility that the Welsh Government set up under Plaid Cymru a few years ago, only for the Treasury to steal back £400 million earlier in the year. I look forward to the day when the Treasury follows the same pursuit in taking back money allocated to the royal family.
The Crown Estate, which is a key part of the Bill, is owned by the state and administrated by commissioners. It owns large areas of land in Wales and claims the seabed and foreshore as part of its urban, rural and maritime portfolios. Yet last week’s annual report fails to provide a nation-by-nation or regional breakdown of the investments and profits of the Crown Estate. Figures for Scotland are provided on the website, but apparently no comparable figures for Wales are published. In the interests of transparency, we would like to see those figures published. In the interests of Wales, we would like to see responsibility for the Crown Estate in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government. This is our land and our seabed, and it should be used for investments that benefit the people of Wales.
Mel Stride
I feel that I must return to the status of the Crown Estate. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is effectively owned by the institution of the monarchy and not by the state at all?
Jonathan Edwards
I do not agree. My belief is that the Crown Estate in Wales should now be devolved to the Welsh Government.
Profits are coming from the use and exploitation of these assets. Those profits, be they for renewable energy on land or sea, should be given to the people of Wales. Having control of the Crown Estate land and sea in Wales would give us the opportunity to be a world leader in renewable energy and to develop our economy accordingly. In the meantime, the Bill should not include reference to the Crown Estate and should instead provide a series of grants according to the needs of the royal family to undertake their duties. If we are to have one single sovereign grant that is not needs-based, then why not simply increase it by the consumer prices index, as that seems to be the Government’s preferred measure of inflation?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I agree with every single word of his speech.
These are delightful occasions. I am sorry that the hon. Member for the middle ages and North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has left us, because he gave us another cameo performance today, although he did not give the same peroration. He would have been very much at home in the court of King Canute.
A couple of days ago, the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) rather optimistically sent me a letter—addressed to me by my first name, although I do not really know him in any way—requesting a contribution for the new stained glass window. I am afraid that I had to send him a rather disappointing reply. He did persuade me to put down an early-day motion drawing attention to the fact that we are already fairly well supplied with statues, pictures and paintings of royalty in this place, but very badly off in those things for a range of people, such as the Tolpuddle martyrs, the Chartists and the suffragettes, who have contributed hugely to the strength of our democracy and transformed this country into the proud modern democracy that it is now.
Whenever royalty is discussed, the House becomes infantilised. It is worth mentioning again that because of our own decisions, which go back seven centuries, we are not allowed to criticise not only the monarch, but any member of her family. When an attempt was made to have a debate on the conduct of Prince Andrew on two occasions, I and other Members were gagged in saying anything about him that was not emetic, sycophantic drivel. We must understand that in this debate and many others, we are denied the opportunity as a free Parliament to discuss the personalities and behaviour of the entire royal family—not that I want to be critical tonight.
I tried to make a point in the earlier debate about the special need for the role of the Head of State. The point of the story that I told about Mrs Thatcher is that we need someone who is above politics to act when a Prime Minister gets out of control. There was a possibility in 1990 that Margaret Thatcher could have caused a general election and that Parliament, the Cabinet and the Conservative party would not have been able to stop her. However, the Queen could have stopped her and almost certainly would have done so given the Queen’s personality and status. It is questionable whether other Prime Ministers would have had that strength of character and whether possible other monarchs would have had that strength of character. I am thinking of the Queen’s uncle and the Queen’s successor, who suffers from an incontinence of interference in matters that are way outside what a monarch should be involved in.
Thomas Docherty
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you remind me whether it is appropriate for an hon. Member to make remarks that appear to be disparaging about a member of the royal household?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have already had to remind Mr Flynn that when he is referring to the royal family, he should do so with dignity, as their status in this country behoves. I hope that he will refrain from disparaging remarks in the future.
Paul Flynn
That is a splendid illustration of the fact that we are infantilised and incapable of the freedom of expression that I would have if I was writing a blog, speaking on the radio or writing in a newspaper. This House and our role is diminished because of that. As an elected representative who has long been regarded by my constituents as a republican, I am denied the opportunity of speaking the truth as I see it.
Tristram Hunt
On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, does he not think that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will withdraw the capacity for such royal interference in elections?
Paul Flynn
I think that many advances have been very beneficial. One of the most important was the decision we took in 2003 to vote on whether we go to war. Some 230 Members voted against. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not agree with many of the attributes that give us our national status in the world of being “wider still and wider”. Many people praise us for that because it means that we can punch above our weight. It also means that our soldiers have to die beyond our responsibilities. We have taken on an unreasonable share of the dying in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the elevated view we have of our status, which is a damaging view.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are going far wide of what we are here to speak on, which is the Third Reading of the Bill. Other Members wish to speak, so keep to the Bill, Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made a point about the Bill and about whether those at Buckingham palace listen to our debates. I assure him that they do. The last time I spoke on these issues, I had a call from Buckingham palace within an hour telling me that the information I had given about the heir to the throne’s income increasing by 50% in a year and his spending of taxpayers’ money increasing by 18% was absolutely accurate but could be misleading. So we are under that surveillance, I am happy to say.
I believe it is a complete myth to think that the Crown Estate is the property of the royal family, and it is a disingenuous view. In the Bill there is an attempt to refresh and replace that idea. I saw an interesting quote in the Financial Times from a Government source, who said:
“There is a major constitutional issue with appearing to say that”
the Queen
“owns all this stuff when she doesn’t”.
It is quite clear that the Crown Estate is the property of the country, and that the revenue should go to health, social security and the other issues before us.
I cannot understand why Members, particularly our own Front Benchers, having seen that the Bill was coming up—we have one every 250 years—are maximising the understandable current popularity of the royal family to ensure that it gets through and that there is a settlement that could be very expensive in future. If the Bill had been presented to the House at the time of Diana’s death, or another time when the royal family were very unpopular, the House would have given a very different view. Clearly this is a honeymoon time in which to introduce it.
I believe that, as has been suggested, a simple mechanism should have been adopted. As is the case for other taxpayers, such as recipients of income support and housing benefit, there could be a mechanism linked to inflation. I suggest again that it should be the same mechanism that decides on pensioners’ increases, which have sadly been reduced because of the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. If that measure were introduced and the funding were divorced from the Crown Estate, it would work and it would seem fair. Would it not be marvellous if we demanded from the royal family the same freedom of information that is demanded of all the rest of us?
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I will be brief because I think a couple of other Members want to speak. As the Chancellor said earlier, today we are essentially altering arrangements that were first made at the time of the accession of George III in 1760. The most famous Member of Parliament for the old city of Bristol seat was Edmund Burke, and he coined the term “the fourth estate”—our dear friends, and indeed some enemies, in the press. Of course, they have had the wind of change blowing through them over the past hours and weeks. The second and third estates, of course, are ourselves in the Lords and Commons, and we have also experienced change, with more change to come. The first estate is the Crown itself, which is now receiving change. It is right that it should do so.
In particular, it is right that the Crown should be more open and transparent about its finances. I was delighted that the Chancellor confirmed that Buckingham palace itself would be open on more days of the year so that members of the public can see inside, whether they are going to garden parties or are paying visitors, who currently go in August. If they see the finest horses and the finest coaches, they can also see probably the finest art collection on the planet.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by several of my hon. Friends that we do not want to see a bicycling monarchy, but we do need a monarchy that is accessible and transparent to the public. That would also make it more enduring.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
First, I want to apologise for not being here in the earlier part of the day. I was at the hospital all day having some nuclear medicine, they called it. It is a new-fangled thing, and I would warn anybody, if you have got a chance to avoid it, avoid it. They stick a drug in you, and you feel like you are dying. What they are trying to do is put your heart under so much pressure that they can see whether you can stand the anaesthetic for a hip replacement in the near future. That is where I have been, and I missed all these wonderful contributions on the Queen’s new allowance—her winter heating allowance, or whatever it is.
I remember well, way back in 1971, being joined by a lot of people in the House who were on the left wing at the time in voting against the Queen’s money. Quite a number of them are now in the House of Lords—[Laughter.] [Hon. Members: “Name them!] I can’t name all of them because I ain’t got time. They are all there. I remember that occasion very well because they were dining and wining on the fact that they had just voted against the Queen’s money, or the royal money.
I am here today—I just managed to get back in time for Third Reading. My view about the monarchy has been pretty much the same all my life. I remember in the pit village of Clay Cross, when I was a bit of kid during the second world war—or maybe just a bit before—kids on the street saying that the royal family had blue blood, but I just could not buy that. My inquiring mind prevented me from being like the rest of the lads on the street.
There is no doubt about it: the royal family were very popular in those days, notwithstanding King George VI not being able to speak properly on the radio. I heard all that, but notwithstanding, they were popular then, but there have been phases since when their popularity has waned, especially when Murdoch was the toast of the town—which he now ain’t. We have been slagging off Murdoch all week and telling him to sling his hook back to America and all the rest of it, but his papers had an influence. I am sure that there were times when Murdoch newspapers made a reasonable contribution to the talk about the dysfunctional royal family and all the rest of it, but I also believe that Charles himself made a contribution, because quite frankly, he is not liked. Those hon. Members who are royalists know in their hearts that they do not really want to see him be the king. When I take people from the women’s institute round the House of Commons and the House of Lords and show them the throne, they say, “Who sits in that other seat? I say, “Well, perhaps it’s Charles, but eventually, he’s gonna sit in the big seat.” They say, “Who will be in the other one?” and I say, “Camilla,” and they say, “No! We don’t want her!”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am speaking now from this big seat. It would be very good, first, if the hon. Gentleman could at least refer to the royal family in a dignified manner, as has happened almost throughout the debate, and secondly, if we could get back to Third Reading. I know that for unavoidable reasons, the hon. Gentleman was unable to be here earlier, but I am sure he knows what the Bill says. Could he get back to it?
Mr Skinner
I know that the Bill is all about £35 million in the time of a recession. The truth is that people out there, notwithstanding what anybody else tells them and irrespective of this debate, will be saying, “Here we are. We’ve got a pay freeze, inflation’s going through the roof and energy prices are going up. Because of welfare reform, they’re cutting disability allowance. Three thousand blind and disabled people have marched through London for their money, and yet, on one given day, they are able to find the money for the royal family.”
So, to go back chronologically to my story about the royal family, I was a bit of a kid, but then I got elected to Clay Cross council. I do not know what happened, but when I became chairman of the council, I got a big package, which turned out to be an invite to the royal garden party. I looked at it, and found they had included a little diagonal cross to put in the car—of course, I hadn’t a car, a bank account or a telephone. I said to a mate of mine, “You’d never believe the bumf that they’ve sent—all these different things for the royal garden party.” He said, “What did you do with it?” and I said, “I chucked it in t’dustbin.” I said, “There were even a thing to put in your car.” He says, “What colour were it?”—[Interruption.] No! He was asking what colour the pass was, not the car. He had seen one before, because he had been to the races to Cheltenham and Ascot and seen it. He says, “Get that pass!” I said, “Well, it’s in the dustbin,” and he says, “We’ve not emptied Wheatcroft close yet.” So I got the pass out. I saw him after he had retired, and I said, “Ay up, Joe, did you ever use that pass?” “Use it?” he says, “It’s here in t’glove compartment. I’ve used it every year. I go straight into Royal Ascot, not just the royal enclosure.”
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman finish the story because I wanted to hear the end, but it still has nothing to do with the Bill. May we please get back to the Bill?
Mr Skinner
I am trying to explain that there are people out there who do not give a hoot about the royal family. The truth is that my old mate Joe, who has now passed on, wanted the pass, and that is how he felt about it. He wanted to be in the royal enclosure, unlike me. Obviously I did not go to the garden party—I have never been to one, although they tell me that Willie Hamilton did. I don’t know about that. I’ll tell you one thing though. Despite all the security, they are still using the same car passes now. So we have had the IRA, Islamic fundamentalism, 9/11, bombs on the underground and buses, and they are still using the same passes on the Mall—so they tell me.
Anyway, to get back to the Bill—[Hon. Members: “Yeah!”] I know they didn’t really like those stories anyway and we have only got a couple of minutes left. What I wanted to say is that I have always taken the view that the royal family cannot be regal and common at the same time. I thought when television came in they wanted to appear regal on the one hand but also to be like “Coronation Street” people on the other. So they got on the telly and they were playing those games and all the rest of it. I think that the Queen was badly advised. She should have kept control of them. If I had been on the advisers list, I would have told her that. But I wasn’t. I know that Charles wanted to meet me one day, and that Nicholas—well, whatever seat he stands for, he sits over there—who was a friend of Charles, said to me, “Charles wants to speak to you”. I said, “Why?” He said, “He thinks you’re very interesting.” I said, “Why, has he stopped talking to plants?” [Interruption.] It’s a friendly remark!
Anyway, I believe that at that time support waned quite remarkably. I think it is a bit higher now, but I still believe it is not the 90-odd per cent. that some people imagine it. It is more like 60:40. I do not accept either that the Queen does not have powers. I was here in 1974, during the strike and the “miners’ election”, when Heath said, “You either vote for me or you vote for the miners.” The truth is that Labour won a marginal victory. We had a tiny number of seats more than the Tories.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. This is going to come as a great disappointment to you, Mr Skinner, but you cannot talk this Bill out because at 6 o’clock, I am going to put the question. If you could now refer specifically to the Bill, we would be grateful.
Mr Skinner
I know I have talked out several Bills in the past, but I did it by moving a debate on the writ for the Brecon and Radnor by-election and the Richmond by-election and all the rest of it. But now you have stopped me doing it, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I have to say is that here we are at a time of welfare reform, inflation and all the rest of it, and suddenly, in one day, the House of Commons changes its whole attitude and says, “We’ve got enough money. The royal family need more to live on.” And what does it do? It votes for it. Well, if I can find another teller, I’ll be voting against. Thank you very much.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am not sure whether I have more trepidation when I follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) or when I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). It is slightly ironic that we are having this debate in one of the royal palaces, and perhaps we should recognise the contribution that the royal household makes to the upkeep of some of the rather expensive parts of this building. It is probably worth reflecting on some of the more turbulent debates that the House has had with the royal family about their financing over the centuries—
Business without Debate
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
sittings of the House (19 July) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That, on Tuesday 19 July, the House shall meet at 11.30 am and references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Wednesday.— (James Duddridge.)
Business of the House (18 July)
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 18 July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the appointment and pay of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England not later than one hour after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—( James Duddridge.)
Delegated Legislation
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
High Speed Rail
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I wish to present a petition.
The Petition of residents of South Northamptonshire and others,
Declares that the Petitioners are strongly opposed to the proposed High Speed Railway; declares that the Petitioners believe it to be a massive waste of money; declares that it will destroy miles of beautiful countryside, thousands of homes and villages; and further declares that there is no business case or environmental case for this railway and upgrading existing rail networks is a better alternative.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its support for the proposed High Speed Railway and support the upgrading of existing rail networks.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000944]
Early Intervention
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Early intervention not only requires no new net public expenditure, it is also the biggest deficit reduction programme that we have. If we implement it properly, it will produce results beyond the Chancellor’s wildest dreams. We need to change our default public expenditure culture, which is one of late intervention, to one of early intervention. Late intervention is expensive and not very effective. Early intervention, by contrast, is inexpensive and highly effective.
I shall give the House an example. Delivering the intensive health visiting service of the family nurse partnership to 115 teen mums and their babies in my constituency costs about the same as putting three 16-year-olds in a secure unit for a year—an average of two of whom, incidentally, will reoffend. Family nurse partnership services delivered in the first years of life can reduce the number of arrests at the age of 15 by 80%. So dealing with several hundred individuals and doing so effectively costs roughly the same amount as failing to deal effectively with three young people, 16-year-olds, later on in life.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman and I are in huge agreement on this subject. Does he agree that more than 80% of long-term prison inmates suffer from problems that stem back to early infant attachment?
Mr Allen
Indeed, and the costs are absolutely enormous and continuing. They continue through the generations, whereas one effective early intervention costs only for the one occasion, does not need to be repeated and proves to be very effective.
I make many recommendations in my recent report for Her Majesty’s Government, “Early intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings”. The ones I would particularly like to talk about tonight involve the Treasury. I ask the Minister for her first thoughts on these recommendations. I am very grateful for the assistance I received from the Chancellor, the whole Treasury team and, indeed, Treasury officials—and, above all, from the Minister herself. She helped me in various ways—although the faults in the report are entirely my own—to make the second report a practical and pragmatic programme of work rather than a flight of fancy.
There are no magic bullets. This is all about a practical, long-running and consistent effort to try to bring social and emotional capability to our babies, children and young people, which will repay us over and over again throughout the life cycle, as we avoid the costs associated with drink and drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, a lifetime on welfare benefits, educational underachievement, and so on and so forth. That benefit can come from just a little bit of early investment.
The key relevant recommendations to the Treasury concern the comprehensive spending review; rebalancing central Government spending from late to early intervention; a Whitehall task and finish group, which I shall talk about; a serious proposal for departmental payments, introducing a payment-by-results system effectively across Whitehall; liberating our local authorities so that they can be our partners in pursuing early intervention policies; and using the 2012 Budget to incentivise early intervention investment. I propose to look at each of those in turn.
First, I have suggested that the Treasury consider theming the next CSR around early intervention. The usual cross-departmental effort that goes in ahead of every CSR should be directed at early intervention across all Departments. That includes the research programme and the evaluation, which should be used to assess what is being spent on early intervention by Departments, thus providing a baseline from which we can judge the costs, benefits and potential savings to taxpayers from early intervention policies and programmes.
This CSR preparation should also include commissioning long-range surveys, studies and longitudinal programmes so that we can add daily to the evidence base for early intervention and its role in saving massive amounts of taxpayers’ money from being captured by the long-term costs of failure. Above all, doing this in the CSR will symbolise the Government’s approach and the switch in philosophy to give strong signals to Departments throughout Whitehall and indeed in local areas. We will thus be demonstrating that we are moving from talking the talk to walking the walk.
I want to put on the record that it is evident from the discussions I have had with all parties and with all party leaders, including the Prime Minister, that there is a very strong desire to move—incrementally, admittedly—across this divide between our typical, traditional late intervention policies and early intervention. This is not just to save money; it will also help to make good many of the social failures that arise because we do not tackle problems early enough and let them get rooted before we start to invest money in them—often too little, too late.
The second issue is the rebalancing of funding in Departments. It is easy to demand big switches of financing from one place to another, but that is a pipe dream that we did not entertain in the report. What we did consider was the fact that we have spent billions of pounds, decade after decade, often with only marginal impacts on, in particular, the social and emotional capabilities of babies, children and young people, especially those in poorer areas and constituencies such as mine. We discussed how we might push back the spending and personnel juggernaut of late intervention, and start to invest, gently and incrementally, in early intervention.
A great deal of evidence was given to my inquiry. One of our proposals is a gentle shift—within departmental budgets, and involving no extra money—from late to early intervention. Following discussions with Departments, I propose—modestly, I hope—not a top-slicing of budgets to a pooled early intervention fund run by one Department or another, but a slow, incremental migration of funding, within existing budgets, from late to early intervention. I proposed that it should amount to just 1% a year, which is incredibly modest. It would be possible to move such spending slowly and relatively easily, and no additional spending by Departments would be required.
In education, for instance, an obvious way of using an existing function, organisation or budget head would be through the early intervention grant itself, which currently amounts to £2.2 billion. That would be a good home for the start of a transition from late to early intervention. Similarly, £55 billion is spent on children and children’s services in the United Kingdom. A minor adjustment, in percentage terms, made incrementally on an annual basis could begin to shift us from the costs of failure to investment in the success of our babies, children and young people.
The Department of Health, the Home Department and the Ministry of Justice already have machinery for such an incremental change. They run prevention programmes of various sorts, all of which could be steadily and progressively geared up. Such a reorientation of internal spending could also provide some of the resources needed to pay investors for the outcome-based contracts to which I referred in my report, and about which I shall say more later. It could be described as payment by results.
I also propose the establishment of a task and finish group. This may sound an internal, dry subject, but in preparing my report I discovered that although tremendous work is going on throughout Whitehall in different Departments, it is not always joined up; it does not always connect. People do not always know what the next Department is doing, for one reason or another. That is not a criticism of anyone working in those Departments or on those programmes—on the contrary, I was very impressed by the way in which all Departments set about their work—but it is a criticism of the fact that no Governments have co-ordinated such action to the level that I would like to see, a level that would add value if people all worked together.
I have suggested that the existing Cabinet Social Justice Committee should be given more teeth, and that it should have a task and finish group—perhaps with an independent chair, but that is a matter for Government to decide—which could offer an independent eye, and promote Government change via the Committee. Through consistency, long-termism and progress-chasing, it could achieve, through Whitehall, some of the important objectives and milestones that the Government may choose to set in the early intervention strategy that I proposed in my report.
Such a group should, as a matter of course, report to all party leaders to maintain what I hope is the helpful benchmark that has been set of establishing this as a non-party issue. I am delighted to pay tribute to those Members of all parties who have taken this issue so seriously, and the fact that the three main party leaders have kindly said good things about both the first and second reports underlines my belief that this is a non-party issue. Indeed, they have supplied quotes, expressing embarrassingly kind sentiments about the philosophy of early intervention, for the back page of each of the reports. What we now need to do is make a practical proposition, and I hope we can put into effect my recommendation of establishing an effective task and finish group.
Another Treasury-oriented recommendation is our proposal about the Treasury, Departments and local areas introducing a proper payments-by-results system, so that benefits can accrue to central and local government for investing in the right package of policies and getting external investors interested in this field. Central Government need to play a role in co-commissioning, or co-paying for, the outcomes set by local areas. Her Majesty’s Treasury and other Departments would therefore need to work at putting in place methods of accounting to ensure that future payments based on successful local outcomes are honoured. It is obviously a matter of great concern that local authorities feel, rightly or wrongly, that if they are successful they will be penalised by the withdrawal of other grants or financial assistance. When drawing up the contracts and talking to local authorities about this issue, we need to make it clear that their payments will be honoured when they reach the endgame of the payment-by-results exercise.
In my report I have outlined a number of areas where local authorities have an important role to play. I do not have time to go into them now, but one that would bear examination is the possibility of looking again at issuing a capitalisation directive to councils that will perhaps allow up to £500 million of early intervention spending to be capitalised, provided that it is funded through the local bond market. If one accepts, as the Government and the main political parties now seem to, that early intervention represents an essential investment in human capital for future generations, there is a strong case for allowing local authorities to finance that by using money in the same way as they would to finance a bridge or a building.
The final recommendation that the Treasury may want to think about now that my report is in the public domain is to do with the 2012 Budget and whether the Treasury can assess properly the possibilities of incentivising early intervention investment. It was clear from my review that tax incentives would be a popular and effective way of incentivising early intervention and social investment more generally. The possibility of creating a market in social investment and social finance is a prize indeed, and if we manage to create a social finance market within, perhaps, 10 years, that will be a measure of our success.
Of course everyone would like to have an incentive. I did not see it as my role to provide a set of demands to which Government had to say yes or no. However, I would like there to be a serious exercise before the Budget, so that the Government examine all possible ways of sucking into early intervention investment philanthropic, ethical business and retail investors and wholesale investors. That would be extremely helpful. I will say no more than let us learn from the creativity in other countries, such as tax credits in the Netherlands and Australia, and money to contribute to social impact bond payments in the USA. The US President has introduced rule changes so that money can be committed over longer periods than is commonplace in public contracts.
In conclusion, the Treasury often says, rightly, that having less money can drive us all to be more creative and to challenge the old ways and the old rules. One of the threads in the report is that this should apply equally to Government thinking, and to Treasury thinking in particular. Money is scarce, so ideas on how better to spend existing public funds should be encouraged and new sources of funding should be incentivised. Due diligence, which is commonplace in the private sector, should now be used at all levels of government to question the comparative costs of wasteful, late intervention versus early intervention alternatives. Levels of savings to be achieved should be an integral part of all public investment calculations. Short-term cuts that jeopardise massive long-term returns should, of course, be avoided. Rules and methods of working established in a different era, in a different public expenditure environment, need to be reviewed.
If we can do that, and if our friends in the Treasury can take some of these proposals seriously—as I know they would, as they made a strong contribution to my review—we will be on the verge of changing the spending culture in our country, moving from wasteful, expensive spending when problems are deep-seated to pre-emptive and preventive spending to help babies, children and young people develop the social and emotional capability that will see them realising their potential in the same way as we want to see our children realising theirs. This is an important field. In many ways, it is a slow burner, not one that heralds dramatic change. This is a field in which there must be a serious commitment to change public policy on behalf of all parties. If we do that, not only will the benefits to those children be immense, but the repayments to the taxpayer will be massive.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
There are a number of Adjournment debates that I might have a chance to respond to as a Treasury Minister, but of all of them, this is probably the one in which I would be most keen to participate. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done a great deal of work in an area that for many years was debated on moral grounds—“What’s the right thing to do?” That was absolutely right, but his contribution has been to say why it is in everybody’s interest to address these issues and, in particular, to focus on early intervention. That work will have longevity in this place and beyond. Indeed, I think that I speak for Members across the House when I pay tribute to the work that he has done, not just in contributing to this Government’s policy, but in the years prior to that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about some of the recommendations in the recent, second—and final—report on his review of early intervention. As he knows, we are still looking at those recommendations. I shall not pre-empt the conclusion, but I want to emphasise one thing. He said that he hoped that Ministers would take those recommendations seriously, and I can absolutely assure him that we do. In the time left, I shall try to respond to as many of his points as possible, but I have no doubt that in the weeks, months and perhaps even years to come, we will continue to debate these issues both inside this Chamber and outside it.
I agree that the case for investment in preventive services is clear. As the hon. Gentleman set out in his speech and in his review of early intervention, there is a clear argument. That argument shows that the more that we can do in government and the more that those working with children can do to intervene earlier, the more likely children are both to reach their full potential, as he said, and to develop well both socially and emotionally. Not only are the costs of not doing so significant for them as developing people, but there are financial costs for the rest of society, as he pointed out, including in local communities. So the costs of not tackling these issues are significant and they do contribute to an ongoing negative cycle.
The hon. Gentleman discussed just some of the examples in this area. Let us consider that of children on the edge of care. A three-year study of multi-systemic therapy at the Brandon centre in Camden, which he is probably aware of, has shown that cost savings ranged between £1,200 and £8,900 per family intervention, in addition to there being a reduced risk of offending and family conflict. Data from 10 of those multi-systemic therapy pilots for children on the edge of care or custody indicate that, by the end of the intervention, custody or care was avoided for 90% of children who had been at risk of those outcomes. Of course, children who avoid care are more likely to succeed academically, and are therefore more likely to earn more and lead more fulfilling lives. That is just one example of how powerful early intervention approaches can be.
I want to discuss public spending, because the hon. Gentleman talked about the next spending review being based on the theme of early intervention and said that, in preparation for this, the balance of central Government spending should be shifted by 1% per year from late to early intervention. One of the things that I want to say to him is that in the year and a bit that I have spent as a Treasury Minister I have found that the key to this is something that may seem boring but actually becomes incredibly important. He talked about the need for an evidence base, and I think that he has created that with the work that he has done, as has some of the work carried out in other countries. One of the challenges for the Government is to ensure that we have a good internal evidence base on where our money is being spent.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the children and families taskforce that was set up by the Prime Minister, which informed some of our spending review. One of the exercises involved looking at where the portfolio mix of spend currently is, for example, on early years provision. That was not perhaps as easy a task for us as it ought to have been. One of the key things that the Treasury is now doing is progressing what seemed like mundane “accountantesque” projects, such as putting in place a chart of accounts and upgrading the Combined Online Information System—COINS—database so that it is actually one that we can use to analyse data. The “themes” that the hon. Gentleman describes are part of a broader challenge the Government face in understanding where the money is going; we need to understand our normal items of spend and the aim of them. That will give us a chance better to join up the oversight across spending as it happens in different Departments.
I talked about the Prime Minister’s children and families taskforce and in the 2010 spending review we did allocate significant resources to support early intervention. The hon. Gentleman talked about the value of the family nurse partnership programme. We are recruiting 4,200 health visitors and expanding that programme. Of course we have also established the early intervention grant. In doing so, we intend to signal the importance of this agenda that we all care about so much. We have committed to maintain a network of Sure Start children’s centres and, as he knows, to expand the free early education entitlement to disadvantaged two-year-olds. We are also putting in place other measures such as the fairness premium. I hope that we will be able, perhaps in a more sophisticated way, to understand where Government spending is going in relation to early intervention and some of the complex aspects of early intervention. I hope that the projects that we now have running across government should give us a much better chance of doing that as we approach the next spending review. As the hon. Gentleman proposes, we will continue to push on that within the Treasury and across government to make sure that we do understand the costs and benefits of different policies and programmes, both individually and collectively.
One thing that he referred to less in his speech, but which is important, is coming out of the work on early years and that is the need to continue investment. Once initial investments are made, they should be followed up with the individual.
I know that I am going to run out of time, but I want to mention community budgeting and the need to consider budgets from the perspective of the individual who receives the services rather than constantly considering them in silos. We want to address that.
The hon. Gentleman talked briefly about tax measures and he is right to flag up that we should not lose sight of the fact that much of the early intervention agenda has involved money transfers. For us, one challenge is considering how that money is invested, whether we have alternatives and how some of the services and programmes he talks about stack up in terms of value for money for the public and those who receive them when set against some of the more traditional methods we have used, such as income transfers between families, the Government and individuals.
The agenda is very exciting and I know that the Government will have the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s second report. I look forward to taking forward some of his suggestions and developing them.
Justine Greening
I did not realise that. I am delighted because it means I will be able to get through a few more of the comments I wanted to make.
As I mentioned briefly, the agenda is not just about money but about the quality of public services delivered on the ground. The hon. Gentleman talked about joined-up government and we must focus more on that. Community budgeting will help as will stopping ring-fencing at local authority level, but there are broader challenges in how we knit together national and local government policy at that local level. The work he is doing could feed into some of those thoughts.
Just the other week, on 11 July, we published our “Open Public Services” White Paper, which set out the Government’s vision for excellent services. The principles that we have set out of choice, decentralisation, diversity, fair access and accountability will start to open up local authorities’ ability to deliver services more innovatively. The contribution to this agenda made by the charities and organisations we all come across—perhaps the hon. Gentleman more than other Members—will be better able to be made with a more open approach to public service delivery than we have perhaps had in the past.
I also want to talk briefly about a couple of other aspects. The hon. Gentleman talked about the independent foundation he wants to set up and we very much welcome that as it can play an important role in this whole process. He also mentioned the use of innovative financing mechanisms and he was absolutely right. Again, that is one of those boring but important aspects of the agenda. We need to unlock Government financing so that it does not hinder the right projects. He also mentioned payment by results, which is one thing on which we are keen to push ahead across government.
I can see that I have now run out of time—
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deputy Prime Minister
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Spellar
15. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff were employed in his office on (a) 5 July 2010 and (b) the most recent date for which figures are available.
[Official Report, 5 July 2011, Vol. 530, c. 1161W.]
Letter of correction from Nick Clegg:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) on 5 July 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
The Deputy Prime Minister
There were 14 members of staff employed in my private office on 31 July 2010. The precise figures for 5 July 2010 are not available. There were 17 members of staff employed in my private office on 30 June 2011.
The correct answer should have been:
The Deputy Prime Minister
There were 14 members of staff employed in my private office on 31 July 2010. The precise figures for 5 July 2010 are not available. There were 16 members of staff employed in my private office on 30 June 2011.
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 11 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
Future of CDC
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I am glad to have the opportunity to open this debate on the future of CDC, and I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State for International Development has undertaken to respond to it.
CDC is a remarkably important part of our development armoury and it is likely to undergo substantial changes in the coming years, as our Committee recommended in its report. I need not detain hon. Members long by saying that CDC—originally the Colonial Development Corporation, subsequently the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and now just the CDC—is the Government’s development finance institution and the fourth largest in the world. On its own terms, it has been a success, in the sense that it has grown its assets from £1.2 billion to £2.7 billion since 2004. In 2009, which is the last year for which I have figures, it contributed £222 million towards the UK’s official overseas development assistance.
From a personal point of view, I would say that CDC has done well in terms of what it was asked to do, but it needs to do more and differently, and that is certainly the recommendation of the Committee’s report. The Government have reviewed CDC. The Secretary of State said to me that as a fund of funds it is fine, but it needs to be something more—I agree. Indeed, it has been my view for a number of years that CDC is too distant from the Department for International Development and that its full potential for helping to achieve private sector growth and development in our priority areas has not been realised. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that he wants CDC to be
“more pro-poor focused than any other development finance institution, doing the hardest things in the hardest places.”
If I may say so, that quote is characteristic of him.
I have often said that the International Development Committee is not the overseas aid Committee. If we are to provide sustainable development that will lift poor people out of poverty and keep them out, we must strengthen the private sector’s ability to support them. As a fund of funds, CDC has levered additional finance, and there is clearly a role for that to continue—indeed, that will probably be its predominant role—but we have suggested that CDC should consider whether it can, for example, attract more capital from diaspora funds. Diaspora finance far outweighs our overseas development assistance to many developing countries, but it is fair to acknowledge that, understandably, much of that money goes back to the families and communities from which the diaspora has come. However, the Committee took the view that there must be scope for a significant part of that finance to be channelled into wealth-focused, pro-poor development funds. We certainly believe that a well-targeted, well-managed fund could unlock a lot more for pro-poor development.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
As a fellow member of the Committee, I praise the Chair and his draft, which we accepted without any amendments. He rightly says that diaspora communities want to invest in their mother countries. One example is the Pakistani community, which invests heavily in Pakistan. However, one regular problem is that the investments are risky and do not give the returns sought. If CDC reformed itself to appeal to diaspora communities, that could lead to much more effective aid and development in their countries.
Malcolm Bruce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. CDC opens up the opportunity to do a lot of things differently in the future that could unlock funding from a variety of different sources. That will be a mark of its success.
We also recommend that CDC should try to invest funds where private capital otherwise might not go—or not on a scale or on terms that would meet the needs of the poor. There is plenty of evidence throughout the world that some market opportunities do not always attract adequate investment because they are regarded as unfashionable or remote, or because their benefits are counter-intuitive. One example from the not-too-distant past, and from quite close to home for me, is the Highlands and Islands Development Board. An interesting thing about the board is that it invested in its heyday in stimulating new companies and initiatives across the highlands and islands region.
I remember the chairman of the board giving evidence to a Select Committee. When he was asked what return the board made on its investment, how many losses and bad debts it had and how that compared with the private sector, he answered, in summary, “Actually, our rate of return and bad debt is almost exactly the same as in the private sector.” That prompted the question, “Well, why do we need you, then?” and he answered, “Because the private sector wouldn’t go where we went.” That is classically the case with CDC. It will and can go to places where investment might not otherwise be made, but where genuinely positive economic returns can be secured. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) has found his right place in the Chamber. I hope that he might catch your eye in due course, Mr Walker.
It is right that a development finance initiative such as CDC should have, in addition to such priorities, an investment code that meets the Department’s environmental, social and governance standards. That code should be used not as a barrier to attracting funds, but as a means of effectively certifying the quality of investment and attracting money from investors who want to meet certain high standards. There are examples of ethical investment funds in the UK. People with such investments want to invest their money in ways that have particularly beneficial social outcomes. I am certain that people will want to invest in ways that deliver benefits to the poor, but they will also want to know that it is being done in a businesslike and commercial way—not through a charity, but through an organisation designed to create sustainable economic development.
One problem with and criticism of a fund of funds is that, by definition, it creates long lines of communication and limited direct control. Many transactions are happening at a long remove. Given that it is a development finance institution, it is therefore necessary, first of all, to ensure that the impact is properly assessed and measured. We have called on the Government to ensure that that is done more effectively than in the past. A proper assessment should be made of what jobs were created, whether they were quality, permanent jobs, and whether those jobs were adequately paid. That is the essence of sustainability as well as of the pro-poor benefit of the investment. The same applies to transparency. People need to know where the money is being invested and whether it is being invested in appropriate things with which people feel comfortable. They need the assurance that the primary outcome is benefiting poor people.
That point raised a debate in the Committee about what people should be paid. It is somewhat embarrassing that the CDC has suffered criticism for that in the past. Given that its primary purpose is to help the poorest people in the world, high rates of remuneration and bonuses for its executives create an uncomfortable anomaly that needs to be addressed.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just about the absolute level of salaries and bonuses, but about the time horizon within which they are paid? If we are to do serious development work or to make investments with a development impact, people should be thinking about the long term, rather than about short-term gains.
Malcolm Bruce
I absolutely agree. My view is that that is a good criterion for every form of investment, but especially in this context.
The Committee received interesting evidence on remuneration, which we debated. The standard response on CDC has been, “It has been set up as a market-based model competing for funds in the marketplace, so we have to pay people market-based salaries.” I am not saying that there is no connection between those things, but we received significant evidence that there were people who would be prepared to work for considerably less than the market rate, although not necessarily for peanuts, given that, in the peak year, the chief executive’s package totalled £1 million, which included a salary of several hundred thousand pounds. However, there are people who will work not for £20 a week, but perhaps for £50,000, £100,000 or £150,000 a year, on the grounds that they have an opportunity to give something back from their own career by contributing their experience at a time when they do not need the money. We asked the Government to look at that. I appreciate that that can create tensions, but as long as the process is done openly, the model would draw some of the sting out of the criticism that has been levelled in the past.
Similarly, the Committee had an interesting discussion about the use and role of tax havens. We recognised that things were not as simple as we had thought when we started to look into the situation. The argument for their use is that they create financial efficiency that attracts more money than would otherwise be the case, and that that does not, in fact, mean that taxes are not being paid. Unattached—orphan—money that was not directly related to a particular geographical area or activity could be reinvested in the fund and, in effect, the tax not paid on the tax haven funds represented money available for reinvestment. The Norwegian development finance institution recently took a policy decision to pull out of tax havens, and doing so dramatically reduced the attraction of additional finance. Our view is that we should look at the situation clearly. There should be transparency and institutions should always pay taxes appropriately and properly, but we have asked the Government to consider whether they should provide a rule about the correct role of tax havens. To be frank, the Committee did not feel that there was enough authoritative evidence to make a definitive recommendation.
Anas Sarwar
In the spirit of transparency, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be a good idea for the Government to consider whether they should request that CDC publishes what taxes it pays and what profits it makes for every country it works in?
Malcolm Bruce
Absolutely, and I obviously hope the Secretary of State can give us that assurance.
In a sense, the organisation needs to be a trailblazer for what an investment model in developing countries ought to be, and a role model not only for other DFIs, but for the well-intentioned private sector. We have concluded that there is scope for clarification at the very least and for the maximum transparency.
We were as shocked as the Secretary of State that despite the sale of Actis, the fund manager, for £373,000 and the fact that the Government were apparently entitled to 80% of the proceeds, not a penny had been paid by the time the Committee took evidence. I know that he was anxious to vent his spleen about that when he gave evidence to us. I do not know whether he will be able to give any indication today of whether the Government can sell their share and, if they do so, whether we will get a fair rate of return—after all, that will be reinvested for the benefit of poor people.
Perhaps the Committee’s most significant recommendation was that the investment model for CDC should be changed. I know that the Government have not entirely accepted our recommendations, but I think that they acknowledge the strength of their principle and the spirit. We recognise that the fund of funds model could unlock a substantial amount and that it does attract investment. Particularly if the report’s recommendations are taken on board, that could be focused in a way that gives real, sustainable, long-term benefits to poor people in poor countries.
We felt that some of the money needed to go into more direct, riskier and more pro-poor investment. That means not that it should be thrown away or invested irresponsibly, but that lower rates of return should be acceptable or that a mix of grants and loans should be applied. We suggested the name “CDC Frontier” to indicate that the body would be operating slightly more experimentally.
One point about our recommendation of having two separate businesses was that because the fund of funds has been very successful at attracting and unlocking substantial extra funding—it has provided very good leverage—we were concerned that a more risk-associated set of investments in the same fund might frighten off some investors who have contributed. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure us and that his response shows that he has taken our concern on board. As long as the Department and the way in which CDC is established are able to reassure those people, the Committee will be content if our specific model is not adopted. I hope that the Secretary of State understands that the proposal was not a gimmick, but a genuine attempt to ensure that we had the balance of the changing nature of the business right and that we did not have a higher-risk aspect undermining the area with a proven track record.
The Committee felt that there should be some agreement on the sort of sectors within which CDC should operate, but the Government did not entirely accept that recommendation. I appreciate the reason behind the absence of the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). He is a valued member of our Committee and has real expertise in agricultural development in east Africa. He was rightly exercised by the view that most countries in which we have the greatest commitment to pro-poor development are rural, and agricultural productivity is a major cause of poverty. The Committee accepts that the world is changing. We have produced a report on urban poverty and increasing urbanisation, so we do not see development as something that happens just in remote parts of rural Africa, which is sometimes the public image. However, it is true that in both the sub-continent and Africa, a high proportion of the poorest people depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, yet the productivity of agriculture is frankly abysmal in many cases.
When the Committee recently visited east Africa, some of us spent a night in a village in the heart of rural Burundi—
Malcolm Bruce
I will not take any interventions on that point. There is an internal issue in the Committee.
In Burundi, we witnessed for ourselves some of the poorest of the planet’s poor people struggling. I was going to say that they were on the edge, but they were beyond the edge—they were not operating at survival levels. If it were not for the intervention of non-governmental organisations, I do not think that they would have survived. It was estimated that their per-capita income was 20p a day. Apart from very basic and poor living conditions—no electricity, one tap for 4,000 people and pit latrines, although not for everybody—we saw exhausted soil, diseased plants and minimal yields that were inadequate even for self-sufficient farming, never mind cash-cropping.
The hon. Member for Stafford, as someone who knew a little more about agriculture than other Committee members, said that it should be possible to perform a soil analysis, to work out nutritional benefits and to advise on disease-resistant plants, and possibly to increase the yield of the agricultural holdings by up to eight to 10 times. That would be a massive return, so we felt that CDC should be part of the process of tackling that problem. We would like to think that it would consider investing in improving agricultural outputs in such poor countries.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Is it not true that CDC could help not only with productivity and increasing yield, but by working with farmers with very small plots of land to enable them to join together as a co-operative, because that would give them a greater income overall? When the Committee went to India, we saw a diversity of products compared with the sorts of crops grown in Burundi, Rwanda and, indeed, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It would be better if people could diversify and have larger plots so that they can make more money, which would come back to CDC and benefit all those incredibly poor people we saw when we stayed in Burundi.
Malcolm Bruce
I certainly agree that we want a partnership that looks at the best way of optimising and maximising production from which the community can benefit. I know that the Government have said that they are unwilling to direct CDC into particular sectors, but I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate that he will also not be telling it not to go into particular sectors. I hope that the Government will listen to the Committee’s view that CDC should try to explore such an area because that approach would give it an expertise that would be beneficial and could be replicated elsewhere.
Although today might not be the appropriate time for the Secretary of State to comment on this, he will be aware of the engagement that we have all had in our development programme in India. He has set a target of 50% for the level of Indian overseas development assistance going into private sector development by the end of 2014-15. For absolute clarity, I should say that the Committee did not dissent from that as a principle, but we were concerned about whether the mechanisms existed, or would exist, to achieve that figure. It will be interesting to see the role of CDC and equivalent partners in relation to that, particularly because the Government of India have made it clear that they are not keen on the UK Government’s aid programme being used to subsidise private sector investment.
To return to the example I cited with regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, there were projects in the states that we went to—Bihar and Andhra Pradesh—that probably would yield a return, but are unable to attract investment because they are off the sexy horizon of where people want to invest in India. It is possible for the Secretary of State’s objectives to be achieved, but the revamped CDC and the equivalent model may have to be worked up to a point where that can deliver. That is not possible at present and, to be fair, the Secretary of State has not said that it should happen as of today. However, a lot needs to be done in the next three or four years if that is to be delivered.
I can summarise things with a slightly personal view. I have been Chair of the Committee for six years, including throughout the previous Parliament. As I have said before, the creation of DFID was a considerable achievement of which the previous Labour Government had every justification to be proud. I have no hesitation in saying that. However, after that length of time and with a new Government in office, it is also right and proper to review, reprioritise and reassess.
Until recently, DFID was not comfortable with the role of interacting with the private sector. What people in DFID do in development terms is brilliant and world class. Indeed, I am not criticising the people involved because they did what they were asked to do. However, whenever there was a discussion about private sector co-operation and partnership, there was a tendency to say, “Well, that’s what CDC does. We’ll park that and get on with our development job.” In future, there needs to be more of a mingling of the two. When one role is more risky, complicated and difficult, there is always a worry that it could compromise the other. I understand those concerns, but the relationship between the Department and CDC as it changes needs to be slightly more hands on. There needs to be more parallel working between CDC in country and DFID programmes in country, and a greater understanding about them between the two.
My final example about that comes from a briefing the Committee enjoyed—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) was there in Aberdeen—from the Wood Family Trust, which I hope will give evidence to us in the autumn on a different inquiry. The trust was engaged in a project in east Africa on making markets work for the poor. It is a private family foundation, and it started off by saying, “We’re going to give the money we’ve made”—predominately out of the oil and gas industry—“and put it into development in Africa, because that’s about putting something back. We’re business people and we’ll do the business thing.” Indeed, that was precisely what it was doing. However, it rapidly realised that it could not do what it wanted without being in partnership with the public sector. It is interesting to note that the public sector needs to partner the private sector and the reverse is also true. It is the working together that delivers the best results.
I commend to the Secretary of State the fact that, when the Committee is visiting any bilateral partner in the future, we are likely to get a briefing about what is happening between the development programme and CDC in that country. We have not had that in the past—CDC has almost been a different organisation.
I commend our report to hon. Members. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for attending the debate and, indeed, for his constructive response to the report. I look forward to him updating us because I am aware that since our report was published, things have moved on a bit with regard to initiatives to revamp and reinvigorate CDC. The Committee is very much looking forward to hearing about that.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I endorse and congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the Committee, on the way in which he has introduced the report. As I am a Committee member, it would be rather surprising if I said that I disagreed with the report, so I will say that I agree with it, having participated in its compilation. In addition, my life on the Committee would not be worth living if I said anything else.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State a couple of questions. In a sense, this picks up where the right hon. Gentleman finished. He talked about the join between the Department’s private sector activities and those of CDC. I am still a bit uncertain about where that join is and how the Secretary of State sees it. When we visited India, that issue came home to me when we came across a target of 50% for how much of the Department’s budget should be spent in the private sector. I had not heard of that before. It is obviously very well known that the Government felt that more of the Department’s activities should be channelled through the private sector—I do not necessarily demur from that—but it was the first time I had heard that there was actually a target of 50%. A number of my colleagues and I found that a bit surprising because, if DFID is about doing what is right to combat poverty, the private sector should be utilised where it is appropriate, and what in some places might be called the third sector and the public sector should be utilised where that is appropriate. The objective should determine the percentage. That is not what seems to be happening here, where the percentage is in danger of determining the objective.
As we asked more questions about that, I got more confused about exactly what the policy was. When the Secretary of State winds up, will he clarify where the 50% figure comes from, rather than 40%, 30%, 60% or 80%? Why 50%? If such a target is appropriate for India, is there a 50% target for other areas where the Department is operating? If so, what is that based on? Is it based on the same criteria as for India or is it based on different criteria? If the figure is not 50% for other areas, how did he arrive at the different percentages? I am genuinely confused about how that works.
I would also like to know what the join is between that figure and the role of CDC. Certainly there was an uneasiness among some of our interlocutors in India about DFID saying that it wished to devote 50% of its activities to the private sector. That was not because the people we spoke to considered private sector investment to be unimportant. Indeed, a number of the most creative projects that we saw there could go under the heading of private sector projects, and they were often very small scale and very pro-poor. As the right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned, the people concerned were questioning whether, if this is going to be done on an industrial scale and on the basis of a particular percentage, it should be a private sector-led activity—the private sector investing—rather than something done by DFID directly.
Anas Sarwar
Does my hon. Friend recall the conversation that the Committee had with representatives of the Indian Government, who said that they would not see direct private investments by the Department for International Development as aid assistance? They recommended that DFID create a private sector wing, or arm, of its organisation to make those investments. In this case, it could be argued that that wing is CDC. If that 50% of funding does not go through CDC, does that not highlight the failures of CDC?
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In a sense, that is what I am getting at. I well remember that discussion. There was unease about the percentage. There was certainly a view that there was a need for vehicles specifically attuned to that, rather than simply a percentage of the aid assistance programme. Does the Secretary of State see CDC as the vehicle for delivering that percentage, or do CDC’s activities somehow sit on top of that? If he does see it as the vehicle, has he communicated that down to his officials in the field, so that they are not necessarily structuring their budgets in a way that might not be what he wants to achieve? If he does not see it as the role of CDC to take that role—back to my original question—where is the join between what the Department itself does directly and what CDC does, particularly in regard to its direct investments, rather than its role as a fund of funds?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, particularly because I am not a member of the International Development Committee, although I follow its work closely. I welcome the Committee’s report on CDC, which has operated in the shadows for too long and which is increasingly a subject of public concern.
I am pleased to note that the issue of compliance by CDC fund managers with the Department for International Development-sponsored CDC investment code has been raised in the report, because it is an important issue. I have followed the issue at first hand after one of my constituents, Mr Dotun Oloko, came to see me about the investments of two CDC-backed funds in Nigeria, Ethos and Emerging Capital Partners. Mr Oloko’s concerns have been set out in written evidence received by the Committee, so I will not detail them here. Suffice to say that Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission reports that four of the companies in which CDC-backed funds have been invested are fronts for laundering money. That money is said to have been corruptly obtained by James Ibori, the ex-Governor of Nigeria’s Delta state. Mr Ibori, who has previously been convicted twice in the UK, is on trial here again, this time for alleged money-laundering offences involving CDC investee companies.
CDC’s investment in such companies raises many concerns. As hon. Members will recall, CDC’s investment code requires that all businesses in which CDC’s capital is invested must
“comply with all applicable laws and international standards intended to prevent bribery and financial crime.”
Under these rules, companies with links to a politically exposed person, such as Mr Ibori, his relatives and close associates, should have been subject to an enhanced due diligence process. Why did the funds fail to pick up on these links, even after they had been brought before a Nigerian court and were widely publicised in print and in the electronic media? A simple internet search would have revealed the details of corruption associated with these CDC investee companies.
I also want to know whether procedures were in place, both within the funds and within CDC, to ensure compliance with money laundering laws in the UK, the US, Jersey, South Africa and Mauritius—all countries where the funds and CDC are variously registered. For example, here in the UK, the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 require CDC to implement procedures to forestall and prevent money laundering. If, as the evidence from this case suggests, CDC has failed in that respect, will there now be a broader review of CDC’s portfolio with regard to money laundering risks?
My constituent Mr Oloko’s own investigations revealed another stunning fact: a discrepancy of several million pounds between the amount one of CDC-backed funds claims was paid for its investment in a Nigerian fertiliser company, and what was actually received for the shares in Nigeria. The fertiliser company is reported—alleged—to be a front for Mr Ibori. Yet this appears to have gone unnoticed by CDC and, once it was informed, unreported too. In future, will CDC be required to report such information, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed?
There are other causes for concern. CDC continues to be an investor in a bank whose director has been jailed and in other indicted investee companies. Those companies include one where a former chief executive officer is facing criminal charges in Nigeria as well as civil action in the UK, and another which Private Eye magazine has accused of tax evasion and corruption. DFID’s response has been equally worrying. When concerns were raised, did it seek further information from Mr Oloko? No, it did not. Did it bring in independent investigators? No, it did not. All it has done is to ask the funds and CDC—the very institutions whose actions need investigation—to give assurances that no wrongdoing occurred. That is not sufficient to reassure the public.
A key question, still to be answered, is whether CDC passed on the information that it received from Mr Oloko to the police, as required under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We do not know, because CDC refuses to say. When I met the director of the Serious Fraud Office earlier this year, he told me that he learned about the concerns directly from my constituent, Mr Oloko.
CDC’s Nigerian investments are not the only causes for concern. CDC also invested in funds that have backed companies accused of human rights abuses, such as Anvil Mining, and of profiting at the expense of the poor. For example, in Uganda the CDC-backed power distributor Umeme has hiked electricity prices to the point where many poorer Ugandans have been forced to steal electricity from the grid; Umeme’s manager is reported to have called for their execution.
DFID officials have argued that the measure of CDC’s contribution to relieving poverty is the profitability of the companies backed by its funds, which is not a serious argument. While investment is certainly needed to relieve poverty, it is both simplistic and irrational to assume that any investment, even if conditioned by environmental and social safeguards, automatically translates into positive impacts on poverty reduction simply because that investment generates growth.
Before I was elected to this House, I worked for Oxfam for more than 10 years. I have seen some of these development questions at first hand. Many of the funds in which CDC invests make extensive use of tax havens. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on the complications and issues around tax havens, which is a matter of concern. Those funds are using tax havens, and although the right hon. Gentleman explained that that is not always to avoid paying taxes, it still raises concerns.
Malcolm Bruce
I want to reassure the hon. Lady that we share those concerns. We did not dispel them; we just felt that the matter was more complicated than we had appreciated. In a wider inquiry, we did not have time to come to a definitive conclusion. The concerns exist and we need assurances, but she should accept the danger that investment may be driven away if the matter is handled wrongly.
Caroline Lucas
I hope that the issue can be looked at in greater detail. I appreciate that it is complex, but none the less there are real causes for concern.
The Government have acknowledged many of the concerns about CDC. I am encouraged that that has strengthened CDC’s environmental, social and governance procedures. CDC is also committed to introducing new development impact indicators and to developing new investment instruments, so that it no longer operates exclusively as a fund-of-funds investor. By 2015, 20% of its investments will be loans and 20% of them will be direct equity investments. However, that still leaves 60% of its investments being delivered through private equity funds. I question whether such turbo-charged profit seekers are always the appropriate development finance vehicles. Indeed, fund managers themselves are sceptical about the compatibility of the fund-of-funds approach with DFID’s development objectives, particularly in addressing poverty.
There are some important lessons to be learned, most notably about the need for proper scrutiny of development projects and for CDC’s investments to be properly monitored on a regular basis. My constituent has looked at a relatively small proportion of CDC-backed funds, but what he has already discovered makes me extremely concerned that there deep-seated problems that needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Profiting from development at the expense of the poor is easy; history is, unfortunately, replete with examples of that. The more difficult challenge is to assist poorer people in designing and developing programmes for their own benefit, rather than that of their financial backers. I very much hope that CDC can rise to that challenge in the future.
Finally, I sincerely apologise for the fact that I cannot be present for the whole debate, although I will be here for some time. I understand that it goes on until 5.30 pm.
Caroline Lucas
If it does, I cannot be here until then. I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me, and none the less address some of the issues that I have raised. I will avidly look at his response in Hansard.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Walker. Most of us here agree about the vital role that an organisation such as CDC can play, if it gets its model right, in driving growth and prosperity and in alleviating poverty in the process.
I was not a member of the Committee when it conducted its inquiry, and I was quite worried, before I looked at its excellent report, about changing CDC’s business model. I was concerned about whether CDC would be able to make the same returns. I thought we might be asking too much of an investment fund that operates in some of the most difficult parts of the world if we told it to focus only on those places that need its help the most, on those sectors where it can make the most difference and in environments where levels of corruption could be quite high—as we know from organisations such as Transparency International, governance regimes are simply not there in some of these countries, and especially in those that face conflict. Ultimately, the UK taxpayer could suffer as a result. There was therefore the difficulty of returns, the political risk and the issue of operating in conflict areas. That was the attitude with which I approached the Committee’s report.
Having looked at the report and been on our visit to Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi, I realise that private sector companies simply will not take on certain types of investment, because the returns are not there, and they will not allocate capital to such projects. With that in mind, it makes a lot of sense to see whether much of CDC’s effort could be refocused, and the horizon is absolutely important. When CDC changed its business model, a lot of bankers and private equity players ended up working there, and from my experience in banking, I know that their outlook is slightly different and the returns they look for are very different. If an organisation is staffed by such people, it might not always be consistent with looking at agriculture or infrastructure projects, which take quite a long time to deliver the development output that we would expect.
Having seen the Secretary of State’s response to the Committee’s report, I have a couple of questions for him. The first relates to sector focus, which was touched on by the Chair, who also mentioned the experience and expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in agriculture. In the whole of Africa, we are seeing some of the consequences and difficulties that come about if we do not have some of the best practice in agriculture. As we know, people in CDC had that experience before it changed its business model, so is there a case for saying that we should look at some sort of sector focus to make a development impact? That is particularly relevant given what DFID came up with after the bilateral and multilateral aid reviews. They did not say much about agriculture, so could CDC be the vehicle for looking at the issue?
My next question for the Secretary of State relates to the skills and the knowledge base. If CDC is to change its business plan, I want to know a little more about how it will get the skills to deliver what will be a very different investment model. If it is going to focus on sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, it will need a lot of country knowledge and to be able to identify the best transactions. It will also need people who are committed to the sector they are dealing with, which is very different from a fund-of-funds model, where people’s skills base probably relates to choosing the right fund to put money into, rather than identifying the right investment and the right management team, which will then be given ongoing support to ensure that the investment yields a return. What work has been done on that? How will CDC be almost re-engineered to deliver the new business plan?
The final point I want the Secretary of State to clarify is how the accountability link to the UK taxpayer will work. Obviously, it will be through the Department, but I would like a greater sense of how that will work. The Secretary of State has rightly focused on results as regards our development and aid budget, and the Committee’s report focused a lot on how we can assess development impact, but I want to know how we work out whether the UK taxpayer is getting value from what is done.
Anas Sarwar
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, he was not a member of the Committee during our inquiry. Having immersed himself in our work since he joined the Committee, however, he will agree that it was bizarre that when CDC’s managing director, chief executive and chair came before us to give evidence, they could not, between the three of them, answer basic questions such as how many staff they employed, what the total wage bill was and what the total bonuses paid to their 46 members of staff were. Is that not an indication that we need improved transparency, so that we can show those things to the British people and get their trust in the process?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I totally agree that the British public need transparency about how the organisation is run. However, the success or failure of the fund’s operations also depends on such details.
I want the Secretary of State to clarify the points that I have raised. Let me say once again what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I call Miss Ali. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Lefroy—it would be helpful if Members could stand so that I can see that they want to speak.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Walker. I was not sure whether I would be allowed to speak, not having notified you. I was in a Bill Committee and I was not sure whether I could leave it.
I would like to follow my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members on the Committee by raising a few points, and I apologise if I repeat some of what they have said. I want to stress two or three issues that have come out of the report. I very much welcome the Government’s positive response and the way in which they have set about dealing with CDC—a body that has, let us not forget, been extremely successful. Its investments have gone up by something like £1.5 billion over six or seven years, and any organisation would be proud of that performance. CDC has received no taxpayer’s money since 1995, and it is something of which the British people and the British Government—the previous Conservative and Labour Governments and the current coalition Government—can be proud. We need to set all our remarks in that context.
As I said, I welcome the Secretary of State’s engagement with CDC right from the start, as well as his support for the Committee’s work and the Government’s reaction to our recommendations. He did not necessarily accept that CDC should be split into two separate legal entities, and perhaps there could be two separate parts to the same legal entity. I understand his position, and we do not want to create more complexity than is absolutely necessary, but we must aim to achieve what we want to achieve.
What do we want to achieve? There are two or three things that we need to do with this new-model CDC. The first point to note, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) stressed, is the importance of agriculture. It is vital that private investment goes into agriculture. There has been news in the past two or three years of major investments in agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Those consist quite often of sovereign funds taking large chunks of land on a lease or perhaps a freehold basis to promote their own domestic food security. I see some dangers in that. First, the food security that we need to be most concerned about is in the countries in which the investments are made. We do not want food to be exported from countries that are already suffering deficits to other parts of the world. We need to encourage local production for local markets. Of course we need to encourage trade and exports. However, I have had personal experience of how there can be a surplus in one part of a country, which is traded overseas, while there is a deficit—indeed, semi-famine—in other parts of the country. The problem is the logistics and infrastructure. We need to be a little wary about such investments.
I see CDC as having a tremendous role to play in encouraging a sustainable investment in agriculture, of two kinds. That might, first, be in direct investments in socially responsible agribusinesses, and in businesses that perhaps work with smallholders at one remove. The future of increased productivity in agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, and other parts of the world, is often in the hands of smallholders, who know their land best and are able to get fantastic results. Sometimes it is said that smallholder production is not up to the standard of that of large estates, but I dispute that. Where smallholders have access to training, inputs, fertiliser, up-to-date seeds, research and modern plants, they can produce at the same level as estates, and perhaps surpass it. The cocoa crop is an example; it is produced almost entirely by smallholders, not estates, for the simple reason that the smallholders generally do a much better job than estates have, where they have existed. It is clear that CDC in its new guise, either through CDC Frontier or the existing CDC, could improve or increase its investments, and go from what I believe is currently 6% in agriculture to a much higher level.
Secondly, I believe that CDC has an important role to play in the support and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Our report showed that the average size of a company in which CDC had made an investment was quite substantial. If I remember rightly, it would have an average of more than 1,000 employees. Clearly, within that there were successful smaller companies. However, I believe that CDC could be one of the major sources of funding in the spheres where it operates—perhaps not directly for SMEs, because it might be too much to ask that it would invest in them directly, but certainly in funds such as GroFin, in which I believe it already invests, and ManoCap in Sierra Leone—funds that invest in SMEs. CDC already has expertise in that area, and I would like it to expand that.
Finally, I believe that CDC needs to consider infrastructure. It already invests quite a lot in that. I have referred to the importance of infrastructure in agriculture and getting crops around the country. I think that DFID has a tremendous role through the Private Infrastructure Development Group in supporting infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. However, CDC could look at more local and smaller scale investments in infrastructure, which would help not only the SMEs I have spoken about but the agricultural sector.
I welcome the Government’s response to the report. I believe that CDC is poised to set off in new areas without losing its expertise and performance in existing areas. It is extremely important that the Government should continue to support CDC. The report pointed out that DFID should perhaps take greater interest than it has in the past, when CDC has almost been left to get on alone. It has done a good job, but if the Secretary of State continues to show the kind of engagement and involvement with CDC that he has done, both in his public pronouncements and the response to the report, it will have an excellent future.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak today from the Labour Front Bench about CDC. I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), and the rest of the Committee for their work. It is vital that CDC should play its part in promoting investment in developing countries to promote economic development and poverty alleviation.
In 2009 development finance institutions contributed about $33 billion of new private sector investment in developing countries. The contribution made by institutions such as CDC to developing countries has the potential to make an even more significant impact on economic development and poverty alleviation, as part of the UK’s continuing work in international development. As the right hon. Member for Gordon pointed out, it is vital to build on its work and to focus on areas where improvements can be made. With a mandate to boost economic growth by investing in private sector development and more than £2 billion of planned investment in the next five years, there is, as I have said, a great opportunity.
I want to focus on some of the issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members in the debate. The right hon. Member for Gordon highlighted the importance of CDC’s acting as a fund of funds, and of the need to focus on pro-poor development and the connection between investment and development. Economic growth in its own right will not bring about development if we do not use our investments appropriately, as many hon. Members have pointed out.
Malcolm Bruce
The hon. Lady has made an important point. A World Bank report on sub-Saharan Africa will often give an annual figure showing rates of growth that most of Europe would envy, but it does not show that the distribution of that wealth is not helping to alleviate poverty. Wealth by itself is no use, if it does not get to the people who need it.
Rushanara Ali
I welcome that comment. As we have seen recently, in many middle-income countries, economic inequality coupled with injustice are a devastating combination and can lead to conflict. Economic development is vital. Growth is vital, but it must go hand in hand with tackling global inequality. We must be mindful of that responsibility in our investments through CDC and in our other investments.
The right hon. Member for Gordon also discussed the linked matter of ethical investment and the need for social outcomes and sustainable economic growth, and other hon. Members have reinforced those points. Historically, while CDC’s role has been important and has often been positive, it has had a mixed history. This is a great opportunity for us to look ahead at how it can play a bigger and more significant role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) raised the important question of about 50% of the international development budget to India being channelled through private sector investments. He sought clarification from the Secretary of State whether that figure is accurate and whether that investment will be channelled through CDC or some other route. I will appreciate that being clarified in the Secretary of State’s response.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) raised some important issues about compliance with the spirit and letter of international law and about tax, transparency and money laundering laws, among others. She reiterated the role of ethical investment and the need to be mindful of human rights, in particular when investing in mining companies and others. Many organisations have expressed concern about the impact that particular kinds of investment can have and the need for greater care to ensure that such investments are ethical and that human rights violations do not take place.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does the hon. Lady agree that we have the opportunity not only to be careful about bad practice, rooting it out wherever it occurs, but to promote good practice with investments made by CDC, whether through funds or perhaps in future directly?
Rushanara Ali
CDC has an important opportunity to lead by example, and we must require it to set that example and to implement the focus on human rights, given the interest in human rights in those countries. I very much accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I also want to mention what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said about CDC acting as a fund of funds as well as a poverty alleviator. It is important to consider compatibility. There are many examples of incompatibility and, as she rightly stated, some bring into sharp focus the tensions between the two objectives. The two are welcome, but greater monitoring is needed to ensure that the objectives do not contradict each other.
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) discussed returns on investment. His insights included recognising the importance of creating the appropriate investment horizons and environments. He raised two key issues on skills: first, on skills and the knowledge base, he pointed out the importance of ensuring that that capacity and technical expertise is available as the investment takes place in developing countries; and, secondly, he indicated the importance of sector focus, in particular in agriculture. Several hon. Members mentioned accountability and transparency.
I will wrap up, because I am conscious that I do not have a huge amount of time.
Rushanara Ali
I have lots of time, which is good.
In 2010, CDC’s capital was invested in about 143 funds, supporting 930 individual companies worldwide. Companies benefiting from CDC investment employ almost 1 million people in 70 different countries. As the International Development Committee report acknowledges, CDC has contributed to employment and the tax base in developing countries, which are critical to development and economic growth. That is, however, only part of CDC’s contribution, and other notable examples of success can be found in developing infrastructure and technology and in linking those countries to the international economy. So CDC has a vital role to play in the future in infrastructure development and in poverty alleviation, although a number of issues were raised by the Select Committee report as well as by those who submitted evidence and who have campaigned for continued reform of CDC.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about ensuring the appropriate monitoring of impact, of what happens to the investment and of how development objectives are met. I also want to reiterate the points made in the debate about investments being ethical, fulfilling human rights objectives and not contradicting our overall national aims to ensure that our investments are appropriately geared towards economic development as well as poverty alleviation.
On smaller investments and support to SMEs, as hon. Members have mentioned, we must be vigilant in ensuring that CDC does not merely replicate what other investors do but provides added value. It should give support and investment to smaller investors or those from diaspora communities. As was acknowledged, such communities provide more investment in developing countries—their countries of origin—than all development aid put together. CDC has a great opportunity to tap into that resource and channel the aid and investment going into those countries to help fulfil economic development and poverty alleviation objectives.
I will cite one recent example from my constituency. A small group of UK Bangladeshi entrepreneurs developed a cargo business with their own investment—only a small amount of money—because they could not get access to resources elsewhere, and it is now a multi-million pound business. That is a small but significant example, because those entrepreneurs did not have access to investment from organisations such as CDC and because it illustrates the profound interest among diaspora communities in investing in their countries of origin to develop the economies of the cities that they come from. Many of their ideas are incredibly innovative, as in my example, and have the capacity to promote investment and connections between the two countries.
Mr Gyimah
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the high failure rate, however, especially among small enterprises, does she agree that if we have greater focus by CDC on SMEs, we must accept that it might not have the returns that it has previously achieved?
Rushanara Ali
I accept that point. If CDC wants to be a trailblazer and to encourage investment by others, there must be some way of framing its activities to enable some appropriate risks to be taken. That might involve a special innovation fund to identify potential investments, which could recognise that failure rates are greater with particular kinds of investments such as smaller businesses.
Although innovation journeys in business, technology and elsewhere may attract a large amount of investment, there are often only a small but significant number of successes, but they may generate new sectors. There must be discussion about the level of risk that CDC can take, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State were to reflect on some of those points and tell us whether particular efforts can be made to recognise that, for example, diaspora and smaller communities have a big role to play in those countries, but that there must be a way of enabling them to invest. The pool of investors is often smaller. Is there a way of pooling investments or collaborating to ensure that more targeted investment from those groups goes to developing countries? Those matters should be explored.
Pauline Latham
Is it not true that diaspora communities invest in and send money back to the communities that they came from, because they know those communities? Trying to get another organisation to co-ordinate how they spend their money might seem to them to be telling them how to spend that money. Would it not be better to leave them to form their own associations to help their own communities, because they often know many people in the area? They are better left to get on with funding in areas that they know and whose needs they know, instead of giving it to someone else to invest. If we are not careful, we might stop them investing at all.
Rushanara Ali
Diaspora communities may be interested in developing businesses that connect between, for example, the UK and Pakistan. They may need advice, support and technical assistance, and they sometimes need access to investment funds to start up a business. There may be areas where they can do that themselves, but my essential point is that opportunities are being missed. We do not want to duplicate or squeeze out direct investments to help families, but second and third-generation British citizens with links to their countries of origin are increasingly interested in investment in and support for business rather than direct support to family members. It is important that CDC looks at opportunities for such investment, which is different from the traditional support to families and friends because it involves putting money into businesses in their home country or city, or the area where they come from.
CDC’s business plan, which follows the various reports, including that of the International Development Committee and the Government response, is welcome, as is the general thrust of its focus on economic development, including its fund-to-fund focus, and on poverty alleviation, but we must look closely at where CDC goes next and how it implements the overall vision that it has set for itself, recognising the many issues that have been raised. Those issues include internal practices and how CDC is perceived by the public. Hon. Members have acknowledged that there are still concerns and reputational issues about how CDC is perceived to be using resources, remuneration packages, pay and so on, and how its money is spent. The public deserve the best value for money, as well as transparency and accountability, so that our investments create a genuine space for others to follow. In areas where CDC invests, it creates new opportunities for others to follow, and it acts as a trailblazer and a catalyst. That is the ethos that we all want CDC to achieve. We all want it to succeed.
I again commend the work of the International Development Committee and look forward to seeing CDC thrive and succeed in increasing investment in developing countries, in helping to reduce inequality through economic growth and in making its contribution to reducing poverty.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to appear under your benign chairmanship, Mr Walker, for the first time. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who launched this debate today, and his Committee on its work not only on CDC, which has been enormously helpful to my Department, but on a range of other matters to which it brought extraordinary expertise and experience as well as energy, when considering difficult and intractable development problems. Secretaries of State do not always agree with Committees on every issue, and that is true of the International Development Committee and this Secretary of State. However, for the record, it is a pleasure to work with such an expert Committee. The Department and its Ministers draw huge strength from the way in which the Committee goes about its business, and I am extremely grateful to all its members for that.
This has been an excellent debate on many of the key issues that the Government are trying to address in connection with CDC. Let me start by emphasising the point that several hon. Members made—that CDC, given the terms of reference under which it has operated in recent years, has done an extremely good job. It has provided an excellent return to taxpayers, and it has increased substantially the funds under management, but my submission is that in development terms it is a greatly under-utilised asset, and needs to be changed.
It is fair to say that some years ago, CDC perhaps had too much development DNA in its work, and not enough financial rigour. Indeed—I hope that this does not cause Labour Members to blush—the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was minded to privatise CDC, but that did not proceed. The pendulum has now swung to the other extent, and it is a very strong, financially driven organisation that is not much different from many other organisations that operate in emerging markets. It seems to have lost some of its development DNA, and we need to put that back in the centre so that it has both rigorous financial control DNA, as well as strong development DNA. That is our intention, and I am pleased that it was strongly endorsed by the Committee in its response to our proposals.
It is worth emphasising the point that was made by the Committee’s Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, that aid is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The coalition Government have been determined to refocus the development programme so that the aid programme is fuelled by the engine of development—the private sector. Here, I turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who is my hon. Friend in Birmingham, where our constituencies are close together. He asked about the 50% figure for the amount that will be spent through private sector development in India, and for which other countries we were minded to adopt that policy. He also asked me to explain why I saw the private sector as a key means of development, and we had some exchanges on that when I appeared before the Select Committee.
I suspect that, although the hon. Gentleman sees intellectually that the private sector is the engine of development, he may have residual reservations, and sometimes under the bedclothes late at night he may think that it is perhaps the enemy of development rather than its engine. The truth is that if one believes that the private sector is the engine of development, one wants to bring to bear all the available skills in the private sector to try to drive development forward. Some 90% of the world’s jobs are created not by Governments but by the private sector. Wealth creation and economic growth empower societies and enable them to lift their citizens out of poverty.
Richard Burden
I do not know what the bedclothes are like in the north of Birmingham, but the Secretary of State is searching under the wrong bedclothes in the south of Birmingham because that was not the question I asked. I wanted him to explain the figure of 50%, as opposed to 40%, 60% or 80%. If there is a logic to that figure, what is it based on? Does it apply elsewhere, and if so, on what is that based?
Mr Mitchell
As I made clear to the Committee, the figure of 50% feels right in the context of India. I suspect that in many bilateral programmes over the years, there will be an increasing role for the work of the private sector as countries move down the path of lifting themselves out of poverty. In Vietnam, for example, we can see how that engine has driven the alleviation of poverty. There is no science to the figure of 50%, but it feels right in the case of India. As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee, it is not an arbitrary target but an aim.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in defending our decision to continue with an aid and development programme in India, it is important to respond to public concern. We must explain that, yes, India is roaring out of poverty, but there are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Seven and a half times the total population of the United Kingdom live on less than 80p a day, and it is right to walk the last mile with India on development. The aid and development programme is important, and makes up part of the rich tapestry of Britain’s relations with India that were so singularly reinvigorated by the Prime Minister’s visit last year. Those relations are important and we all—not only people in India but those in Britain as well—have a huge amount to gain from Indian prosperity. For that reason, we decided to freeze the programme, focus on work in the poorest states and redirect a significant part of the budget—up to approximately 50% by the end of the next four years—to pro-poor private sector development. That will create the jobs and prosperity that are essential for India.
Anas Sarwar
I wholeheartedly agree with the case that the Secretary of State makes for aid to India, and there was strong cross-party support for the report on India by the International Development Committee. I want to follow on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). The issue is not about whether the private sector has a role to play in development—that is a given; the private sector is crucial if we are to develop underdeveloped nations. However, if the Department for International Development aims for 50% of its money to be spent in the private sector—as in India, for example—what percentage of that money will go through CDC? If the Department is making direct investment and not using a third-party organisation such as CDC, will that risk the integrity of DFID, which makes untied, direct grants and investments in a bilateral sense, rather than direct investments from which it looks for a return?
Mr Mitchell
I will come directly to that point. CDC investments in India will be in addition to the 50% of the programme funding that we expect to be spent on pro-poor private sector development over the next four years. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come in a moment to some of the other points that he has raised.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry to delay the Secretary of State on this issue, but I want to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). The Secretary of State said that the figure of 50% was not arbitrary, but he then said that the criteria were that that figure “feels right”, which does sound arbitrary. Will the Secretary of State be clearer about the criteria that led to the discussion and agreement on a figure of 50% for India, and what criteria were used elsewhere?
Mr Mitchell
At the moment, the target exists only in India. I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Lady: the figure feels right; it is not a science and I am not setting an arbitrary target in that sense. It is an aim and as long as we move down that course over the next four years—which I am sure we will—we will see the benefits in terms of what is happening in India and of the effectiveness of our programme.
I know that the hon. Lady has an urgent constituency matter to attend to and may leave before the end of my speech, so I will address the point she raised. She made a number of detailed comments about the nature of the operation of CDC’s investment in Nigerian companies against which corruption allegations have been made. I hope that she will forgive me if I draw her attention to the fact that some of those matters are before the courts and I must therefore be careful about what I say in my response. I can tell her, however, that the Department and CDC take allegations of corruption extremely seriously. We have looked at the allegations in exhaustive detail, and I have written in great detail on the matter to the chief executive—I think—of the Jubilee Debt Campaign. I would be happy to share the contents of that correspondence with the hon. Lady, and if she would like me to do that, she has only to say.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is nodding assent, and I will write to her on that basis.
The point I seek to make is that by helping the world’s poorest people to create wealth and build up their own assets, we will help them to pull themselves out of poverty, and become less reliant on aid and more resilient in the face of natural disasters. During her excellent speech, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) underlined the point that development finance institutions such as CDC should do more to reduce poverty. I completely agree with her. We need to see the new CDC leading the way and demonstrating how other international financial institutions, including the International Finance Corporation, can set a good example. We are pressing the IFC to do more in lower-income countries and particularly fragile states, and to be more demonstrably pro-poor in middle-income countries. There is no difference of opinion between the Front-Bench spokespeople on that point.
At the heart of the approach that we are discussing is a reformed and revitalised CDC that will be a catalyst for change in the most challenging environments where the transforming power of successful financial investment is most needed. In that context, the previous six months have seen an enormous amount of activity, and if I may, I will remind the Committee of what the Government have been doing. In October 2010, I informed the House of the Government’s decision to reconfigure CDC to boost its development impact, and a public consultation was set up as part of that process. In March this year, the Committee published its report on CDC. The Government responded on 4 May, welcoming that report and agreeing with the vast majority of its recommendations. On 7 June, I reported to the House that the Government and CDC had agreed on and published a new high-level business plan.
In his opening remarks, the Chairman of the International Development Committee stated how important it was that the Department should not be too distant from CDC. He expressed the view that the Department had previously seemed distant, although the two buildings are only about 300 yards apart. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we are intent on rectifying that within the important confines that Ministers and civil servants should not pick winners or make decisions on individual investments. They are, however, entitled as the 100% shareholder in CDC to express a clear understanding of the direction in which CDC should be moving. That is what we are doing.
Malcolm Bruce
I take the Secretary of State’s point about Ministers, but what about departmental staff and CDC staff who work together, particularly in bilateral areas? Our experience in the past is that CDC is never mentioned during programmes of visits to other countries. I hope that that will not be the case in the future.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will, I hope, see secondments between the Department and CDC in the future, and we are intent on promoting much closer involvement, including at country level. When I first visited India, I, too, was struck by the distance between the Department and CDC, although it is fair to say that, such is the quality of the staff that we are fortunate enough to have in India, that is rapidly being rectified. The Chairman of the Select Committee will agree that that is a most important matter.
In the early part of his remarks, the Chairman mentioned the importance that the Committee attached to the role of the diaspora and, in particular, to remittancing and related matters. On page 2 of the Government response to the Committee’s report, we are clear that making intelligent and innovative use of that should be something that we progress, and we have every intention of doing that.
I do not want to waste the valuable opportunity presented by today’s debate by repeating the details that I have already given the House. Instead, I want to remind hon. Members of the broad thrust of the changes that we have made to CDC—changes that reflect the responses to the consultation and many of the comments made in the Committee.
Under its new business plan, CDC will become a pioneering investor—the most pro-poor investor in the world. As members of the Committee made clear, there have been too many examples of CDC behaving like any other emerging market private equity fund. I noticed that on one occasion CDC was the seventh investor in a fund, which does not suggest a great deal of pioneering. What CDC has that the market does not have is the ability to deploy patient capital, which does not require the same returns as are returned by the market. It can take a much longer view. That is one of CDC’s unique selling points, and it is extremely important that it is deployed.
CDC’s focus will be on development impact rather than corporate profitability. It will channel all its new investments into the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where more than 70% of the world’s poorest people live. It will become bolder in its approach to innovation and risk, accepting higher financial risks where those are justified by greater development benefits. In other words, as I said, it will be a patient investor.
Anas Sarwar
I agree wholeheartedly with the suggested reforms for CDC. The Secretary of State rightly mentions the fact that CDC will have to make more risky investments. If CDC made more risky investments and did not get the returns that it hoped to get, would the Department be willing to put further funds into CDC to protect it?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We have taken nothing off the table in that respect. I will come on to why the time to deal with that point is when the new chief executive has been appointed and the business plan for CDC under his or her direction has been set out.
A number of members of the Select Committee raised the overuse of private equity funds by CDC in the past. However, ManoCap, for example, which is a brilliant organisation and fund in Sierra Leone, run by Tom Cairnes and his colleagues, is highly developmental. Under its new approach, CDC will support pioneering equity investment and will increasingly also deploy other tools, including lending, guarantees and co-investment, but they will be introduced carefully and over time.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned the position of CDC in relation to SMEs. It is worth making it clear that CDC is already one of the major backers of SME funds, such as ManoCap and GroFin, and it will do more. Last November, it committed €8 million to a new SME fund based in west Africa. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that the direction of travel in that respect is also a good one.
Following the changes, CDC will no longer work exclusively through private equity funds managed by others and, as I have said, it will offer loans as well as equity financing. It will become more transparent in its dealings, so that taxpayers and the people whom we are trying to help can see where and how the money is being spent. It is already publishing more corporate and investment data on its website, and more of its evaluations will be carried out independently.
As I mentioned, DFID will work more closely with CDC, not only at country level but at the centre. CDC’s business plan will be kept under regular review, and it will report annually to my Department against published targets. DFID will not interfere in CDC’s investment decisions, for the reasons that I explained, but it can offer valuable information and expertise from a development perspective.
The issue of remuneration was raised. Pay and bonuses will be brought down to a level that is fair and appropriate but not excessive. I am pleased to be able to tell members of the Select Committee that the CDC board has already cut bonus levels by 50% this year.
Anas Sarwar
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again; I am sorry to be a nuisance. He rightly mentions that CDC will report every year to the Department. Will that process include transparency about what profits are made, and what taxes are paid, in each country?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman, despite his comment, is never a nuisance. If he bides his time, I will come directly to the point that he has raised.
Once the new chief executive is in place, the Government will decide how to restructure pay. We will ensure that the new remuneration framework links performance to development results rather than simply profit. I was asked a number of questions about how CDC would deliver that new agenda. I expect CDC to start to make rapid progress in a huge number of different directions once the new chief executive is appointed. The head-hunters charged with finding the person for what I have described—accurately, I hope—as one of the most interesting and exciting jobs anywhere in the financial world have advised me that they have been overwhelmed by an incredible response from highly talented people. We all look forward to seeing the result of that process.
In addition, we have already reinforced and strengthened the board of CDC, which has managed in the past to attract a very high calibre of expertise. Once the new chief executive is appointed, he or she will be able to take the wider remit that we have agreed with the board for the work that CDC will carry out in the future and ground it with much more detail. He or she will also be able to start to recruit the team who will carry out that important activity.
We want CDC to become the most successful and the best development finance institution in the world and to blaze a trail and set an example that others will follow. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the organisation is extraordinarily attractive both to those who are coming to the latter stages of their business life, who perhaps have been successful and made a great deal of money and want to put something back—they can bring huge expertise to the work of CDC—and to younger people who perhaps do not want to work on a production line in the City of London but want to leave a footprint in the sand and to make their contribution at this time when so much can be done to alleviate poverty—to make their contribution to the workings of CDC and to the exciting propositions that will undoubtedly come forward for them through the work that CDC is doing. Getting together that team, developing the resources required by CDC and motivating and leading the team is one of the key jobs that I hope the new chief executive will take forward.
The CDC board has responded willingly and constructively to the changes. The reforms answer directly the criticisms that have been made of CDC and the concerns voiced by the Government and the Select Committee. They make CDC a far more effective tool in the Government’s development armoury. I need to make it clear that quite a significant chunk of CDC’s capital is locked up in binding legal contracts for a number of years to come, so reform in that respect will take place over time, but I and the board are committed to making it happen.
I now pick up on a couple of other points made during the debate. The Committee Chair and my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Stafford made important points about CDC’s role in developing agriculture. I completely agree with what they said. Agriculture is crucial to our efforts. DFID is highly active in supporting agriculture through research and development and value-change development, and in many other ways. I think particularly of the work that we are doing with the World Food Programme in Karamoja in northern Uganda, a food-stressed part of the world where people have regularly needed support and food aid; we hope that it will become self-sustaining so that they will not need such aid in future.
When investing in agricultural enterprises is the best way to generate sustainable jobs and income for poor people, CDC will certainly consider doing so more than it has in the past. In many parts of the world, one of the best ways of helping people in rural areas is to generate employment in non-agricultural sectors. Although CDC will consider investing in agriculture, it will also be helping to create off-farm enterprises and businesses in other sectors.
I turn to the important question on transparency asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). He wanted to know whether the Government would ask CDC to publish data on all countries in which it works. CDC will shortly be publishing a new disclosure policy. It will be substantially more transparent, publishing significantly more data on the businesses in which it invests, on its fund managers, on the impact of investment country by country and on taxes paid. If, for some reason, it cannot disclose the information that it is asked for—perhaps for reasons of commercial confidentiality—it will be incumbent on CDC to explain why.
Anas Sarwar
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. Paragraph 60 of the report recommends that
“CDC should follow standards of best practice. By doing so, CDC could raise standards across all DFIs. The tax payments made by CDC’s fund managers and investee companies should be transparent. They should be published annually on a country-by-country basis.”
Does the Secretary of State broadly agree with that statement? Will the code that he mentioned include other investee companies?
Mr Mitchell
We should wait for the code to be published, but when the hon. Gentleman sees it he will realise that we are at precisely the same place. I hope that it will win his approval.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked me about the monitoring of CDC’s development impact. As I indicated earlier, it is important that CDC’s work should be judged by both its development impact and its financial returns. No one is in the business of wanting it to support unprofitable enterprises. Monitoring CDC’s achievements will show why it is of such great importance that it makes a profit, but I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that we are becoming better at demonstrating both aspects. We are pressing hard for CDC to come up with proposals on this, and it is being supported with strong advice from development experts in my Department. CDC is committed to more than 50% of evaluations of its investments being done by independent evaluators.
I have answered my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey on getting the right skills in CDC, but I would like to add that we have appointed someone to head CDC Innovation, a new CDC team, to consider frontier pioneering opportunities. However, as I have indicated, the real momentum on that front will come after the appointment of the new CEO.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised in this debate. I again acknowledge the important role played by the Committee in the development of CDC. Its thinking has helped shape CDC’s new business plan, and I greatly value the expertise that the Committee has deployed in helping us all to take these developments forward to the best possible effect.
Malcolm Bruce
I thank the Secretary of State for his full response to the debate and also all hon. Members who have participated. I thank my Committee for its work in producing the report.
I do not wish to detain the Chamber, other than to wish the Secretary of State well in reforming CDC. On behalf of the Committee, we look forward to an early meeting with the new chief executive officer, albeit not necessarily formally. The Committee will be anxious to have an exchange of views with the new CEO and the executive staff so that we can interact in a mutually beneficial way. I hope that the Secretary of State regards that as a perfectly reasonable wish for the Committee. CDC has the potential, together with DFID, to become one of the most innovative pro-poor investment opportunities in developing countries. We very much look forward to seeing that development.
I thank the Secretary of State personally for the energy with which he is driving things forward, for his vision for maintaining the successes and advantages that are built into CDC, and for enabling it to be innovative and flexible in ways that I hope will be of great benefit to poor people throughout the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Asset Protection Agency
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The annual report and accounts 2010-11 of the Asset Protection Agency (APA) has been presented to Parliament today.
The report contains commentary on key developments in relation to the APA and the asset protection scheme (APS) over the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011.
I am pleased to note the statements in the report that the likelihood of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) being able to make a claim under the APS has further receded and that the British taxpayer is therefore expected to make an overall profit of £5 billion from the APS. Moreover, the amount of covered assets has further reduced from £234 billion at scheme inception to £182 billion at 31 March 2011.
The APA has today also published a legal agreement relating to the APS. This aligns the operation of the scheme more closely with RBS’s regular “business as usual” finance and risk management process. This agreement is in addition to the supplemental agreements on the implied write-down trigger for long-dated assets, revised arrangements for the assessment of APS performance-related remuneration for relevant RBS staff and a move from annual to quarterly fees, which were outlined in the written ministerial statement laid on 15 February 2011. It is expected that this agreement will increase operational efficiency for RBS and the APA leading to reduced costs for both and, by extension, the taxpayer.
Tax Consultations
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Budget 2011 announced a number of tax policy changes and longer-term tax reforms that will be subject to consultation. These, and other consultations, are summarised in the tax consultation tracker, which is available on the HM Treasury website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has today published the following documents:
Working with tax agents: dishonest conduct—a discussion document which seeks views on draft legislation which reflects comments received during earlier consultation. As part of a wider modernisation of HMRC’s powers, deterrents and safeguards this document looks at how HMRC interacts with tax agents to deal with dishonest conduct other than by way of a criminal investigation.
HMRC will publish the following remaining consultations before the end of July:
Civil Investigation of Fraud - Contractual Disclosure Facility—a discussion document which explores one option for toughening and tightening HMRC’s approach to civil investigation of fraud through the concept of a contractual disclosure facility.
Modernising Customs and Excise Law—a consultation on modernising the provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) 1979 and other customs and excise law with a view to simplifying the legislation, closing the tax gap, removing burdens on business and strengthening the UK’s borders.
VAT: online registration and online filing of VAT returns—a consultation on the next steps in moving VAT online, and the assistance into digital that will be required in support.
Digital by Default—a consultation seeking views on making online the Digital by Default channel to register for direct business taxes (income tax self assessment/class 2 NICs, corporation tax, PAYE).
Affordable Homes Programme
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Further to my written statement of 14 February, Official Report, column 36WS, I am today announcing the outcomes of the Homes and Communities Agency’s invitation for proposals for affordable rent under the Government’s affordable homes programme for 2011-15.
The affordable homes programme, which I launched on 9 December 2010, was designed to support the delivery of up to 150,000 new affordable homes through a mixture of new investment (some £4.5 billion over the next four years) and greater flexibility for social housing providers to make the best use of existing and future assets. The new affordable rent model, which will be the principal element of the programme, will make public subsidy go further while enabling local authorities and providers to target support where it is most needed.
When I launched the invitation for bids under the framework in February, I said that my aspiration was to deliver more than 150,000 new affordable homes, and challenged the sector to deliver. The response from providers to the invitation for proposals under this programme has exceeded my original expectations, and I now believe that we will be able to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes. The programme I am announcing today includes around 80,000 homes for affordable rent or affordable home ownership, supported by funding of £1.8 billion from the Government.
Further details of the programme can be found at:
http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/affordable-homes
Firebuy Ltd
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
A copy of the annual report and accounts of Firebuy Ltd for the financial year 2009-2010 has today been laid before Parliament.
Firebuy Ltd is an Executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government to help deliver procurement efficiencies for the fire and rescue service in England through nationally negotiated framework contracts with suppliers. It also has a range of contract management and technical functions.
It was announced on 14 October 2010 that Firebuy would be closing in 2011 as part of Government’s review of arm’s length bodies.
Building Stock
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I am pleased to announce that I am today laying before Parliament the third report required under the provisions of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004.
The report considers the progress towards the sustainability of the building stock in England and Wales in the preceding two years. It reports on changes made to building regulations over the period and their expected impact, plans for future legislation, and proposals for the setting of targets in relation to sustainable buildings. The report also covers changes in the energy and carbon efficiency of the building stock, the extent to which buildings have their own facilities for generating energy, and the recycling and reuse of construction materials over the period.
During the period covered by the report, one of the key legislative changes was the introduction of improved energy efficiency requirements to the building regulations and the publication of updated practical and technical guidance with respect to these requirements in October 2010. The new Government have also initiated a programme of work looking at potential deregulatory changes to the building regulations to be introduced in 2013. It also includes work to deliver the Government’s commitment to further increase energy efficiency through part L (conservation of fuel and power), delivering the next steps to zero carbon for homes and non-domestic buildings, and will consider the wider policy for the retrofit of existing buildings.
The report also notes this Government’s commitment to zero-carbon new homes from 2016 and their announcement as part of the growth review that the 2016 standard would require a 100% reduction of emissions from energy use covered by the building regulations. The report highlights the progress in the last two years in the energy efficiency of dwellings, including heating and insulation measures, as well as providing data on the first year of the Government’s feed-in tariff scheme which aims to encourage deployment of additional small-scale low-carbon electricity generation.
Improving the sustainability of the country’s building stock is critical to tackling climate change. The Climate Change Committee’s recent third annual report reminds us of the size and nature of the challenge. Building regulations have a vital role. The work described in the report which I am publishing today describes the progress which has been made, but we need to take this further, and I expect to return to the House with further proposals in the coming months.
Remote Gambling
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
British consumers face different consumer protection arrangements and have to deal with myriad different regulators and languages depending on where the gambling they are taking part in is regulated. This problem is growing as more countries permit online gambling. At the same time, it is unfair to GB-licensed gambling operators that overseas competitors benefit from access to the market in Great Britain without bearing a fair share of the costs of regulation, or of research, education and treatment of problem gambling.
I am proposing that the Gambling Act should be amended so that remote gambling is regulated on a point of consumption basis, so that all operators selling into the British market, whether from here or abroad, will be required to hold a Gambling Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and to advertise in Great Britain.
As I intend to allow operators anywhere in the world to apply for a Gambling Commission licence, my proposals will mean that the white list will be phased out, although the Gambling Commission will ensure that regulatory good practice is recognised so that overseas-based businesses in trusted jurisdictions such as the white-listed countries, will have much lighter touch approach and, for example, will not have to duplicate regulatory work.
To ensure the minimum disruption for operators in the British market, I intend to put in place a period of transition which will see operators already licensed in EEA member states and the existing white-listed jurisdictions entitled to or eligible for an automatic transitional licence to prevent them having to cease trading.
These proposals are an important measure to help address concerns about problem gambling and to bridge a regulatory gap, by ensuring that British consumers will enjoy consistent standards of protection, no matter which online gambling site they visit. For example, previous work by the Gambling Commission has highlighted deficiencies in some remote operators’ arrangements for preventing under-age play, and, for the first time, overseas operators will be required to inform the UK regulator about suspicious betting patterns to help fight illegal activity and corruption in sports betting.
These reforms will ensure consistency and a level playing field as all overseas operators will be subject to the same regulatory standards and requirements as British-based operators.
The Government will work with the Gambling Commission and other stakeholders to develop the detailed arrangements for the new licensing system which will require changes to primary legislation.
Horserace Totalisator Board
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
In my ministerial written statement to the House on 7 June, Official Report, columns 6-7WS, I announced that the Government have reached a legally binding agreement with Lightcatch Ltd, the parent company of BetFred, for the sale of the Tote. The Government are now able to announce that the sale was completed yesterday.
The Government would like to place on record their gratitude to the board and staff of the Tote, past and present, for their stewardship of the Tote, and to wish the combined businesses of BetFred and the Tote a successful future.
The Government will now enter into detailed discussions with representatives of the racing industry on the design of a scheme for disbursing its share of the net proceeds of sale in a manner which complies with EU state aid rules.
Defence Vetting Agency
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Key priorities have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) for financial year 2011-12 to deliver national security vetting and related services for Defence personnel and for contractors working for the Ministry of Defence. Vetting for its repayment customers across Government will be delivered against standards set in individual joint business agreements with the agency.
Following Defence reform, it is likely that vetting services will be provided under a new business model from 2012, and I expect the DVA to be disestablished as a next steps agency from April 2012. The following key priorities are for its final year of operation. They also reflect the introduction in March 2011 of a major new vetting management and information system (Cerberus). As is common in such substantial transition programmes, short-term operating difficulties have been encountered. These are, however, being resolved, and the expected benefits should be delivered within the period covered by the key priorities.
Maintaining quality
Key priority 1: External validation of quality of defence vetting cases.
To achieve at least a 98% satisfaction rating with 200 cases independently selected and reviewed from a random sample of security cleared (SC) and developed vetting (DV) cases completed in the preceding 12-month period.
Key priority 2: Delivering excellent customer service to all our customers.
To maintain customer service excellence accreditation.
Restoring service delivery
Key priority 3: For all routine defence cases received after 1 January:
a. 85% of counter-terrorism checks (CTCs) to be completed within 25 calendar days,
(improved from 30 days);
b. 85% of SCs to be completed within 25 calendar days, (improved from 30 days);
c. 85% of DVs to be completed within 95 calendar days, (improved from 100 days).
Key priority 4: For all defence priority cases received after 1 October:
a. 95% of CTCs and SCs to be completed within 10 calendar days, (no change);
b. 95% of DVs completed within 30 calendar days .(no change).
Key priority 5: Completing defence aftercare cases received or scheduled for action after 1 October:
a. Take into action all aftercare incident reports (AIRs) within seven calendar days of receipt, (no change);
b. Take into action 95% of scheduled aftercare within 30 calendar days of the scheduled date of review, (no change)
c. Taking into action (where appropriate) 95% of security appraisal reviews within 21 days of receipt, (no change).
The above timeliness targets represent net performance that excludes delays outside of the DVA’s control.
Business Improvement
Key priority 6: Business transformation
By 30 September 2011 produce a transition plan to implement the move to the Defence Business Support Organisation during autumn 2011, and remove agency status by 31 March 2012 (new).
DEFRA Agency (Annual Report and Accounts)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The 2010-11 annual report and accounts for the Food and Environment Research Agency was laid before Parliament on 13 July.
Hazardous Waste (National Policy Statement)
(12 years, 11 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)
The Planning Act 2008 provides for national policy statements (NPSs) that set out Government policy for particular types of development. It requires the draft NPSs to be publicised, consulted on, and laid in Parliament with the intention of enabling public and parliamentary debate to take place.
Public consultation on the hazardous waste NPS for England started today, 14 July, lasting for 14 weeks. At the same time I have laid it before Parliament for a period of scrutiny (the “relevant period”) ending 20 January 2012.
The hazardous waste NPS sets out our need for hazardous waste infrastructure to enable hazardous waste to be managed in a way that safeguards human health and protects the environment. Although we are taking steps to minimise the production of all waste, there will remain for the foreseeable future processes that will produce hazardous waste and products that contain hazardous substances and which will need to be managed as hazardous waste when discarded. Hazardous waste arisings remain significant with around 4.8 million tonnes arising in 2008 and are expected to rise further in future years as improvements in waste management such as producer responsibility schemes and European changes to the definition of hazardous waste take effect and require the management of more waste streams separately as hazardous waste. It is important that we have sufficient infrastructure both to manage this waste in an environmentally sound manner and to move the management of hazardous waste up the waste hierarchy so that we maximise the amounts recycled and recovered and minimise amounts sent for disposal.
We look to the market to provide the facilities. The national policy statement for hazardous waste does not make proposals, therefore, for any specific developments. However, it sets out the types of nationally significant infrastructure required and sets a policy framework to guide the determination of applications for development consent.
The hazardous waste NPS is available on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2011/07/14/hazardous-waste/.
Agency Key Business Outcomes
(12 years, 11 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)
The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) will work to the following key business outcomes for 2011-12:
Value for money (Operational efficiency and value for money)
Demonstrated by:
Meeting the financial performance target by the end of financial year 2011-12.
Delivering savings in line with the CSR settlement in 2011-12 and producing plans to achieve savings required in later years.
Implementing and harmonising clear SLAs with all customers to reflect their priorities.
Driving sustainability through carbon reduction and water usage reduction.
Customers (Customer satisfaction)
Demonstrated by:
Striving to maintain and develop excellent relationships with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the new Animal Health and Welfare Board for England once it is established.
Designing and implementing a customer insight programme—this will provide the baseline from which, in consultation with customer groups, an improvement plan will be driven for key segments.
Capability, resilience and outbreak management
Demonstrated by:
As far as possible safeguarding resilience in the face of reducing funding levels and continuously working to improve outbreak management through learning from the structured programme of exercises (focusing in 2011-12 on arrangements for resource sharing across Great Britain in the light of the devolution of budgets).
Developing a scanning and surveillance model which will optimise investment (in staff, estate and technology) and maximise the use of external providers and the farming industry to deliver the greatest benefit in the prediction of new and recurring threats.
Implementing release six of the business reform programme to deliver efficiency savings and capability enhancements, ensuring that resilience is protected.
Bovine tuberculosis
Demonstrated by:
Pulling together the joined capabilities on research, evidence generation, analysis and delivery to offer innovative options to policy and industry customers, to support the delivery of TB eradication programmes for England and Wales, and the risk-based testing approach for Scotland.
Further details are given in the AHVLA business plan for 2011-12 a copy of which has been placed on the AHVLA website.
The Centre For Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) will work to the following key business outcomes for 2011-12. These are demonstrated through a combination of detailed metrics and actions summarised as:
Value for money (Finance)
Demonstrated by:
Delivering full cost recovery.
Delivery of sound financial management and governance.
Successful widening of CEFAS’ customer base and growth of non DEFRA income.
Delivery of tangible effectiveness gains.
Customers (Customer satisfaction)
Demonstrated by:
Levels of customer satisfaction for each project.
CEFAS impacts: Progress against the four priority DEFRA customer impact areas (CFP reform, marine planning and licensing, evidence needs for marine strategy framework directive and enhancing the sustainable contribution offish and shellfish to UK food security).
Science excellence
Demonstrated by:
Numbers of published papers and media references.
Level of customer satisfaction in scientific quality of work.
Delivery of ongoing investment in new science and capabilities.
Employee engagement
Demonstrated by:
The relative performance in the annual staff survey compared to cross civil service scores.
Delivery of specific actions including sickness absence improvement.
Social Responsibility
Demonstrated by:
Delivery of H&S key performance indicators.
Maintenance of OSHAS18001 and ISO14001 accreditations.
Delivery of sustainability priorities concerning wastewater discharge, increasing volunteering and reduced car travel on business.
Further details are given in the CEFAS business plan for 2011-12, a copy of which has been placed on the CEFAS website.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) will work to the following key business outcomes for 2011-12:
Value for Money
Demonstrated by:
Achieving cost recovery and demonstrating progress in the three elements of value-for-money (economy, efficiency and effectiveness).
Customers
Demonstrated by:
Ensuring that at least 80% of customers in the veterinary pharmaceutical industry consider the level of service provided by the VMD to be good or excellent and that the VMD act on areas identified requiring improvement within the confines of the available resources.
Policy customers in DEFRA and 0ther Government Departments considering the level of service provided by the VMD to be satisfactory.
Operations/Policy Delivery
Demonstrated by:
Authorising veterinary medicinal products according to legislative requirements and their ongoing benefit: risk assessment remaining positive through taking proportionate action on quality, safety and efficacy as necessary.
Providing evidence of actions that encourage the responsible, safe and effective use of veterinary medicinal products according to the legislative requirements through proportionate surveillance and inspection activities—and where necessary using enforcement action to detect and deter illegal use.
Ensuring UK policy principles influence EU legislative change, further the principles of market harmonisation and the development of efficient and effective procedures and guidance within the European Medicines Regulatory Network.
Capacity and Capability
Demonstrated by:
Ensuring the VMD utilises its funding streams efficiently to maintain capability and capacity to deliver its business objectives and is fit for purpose.
Further details are given in the VMD business plan for 2011-12 to 2014-15, a copy of which has been placed on the VMD website.
The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) will work to the following key business outcomes for 2011-12:
Value for money (financial performance)
Demonstrated by:
Meeting agreed financial performance, service delivery and efficiency targets.
Customers (Customer focus)
Demonstrated by:
Delivering the outcomes detailed in the DEFRA/Fera SLA through the provision of independent and impartial advice.
Performance
Demonstrated by:
Delivering effective and efficient plant health, bee health and PVS policy services and outcomes.
Science Capability and Incident Response
Demonstrated by:
Providing a robust food and environmental research, response and recovery capability that supports Fera’s, DEFRA’s and wider Government requirements.
Leadership
Demonstrated by:
Developing and maintaining a culture of ownership and accountability that values everyone for their contribution.
Embedding Sustainability and Support for the Big Society
Demonstrated by:
Driving value by maximising the exploitation of our assets and embedding the principles of sustainability further into our business operations.
Further details are given in the Fera business plan for 2011-12, a copy of which has been placed on the Fera website.
The Rural Payments Agency will work to the following interim key business outcomes for 2011-12:
Value for money (Effectively delivering accurate and timely payments)
Demonstrated by:
The single payment scheme fund being paid, in an accurate and cost-effective manner, between 1 December 2011 and 30 June 2012.
(i) SPS 2011 payments by value to customers in regulatory window (> 95.238% by 30 June 2012).
(ii) Additional indicators to be available after the delivery of the RPA strategic improvement plan.
To process and pay valid claims for trader schemes and rural development implementation schemes.
(i) 90% within Ministerial guidelines (28 days).
(ii) 99% within set EU Commission deadlines or in their absence 60 days of receipt of the claim.
Customers (Putting customers at the heart of Agency delivery)
Demonstrated by:
Demonstrating strong commitment to focus on customers by delivering a clear set of customer service standards for the end of August 2011.
Delivering operational excellence
Demonstrated by:
Minimising the risk of disallowance and make payments accurate to within materiality for all subsidy schemes under RPA’s direct management with current indicative levels.
Further details are given in the interim RPA business plan for 2011-12, a copy of which has been placed on the RPA website. That plan, including objectives and indicators will be reviewed and updated when a longer-term strategic plan is implemented in late summer.
Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
Veterinary Residues Committee
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
On 14 October 2010, the Government announced the outcome of their review of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). This reported that the majority of DEFRA’s scientific and technical advisory bodies were to be abolished and reconstituted as expert scientific committees to provide advice on specific areas. As part of implementing these reforms, the Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC), which is a non-statutory advisory NDPB, will be reconstituted as an expert scientific committee on 14 July 2011.
The VRC will continue to support DEFRA, the devolved Administrations and the Food Standards Agency on the scope and operation of surveillance for residues of veterinary medicines in food and the significance to consumers of any residues detected.
The committee’s membership and new terms of reference can be found on the VRC’s website: www.vmd.gov.uk/vrc.
Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 18 July. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
Initiatives in the area of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)
We expect Baroness Ashton to present a report on CSDP which will be used as the basis for a discussion by Ministers. This follows an interim report which was presented to Defence Ministers at a FAC on 23 May. We are keen to support any initiatives that ensure the EU and NATO complement each other better. More generally, we will encourage the continued development of European civilian and military capabilities, and improvement to the co-ordination between EU civilian and military planning structures to help achieve a more joined up approach to crisis management. But we are opposed to the creation of any new institutions.
Southern Neighbourhood (Syria/Lebanon/Libya)
On Syria, we expect the Council to agree conclusions which will keep up the pressure on the Syrian regime to end the violence engage in meaningful reforms and take forward a genuine and inclusive national dialogue.
We also expect conclusions on Lebanon which, while we recognise the complex challenges of the country’s internal political structure, make clear our expectations that the new Government uphold their international obligations, particularly by committing to co-operate with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
And on Libya, we expect EU Ministers to take their lead on the discussion at the contact group meeting due to be held on 15 July. We may also take the opportunity to remind Ministers of the need to push ahead with implementation of the ambitious new approach to the region set out in the new European neighbourhood policy endorsed by the European Council and the FAC in June.
Climate Change and Security
Following a joint request by the Foreign Secretary and his German counterpart, Dr Westerwelle, that the FAC discuss climate change in the light of the urgent and serious threat it poses to growth and security. Foreign Ministers will have the opportunity to consider the respective roles they, the High Representative, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and National Diplomatic Services can play in responding to climate change. Our view is that there is a need for greater emphasis on this in both member states’ and the EEAS’s approaches to foreign policy. We also expect the adoption of formal conclusions.
Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
The 18 July FAC will receive a report from Baroness Ashton on the 11 July quartet meeting. We expect Ministers will want to support quartet efforts to get the Israelis and Palestinians back into direct talks. There is also likely to be a discussion of how the EU should respond to proposals for a UN vote on Palestinian statehood in September.
Pakistan
We welcome the opportunity to discuss Pakistan. We want to emphasise Pakistan’s strategic importance to the EU, and the need to re-energise the EU-Pakistan relationship. We would like conclusions which include commitments that will lead to a broader and deeper relationship and set the framework for a third EU-Pakistan summit.
Afghanistan
Discussion on Afghanistan is likely to cover a wide range of issues including security transition, the EU’s long-term engagement with Afghanistan, and the EU police mission (EU POL). We will encourage a focused discussion, emphasising the importance of the EU’s commitment to Afghanistan post-2014 and urging progress on key areas of the EU’s expertise such as governance and capacity building.
Strategic Partners
If there is time. Ministers may consider the EU’s relations with its strategic partners. They would focus in particular on Brazil and South Africa (given forthcoming EU summits with those countries in October and September respectively). They may also cover China, Russia and the US, following Baroness Ashton’s work last year to define EU priorities with those countries. We are keen that the EU identifies concrete goals, preferably using its trade levers, with each country. And that the EU places an equally high priority on its relations with India.
General Affairs Council (GAC)
Multiannual Financial Framework
The European Commission will present their proposals for the EU budget multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. The proposals can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/index_en.cfm.
This could be the opportunity to remind the Commission of the joint letter to the President of the European Commission signed by the Prime Minister and leaders from Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland in December 2011. This letter can be found at:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/12/letter-to-president-of-european-commission-58224.
Reform of the Statue of the European Court of Justice
The Court of Justice of the European Union has submitted a number of proposals for reform to improve its efficiency and, in particular, to clear the significant backlog of cases in the General Court (GC). The GC is important because it has jurisdiction to hear at first instance competition and trademark cases that are vital to the functioning of the single market. The key proposal is to increase the number of judges in the GC by 12, from 27 to 39, at a cost of an additional €13.6 million a year. While we support reform, we will have to take account of the need to deliver real budgetary restraint at EU-level.
Presentation of the Presidency’s Programme
Ministers will be given a presentation by the Polish presidency on their main priorities for the next six months. More information on the Polish presidency can be found at: http://pl2011.eu/en.
June European Council
Ministers will discuss follow-up to the June European Council, which covered migration, economic policy, north Africa and the middle east. Following the Council, the Prime Minister reported the outcomes to the House in his statement on the
“Statement on the European Council”.
The statement can be found at the following link:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2011/06/statement-on-european-council-meeting-2-65137
The conclusions of the June European Council meeting can be found at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st00/st00023.en11.pdf.
Malawi (Bilateral Relations)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to update the House on the outcome of the review of the UK’s relations with Malawi which I announced in a written statement on 28 April 2011, Official Report, column 13WS. This followed Malawi’s unwarranted decision to expel our High Commissioner.
I told the House on that occasion, the FCO had already instructed Malawi’s acting high commissioner in London to leave, which she did. Her invitation to attend the royal wedding was also rescinded.
The review covered the full range of the UK’s relations with Malawi, including migration, defence relations, and educational and cultural relations. This review has been undertaken in close consultation with the Secretary of State for International Development as it also covered development assistance. Aid from all donors accounts for one-third of the Malawian Government’s budget; the UK is one of the largest bilateral donors. The review also took into account the very significant links between Scotland and Malawi, which are an integral part of the overall relationship. The overriding principle in conducting this review was to demonstrate the serious consequences which we told Malawi would come from a decision to expel the British high commissioner, without letting the Malawian people suffer for the actions of their Government.
Our position remains that, while formal diplomatic relations continue to exist between the UK and Malawi, the UK will not appoint a new high commissioner to Malawi for the time being; nor will we accept a new high commissioner from Malawi to the UK.
We have also taken certain measures concerning our visa service for senior Malawian visitors to the UK. The present visa arrangements for all other Malawian citizens however are unaffected.
The review also considered the UK’s relations with Malawi in the context of the various international organisations to which we both belong—particularly the Commonwealth—as well as of Malawi’s relations with the European Union. The UK will not be supporting Malawian candidates for elections to international organisations of which the UK is a member for the time being.
On the issue of UK aid to Malawi, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has decided to halt all general budget support until progress has been made in economic management, but to continue the programmes which protect Malawi’s many poor people.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
EU Health Ministers met in Sopot, Poland for an informal meeting of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 5 and 6 July. I represented the UK.
There was a discussion on the prevention and treatment of communication disorders among children. Member states stressed the importance of improving access to screening for communication disorders and early intervention.
The presidency presented an item on organ donation, which focused on sharing of best practice to improve donation rates across the EU.
The presidency highlighted the risks presented by the growing availability of “designer drugs”. Member states encouraged the sharing of information to help address the issue.
Member states received an update on the recent E.coli outbreak in Germany and France and the measures put forward by the European Commission to control the marketing of seeds from Egypt.
In a discussion on health determinants, diet and physical activity. Member states emphasised the importance of addressing inequalities between and within member states, through a range of mechanisms including social, economic and behavioural change.
During a discussion on e-health. Member states outlined development at a national level and considered work at EU level.
Finally, Sweden raised the issue of the environmental impact of pharmaceutical production in third countries. This attracted support from several member states, including the UK.
"Healthy Lives, Healthy People"
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am laying before Parliament “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Update and way forward” (Cm 8132), which sets out the progress we have made in developing our vision for public health, and a timeline for completing the operational design of this work through a series of public health system reform updates.
The White Paper “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our Strategy for public health in England” (Cm7985), described a new era for public health, with a higher priority and dedicated resources. It set out that local authorities would take new responsibilities for public health, tackling the wider determinants of health, supported by a ring-fenced budget, with directors of public health leading on this work locally. A new integrated public health service, Public Health England, would bring together in one body the diverse range of public health expertise to provide public health advice and support at all levels of the system.
The White Paper generated real enthusiasm for a new approach to public health. We want to maintain this momentum, and by setting out progress to date, and clear next steps, we aim to reduce uncertainty and encourage local authorities and public health professionals to continue to plan and build the local relationships and partnerships that will be key to implementing the new public health system.
This policy statement sets out how we expect the reformed public health system to work and the progress we have made in a number of areas, including the role and functions of Public Health England as an executive agency. It sets out greater clarity about the role of the Director of Public Health within local government, including how public health advice will be provided to help inform NHS commissioning. It provides an update in relation to commissioning routes for public health funded activity and provides greater clarity around roles and responsibilities for preparedness, resilience and response to health protection incidents and emergencies. It also indicates the functions we plan to mandate of local authorities, and what general conditions we intend to place on the ring-fence grant.
The high-quality of consultation responses received also helped us to identify where we need to do further work to address concerns raised around a number of policy and implementation issues. We will continue to engage with key stakeholders to ensure that by the autumn we have developed credible policy and implementation solutions for those issues which need further development. We will produce a series of public health system reform updates to complete the operational design of the public health system including on: the public health outcomes framework; the Public Health England Operating Model, public health in local government and the role of the Director of Public Health; public health funding; and a workforce strategy.
Copies of “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Update and way forward” are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
The document is also available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthyliveshealthypeople/index.htm
Code of Practice (Examining Officers)
(12 years, 11 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 today issuing a Home Office circular to all chief constables advising them that the code of practice for examining officers introduced by order SI NO 2009/1593, following resolutions of both Houses, contains a factual inaccuracy in the TACT2 (Notice of Detention) form included as annex B. The Criminal Defence Service (General) (No.2) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI NO 712 2002) provide that the Legal Services Commission shall fund advice and assistance as it considers appropriate in relation to any person detained under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This was not reflected in the TACT2 form included in the code of practice. The Home Office circular provides a revised form, which examining officers are required to use. This advises those detained under schedule 7 that they may consult with a solicitor and that this may be at public expense (subject to the normal requirements of merit and means testing). We will lay a draft revised code of practice before Parliament in due course.
Criminal Records Bureau (Annual Report and Accounts)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
I am pleased to announce that the 2010-11 annual report and accounts for the Criminal Records Bureau is being laid before the House today and published on the CRB website. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Direct Airside Transit Regime (Yemen)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have written to the Government of the Republic of Yemen announcing that on 14 July 2011 we will be imposing a Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV) regime on Yemeni citizens who wish to transit at a UK airport.
Britain is a major hub for transit passengers travelling on long-haul flights. Since 2003 we have required certain nationalities to obtain a visa (DATV) before they travel even if they are arriving at and leaving from the same airport. This was introduced as an immigration tool to prevent people destroying their documents before claiming asylum (possibly using a false identity or nationality) on arrival at a UK airport.
The implementation of the first DATV regime helped to export the UK border and allowed us to run comprehensive checks on those transiting the UK. Since the original introduction of the DATV there has been a noticeable fall in transit passengers destroying their travel documents before claiming asylum. And where they do, the information we have collected as part of the application process (including biometrics) makes identifying and re-documenting them simpler.
Since the introduction of the DATV regime a number of countries have been added to the list of those required to obtain clearance before transiting the UK. This has been done in response to emerging counter-terrorism threats to the UK. We are already committed to reviewing the whole DATV regime when we conduct the next visa waiver test.
Recent events have highlighted Yemen as being of real and pressing concern to the international community. It was in Yemen that the Detroit bomber received his training and it was the source of the bombs disguised as toner cartridges in cargo aircraft last October. We feel that imposing a DATV regime on those Yemeni citizens who are transiting the UK is a sensible and proportionate response to the threat.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I am pleased to announce that today my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I are publishing the annual report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Copies of the report have been laid before the House and will be available in the Vote Office.
This is the seventh annual report from the IPCC. The report covers the work of the IPCC during 2010-2011 and includes a discrete chapter on the discharge of their responsibilities in respect of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Office for Judicial Complaints
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
With the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, I will today publish the annual report of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC provides support to the Lord Chief Justice and myself in our joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline.
This report is the fifth published by the OJC, and marks the end of a year which has seen the OJC transition from an arm’s-length body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, to become a part of the Judicial Office, which supports the Lord Chief Justice and senior judiciary in discharging their responsibilities.
While now a part of the Judicial Office, the OJC retains both its operational and decision-making independence and continues to report to both myself and the Lord Chief Justice on matters relating to judicial conduct and discipline. I am confident that this arrangement will realise significant administrative and organisational savings while protecting the independence of the investigatory and disciplinary process.
I am pleased to note that the OJC continues to deliver an effective complaint-handling service to all of its customers, which is both transparent and efficient; processing over 1,600 complaints and 800 inquiries in the last year. None the less, it is always possible to seek further efficiencies and improvements and to that end the Lord Chief Justice and I have agreed that the OJC should conduct a thorough review of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations to identify any areas where the disciplinary process may be improved or streamlined. That review is ongoing and the OJC will be consulting key stakeholders and inviting submissions from interested parties before providing both the Lord Chief Justice and myself with recommendations in 2012.
Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies of the report are also available on the internet at http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/publications/publications.htm.
Justice's of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I am announcing today that I have approved a recommendation by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service that the Justice of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations as amended (known as “Crombie” regulations) are to be revoked by a statutory instrument that will be laid before Parliament on the 14 July 2011.
Under arrangements dating back to 1949 justices’ clerks and their assistants are currently entitled to receive higher compensation than other civil servants—in certain circumstances—for loss of office, resettlement and retirement. We have a duty to ensure that we get value for taxpayers’ money and following consultation the Ministry of Justice has decided to revoke this entitlement.
All civil servants, including justices’ clerks and their assistants will continue to benefit from the protection of the civil service compensation scheme.
Copies of the response to consultation on the proposal to revoke the “Crombie” regulations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Members' Pensions
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I am today announcing the next step in the Government’s approach to MPs’ pensions.
On 26 July 2010, I issued a written ministerial statement (Official Report, column 70WS) on the publication of the Senior Salaries Review Body’s (SSRB) fundamental review of parliamentary pensions. This statement also set out our longer-term approach to the reform of MPs’ pensions, including our expectation that the current final salary terms of the scheme would end. The SSRB report was a thoughtful and welcome consideration of the pension arrangements for Members of Parliament. However, as recognised at the time, there had been several developments in the area that could not be ignored in reaching a sustainable conclusion on the issue.
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which achieved Royal Assent in April 2010, conferred powers on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to determine hon. Members’ salary and pensions, independently of the House. The independent determination and administration of these matters is a crucial part of the process of restoring trust in Parliament, and any decision to defer the move to independence will result in MPs continuing to determine their own remuneration, which the House has firmly rejected.
Additionally, the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness, was established in June 2010, and published its Final Report on 10 March 2011. We have consistently made clear that parliamentary pensions must be reformed in the light of the Commission’s findings and subsequent application to other public service schemes. There is no case for MPs being treated differently from other public servants on this issue.
As the next step, I will table a motion before the House rises for the summer recess. This will invite the House to support the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. The motion will propose that IPSA should introduce a new pension scheme for MPs by 2015, informed by the Commission’s findings, and their subsequent application to other public service pension schemes. In recognising the case for an increase in pensions contributions made in Lord Hutton's interim report, the motion will invite IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.
The motion, which will be debated, will also reassert the importance of independent determination of MPs’ remuneration. Subsequently, I will commence the relevant sections of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, transferring all future responsibility for MPs’ pensions to IPSA.
This approach is similar to the one followed for MPs’ pay, where the House resolved to freeze pay, before the relevant commencement order transferred responsibility to IPSA.
Once responsibility for MPs’ pensions has been transferred to IPSA, MPs will have finally relinquished the power to set the terms of their own remuneration. Given the failure of self-regulation, which so damaged Parliament’s reputation, this represents a significant step in drawing a line under the problems of the past and rebuilding public confidence.
Aviation Security
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Today I am launching a consultation on the Government’s proposals to modernise the way we regulate aviation security. Better regulation for aviation security proposes a new outcome focused, risk-based approach to regulation which builds on the successful and similar approach to aviation safety.
While the UK is recognised internationally as having one of the most effective aviation security regimes in the world, we also face a continuing threat from international and domestic terrorism. The Government’s recent strategic defence and security review set out their proposals for securing Britain in an age of uncertainty and included a commitment to improve aviation security.
The proposals in this consultation offer a new approach to the regulation of aviation security. Our current system can place significant financial burdens on the aviation industry along with inconvenience to passengers, and could be more consistent with the Government’s better regulation principles. I think we can do better—with a new regime that maintains and improves security standards but in a more efficient and passenger-friendly way.
I therefore propose that the Government should move from prescribing security processes to setting security outcomes. This will give airports and airlines greater flexibility to deliver high standards of security in ways that that are better integrated with their day-to-day business and designed around the needs of the passenger. It will allow them to adopt appropriate new technology as it become available. I want to move away from the current, highly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach where all operators run the same regime to one where industry takes a more proactive and more innovative and tailored approach to security.
This approach will also enable the regulator to operate a system of “earned autonomy”—rewarding those operators with the most robust systems of aviation security with greater trust in how they deliver the specified outcomes. Conversely, the level of scrutiny by the regulator will increase proportionately where any concerns arise about the delivery of the required outcomes.
The safety and security of passengers will remain of paramount importance to the Government, and so the new arrangements will have robust oversight procedures in place to ensure security standards are not compromised. To do this, I am proposing to require all industry operators to develop a security management system. This would demonstrate a clear commitment to providing an overall high-level of security and set out how security outcomes specified by the UK regulator and EU requirements will be delivered. Integral to this will be robust internal quality assurance and auditing arrangements which will complement the regulator’s own assurance and compliance processes.
The consultation also proposes new reporting arrangements whereby industry will regularly report to the regulator on performance and occurrences (including the rectification measures to be taken). This gives the regulator a fuller picture on which to base decisions and direct regulatory effort. I also propose to introduce a system that allows staff to report on a confidential basis any concerns relating to aviation security. These proposed arrangements will provide an additional layer of assurance.
This approach offers a new partnership between Government and the industry, one that is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards in aviation security while also improving the passenger experience.
These are complex proposals, which require further development in consultation with the aviation industry and other interested parties. The Department for Transport will be making extensive efforts to engage industry during the consultation process to explain the proposals further and to seek input.
Following the end of the consultation, the Government will then consider all responses and produce a summary report along with next steps. I will make a further statement to the House at that point.
Coastguard Modernisation
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I will be making an oral statement later today, following the Leader of the House’s business question.
Humber Bridge (Debts) Order 2011
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am pleased to announce that I have today laid the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order.2011 before Parliament.
The order provides for the interest rate payable on the debt owed by the Humber bridge board to the Department for Transport to continue to remain at the reduced rate equivalent to 4.25% on the total debt of £332 million during the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2016. The debt represents borrowing from Government for the construction of the Humber bridge and the subsequent capitalisation of annual deficits in the early years of its operation.
Without this order, the interest rate payable on that part of the debt not suspended (£275 million) would revert to 7.75%, as set by the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order 1998. The value of the interest rate reduction to the Humber bridge board amounts to £48 million over the five years, which the board can use to fund maintenance and renewals and/or to make capital repayments.
This order demonstrates a major commitment by this Government to the council taxpayers, travelling public and businesses of the Humber area. Without it, the Humber bridge board would have been obliged either to surcharge council taxpayers in the Humber area, or to increase the tolls on the bridge by as much as 60%.
The arrangement forms part of the base case for second phase of the Humber bridge review announced on 14 June, and is made separately to the process of the review, which is now under way and on which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I will make a further announcement in November.
I have stated that the reduced interest rate on the loan is the equivalent of 4.25% payable on the entire debt of £332 million. In 2011-12 this will comprise 5.13% charged on the active portion of the debt (£275 million) and nil payable on the suspended portion of the debt (£57 million). As set out in the 1998 Order, the suspended portion of the debt will progressively be added back into the active debt over the three years to 2014. The interest rate will be reduced accordingly to equate to the 4.25% on the whole debt. Therefore the rate payable on the active debt in the three years 2011-12 to 2013-14 will be 5.13%, 4.82% and 4.52% respectively.
This order is made under the provisions of the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996, and comes into force on 9 August. Upon the coming into force of this order, a revised loan agreement will be signed between the Secretary of State and the Humber bridge board.
South East Airports Taskforce
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
On 15 June 2010, the Government announced the establishment of the South East Airports Taskforce with representatives from the aviation industry to explore the scope for measures to help make the most of existing airport infrastructure and improve conditions for all users. I chaired the taskforce. Its focus was on action at our three biggest airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Today I am announcing the publication of the taskforce’s final report.
The taskforce was given a challenging remit. It had 12 months to identify operational improvements that could enhance the performance of these airports and bring benefits to passengers. The report is the culmination of a year-long programme of work across seven areas, including punctuality, security and border controls. It sets out the issues considered by the taskforce and its conclusions.
I would draw particular attention to the chapter on improving punctuality, tackling delay and strengthening resilience. The focus of this chapter is on Heathrow, which is the UK’s biggest, busiest and most capacity constrained airport. The main recommendation is that the scope for establishing a set of operational freedoms at Heathrow should be explored. These would enable the greater use of tactical measures in defined and limited circumstances to prevent or mitigate disruption and to facilitate recovery. These measures are consistent with our commitment to runway alternation at the airport and there would be no increase in the number of flights at the airport which will remain capped at current levels.
Tactical measures, such as operating twin arrivals streams for limited periods to tackle inbound delays, are already used at Heathrow; implementation of these proposals would mean greater use of such measures on days when the airport faced particular disruption. The taskforce has concluded that such an approach would deliver benefits, particularly in improving reliability, but would also mean some limited redistribution of noise when measures were applied.
The work carried out so far indicates that the proposals could result in net environmental benefits,—for example, through reducing stacking and cutting the number of unscheduled flights during the night period. However, on the limited occasions where these freedoms would operate, some communities would be likely to experience aircraft noise during current respite periods; hence the need for safeguards to ensure they are deployed only to anticipate, prevent and mitigate disruption and to facilitate recovery.
Before any commitment is made to implementing such operational freedoms, better evidence is needed of the potential benefits and impacts. I am therefore announcing a phased trial of operational freedoms at Heathrow. The trial will provide firm evidence on the benefits and impacts of these measures and will provide a basis for consultation with local communities before a decision is taken on whether the proposed additional operational freedoms should be adopted on a permanent basis and what safeguards should apply in relation to their use.
The trial will be in two phases to enable evidence to be gathered for both winter and summer operations. Following engagement with local communities, the first phase will run from November 2011 to February 2012, followed by a four-month period of initial assessment and further engagement on how the regime might be refined to mitigate any impacts of particular concern and deliver additional benefits.
The second phase will run from July 2012 to September 2012, providing the added benefit of enabling greater resilience during the London Olympic and Paralympic games when the UK’s airports will be under more pressure than normal. The trial will be undertaken by BAA, the airport operator, under the supervision of the Civil Aviation Authority, the independent aviation regulator.
BAA will be required to engage fully and transparently with relevant local authorities, communities and other stakeholders throughout the process, particularly on the monitoring of noise impacts. Once assessed, the results of the trial will form the basis for a consultation with local communities which would in due course inform the Government in deciding whether an operational freedoms regime should be adopted at Heathrow.
I am grateful to the taskforce members not only for their constructive input into the taskforce over the past few months, but also for their continuing commitment to delivering real improvements for passengers. I intend to reconvene the taskforce in a year’s time to review the progress made.
Copies of the report document are available from the Department’s website at: www.dft.gov.uk.
Work Capability Assessment
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
Today the Government will publish a call for evidence as part of Professor Malcolm Harrington’s second independent review of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
In November 2010 we published Professor Harrington’s first review, which was the first of five annual independent reviews of the WCA. Professor Harrington concluded that the WCA was not broken but made a number of recommendations to improve its fairness and effectiveness. We fully endorsed his review and have implemented the vast majority of its recommendations, with all the recommendations relating to IB reassessment already in place.
We reappointed Professor Harrington to undertake the second year review of the WCA and this call for evidence will be one of several methods used to gather information to support the review and inform its recommendations. The call for evidence is particularly interested in views and evidence about:
The implementation of Professor Harrington’s year 1 recommendations and the impact they are having;
What, if any, further work is required in future reviews; and
The face-to-face assessment.
The call for evidence runs until 16 September 2011.
Professor Harrington will make his final recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by the end of the year.
A copy of the call for evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the Department’s website.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/employment-and-support/wca-independent-review.
Informal Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The informal meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers took place on 7-8 July 2011 in Sopot, Poland. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, represented the United Kingdom.
The theme for this informal meeting was active labour market policies and reconciliation of work and family life. On the first day of the meeting, the presidency invited views on how to increase the effectiveness of pro-active employment policies through greater competition. The Commission stressed the need to improve further the efficiency of public employment services. For the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend, delivered a keynote speech explaining how, in the UK, we are using competition to help reduce the numbers of people on-out-of work benefits. He highlighted that the recently introduced Work programme aimed to help those furthest from the labour market, including providing support for people moving off incapacity benefit and those coming from the most challenging backgrounds. This support would be provided by specialist private and voluntary sector providers, rewarded on a payment-by-results approach. The funding for this programme would come from savings generated as well as from the European Social Fund.
On the second day, there were three simultaneous workshops aimed at sharing national experiences covering: reconciliation of work and family life; raising the retirement age; and solidarity between generations. The United Kingdom chose to participate in the workshop discussing reconciliation of work and family life. My hon. Friend, described the success of the right to request flexible working and how the Government plan to extend this to all employees. He further described how the United Kingdom Government are consulting on changes to its parental leave system to make it more flexible by allowing greater sharing of leave between partners and for leave to be taken in blocks rather than a continuous period. Other member states described their own domestic priorities. In conclusion, the presidency once again underlined the value of sharing experiences and stated that its family ministerial conference on 21 October would build on these discussions by focusing on reconciliation of work and family life issues including the pregnant workers directive.
Social Fund Reports
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
The Secretary of State’s annual report on the Social Fund for 2010-11 is to be laid before Parliament and published later today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
The Social Fund Commissioner’s report will also be published today and copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.
House of Lords
Young People: Creative Industries
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage young people to pursue careers in the creative industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Government support young people wishing to enter the creative industries at all levels through apprenticeships, careers advice, degree courses and business start-up schemes. We are expanding apprenticeships, including those in the creative industries, and the National Skills Academy for Creative and Cultural Skills has been successful in increasing career opportunities for young people.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she acknowledge the significant contribution that the creative industries make to our economy, with over 1.3 million jobs in the sector? Does she agree with the recent CBI report that, despite the progress that has already been made, there is a need for many more flexible apprenticeships in this sector? What are the Government doing to address the fact that informal social networks and unpaid internships are helping children from affluent backgrounds to gain jobs in the sector at the expense of those less well connected?
Baroness Wilcox
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I share her view of the importance of the creative and cultural industries. As she has pointed out, the exports alone are worth £17 billion a year and many jobs are created. When I sat down and started working out exactly what the answers were on this Question, I was amazed at just how much is going on. The Government are committed to expanding apprenticeships in this sector, which often relies on self-employed and contract work. We are providing flexibility in the delivery of apprenticeships to allow for those legitimate variations in working practice. We have to bear in mind what we are taking on, from the poet in the attic to the blockbuster moviemakers. It is a very varied group of people.
On the noble Baroness’s third question, we should ensure that all young people can get work experience or jobs based on merit to ensure the best possible talent base for the country. We have already asked employers to improve access to internships, and the Creative Industries Council will look at improving fair access and providing clearer entry and progression routes to the sector.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had used the term “arts” instead of “creative industries” in the Question to address what would really have been the same concern, will the Minister confirm that it would likely have been answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on behalf of quite another department? Can the Minister elaborate on what is likely to be the future balance of involvement and the nature of the dialogue between the culture, education and business departments regarding encouraging the arts and young people into the arts?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that the noble Earl answers his question to me very well himself. We should all be working together and we will endeavour to do so.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the William Morris Craft Fellowship. What are the Government doing to encourage young people to enter the traditional crafts?
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend talks of crafts. There are so many words to describe the subject of this Question, but the word “crafts” springs to mind. My father was himself a craftsman. What are we doing? We are making over 200 new apprenticeship schemes available and we are speaking with schools to ensure that our careers advice encourages all these craft skills for children who have those wonderful talents but maybe feel at this stage that this will not get them a job. We have to ensure that as we in this country go forward, all our children’s talents get used.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, the creative industries need creative people and creativity needs to be nurtured. The new EBacc contains no creative element at all, and it appears to be stopping young people from pursuing subjects such as art, design and computer science. Our thriving creative industries are already seeing a skills shortage. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse to revise their position on the EBacc? If they do not, the skills shortage will only get worse.
Baroness Wilcox
I am happy to answer this question. We are slimming down the curriculum in ways that enable us to spread the accessible required needs for just the things that my noble friend is talking about.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Would young people not be better assisted in pursuing careers in the creative industries if the Government were to abandon their policy of disadvantaging teaching and research in the humanities in their funding of universities?
Baroness Wilcox
That is slightly wide of the Question, but, as I understand it, we are not doing that.
Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
Does the Minister realise that the creative industries were one of the most rapidly growing sectors throughout the north-east of England and that all five of the universities there have had a very fine record and are producing some first-class graduates? Is it not a tragedy that the whole of this sector is severely cutting back in employment because of the Government’s economic strategy?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I do not see that to be the case. We do not have evidence of that at this time.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, will the noble Baroness provide us with some examples of what, in her view, are non-creative industries?
Baroness Wilcox
Well, the right reverend Prelate himself represents a particular industry, which I support, although there are some who would say maybe not.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
While associating myself entirely with the important question asked a moment ago by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, perhaps I may say that I have had a large number of children, some of whom are in what I believe is known as the creative industries, and it never occurred to me to ask the Government for advice on what career they should pursue. Since when has it been the Government’s job to do that?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that it is now being recognised that the skills and talents that will take this country forward are very broad. We are already extremely successful in the creative industries and, as the noble Baroness who asked the Question emphasised, we really should be encouraging them. This Government are determined to do so.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, will the Government make maximum use of the Cultural Olympiad and the festival of culture next year as a lever to gain the maximum benefit for our youngsters in the future? Quite a lot of money—about £97 million, as I understand it, much of it private, as is correct—is already there. Will she assure the House that we are getting the maximum leverage from that for our youngsters?
Schools: Homophobic Bullying
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the incidence of homophobic bullying in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government aim to help teachers to promote good behaviour through new legislation that is being introduced in the Education Bill. We have updated our advice to schools to make it clear that prejudice-based bullying such as homophobic bullying should not be tolerated. This advice signposts schools to specialist organisations, such as Stonewall, that can support them. Accountability in how schools tackle bullying will also be sharpened through the new Ofsted inspections framework.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I welcome the Minister’s response. However, we need more than just words; we need tools to do the job. Will the Minister therefore give an undertaking that Ofsted will investigate how schools respond to homophobic bullying when visiting them in future?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Without wishing to be too prescriptive about everything that Ofsted will look for, as the noble Lord will know the whole purpose of our slimming down the inspection framework for Ofsted to concentrate on four core areas—including behaviour and safety—is precisely so that they have more time to look for the kind of issues that the noble Lord is concerned about. The framework that we are putting in place will sharpen the focus on behaviour and the way in which Ofsted looks for bullying of all kinds.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any bullying for any reason is absolutely obnoxious and should be assailed and stopped wherever it happens?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend. If one is on the receiving end of bullying, no matter what the motivation is it feels pretty horrid.
Lord Laming
Will the Minister reassure the House that the issue of bullying, including homophobic bullying, is part of teacher training? Ofsted inspections are fine but are only once every few years, whereas teachers are there every day. Their training therefore ought to emphasise the importance of identifying this behaviour very early on, and the skills to deal with it.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with the noble Lord. He may know that some proposed new standards for qualifications have been published today by a group that has been advising the department. Those standards will then work through to what the initial teacher training providers provide. However, the noble Lord is obviously right; we want to make sure that teachers responsible for classrooms are properly and broadly trained in maintaining a good environment in which to learn, which will include an important focus on maintaining order and discipline and trying to minimise bullying.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I think it is probably the Labour Party’s turn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The Minister invested in his Answer considerable confidence in Ofsted inspections, but he will know that in Clause 39 of the Education Bill, which is currently going through your Lordships’ House, the Secretary of State is taking powers to categorise classes of school that will no longer have to receive regular Ofsted inspections. What is the logic of removing schools from those regular inspections, given the problem of bullying that has been reflected here today? It is also known that a considerable proportion of category 1 schools are reduced in category on subsequent inspections.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The objective of the Bill, as in a number of areas, is to try to have a proportionate approach to inspection that is backed up by safeguards. I recognise that schools in an outstanding category can fall out of it, which is why Ofsted will have powers to carry on not only thematic assessments but risk assessments. Any member of the public or local authorities who have concerns of the sort that the noble Lord raises will be able to go to Ofsted and ask for an inspection.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, a few years ago when I was a councillor, I chaired a scrutiny review into the wider issue of bullying. We found that where there is evidence of homophobic bullying, there is often a wider issue in the social environment of the school of bullying in general against children with disabilities and other issues. Does the Minister agree that schools should use organisations such as Beatbullying to combat cyberbullying on Facebook and that sort of thing, which is now very widespread and insidious? Does he also agree that we need greater consistency in standards in schools, including in state-funded faith schools where this is often a difficult subject, and of course academies?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree very much that specialist organisations of the sort to which my noble friend refers can play an important part. I also agree about the dangers to children—and, indeed, to staff—of cyberbullying, which is a growing problem. That is one of the reasons why the Government are proposing measures in the Education Bill to tackle that problem. On faith schools, my note of slight caution to my noble friend is that one has to be very careful in making generalisations about whole categories of school. Nearly one-third of the schools in our country are faith schools. Many of them have outstanding records on behaviour, discipline and their work in promoting community cohesion. However, I agree with my noble friend’s underlying point that one needs as much outside help as one can to tackle these problems thoroughly and consistently.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, does the Minister agree that bullying in schools, as with bullying by newspaper tycoons, needs to be challenged and punished?
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me when this problem arose? It did not happen when I was at school, or I suspect when many of us in this House were at school. What has precipitated it?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The truth is linked to the earlier point raised by my noble friend Lady Knight. Bullying comes in many forms. Types, categories, natures and methods of bullying change over time. When my noble friend Lord Tebbit was at school, homophobic bullying may well not have been an issue. However, it is more of an issue today.
Health: Diabetes
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they are taking to help patients with diabetes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
To support the NHS in improving outcomes, NICE has published a quality standard for diabetes, providing an authoritative definition of good-quality care and building on the existing national service framework. This year, the NHS operating framework specifically highlights the need to do more to improve in-patient care for people with diabetes, the availability of structured education and retinopathy screening for everyone with diabetes, and access to therapies, including insulin pumps.
Lord Morris of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he aware that 1.4 million people with diabetes are now at risk of preventable blindness, over a million of kidney disease, and up to 8,600 a year of having a foot amputated due to delayed diagnosis and treatment; and that doctors of distinction in this specialty insist that, with adequate resources, they could do much more to maximise prevention and treatment? Knowing as I do the depth of the Minister’s own concern for this policy area, when does he expect to be able to announce specific new measures to help the rapidly increasing number of children afflicted?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Ministers often express thanks to those noble Lords who table Questions but I owe a particular debt to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for highlighting one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. He is absolutely right in all that he has said. I alight particularly on his point about prevention. We are committed to preventing type 2 diabetes. All our work on promoting an active lifestyle and tackling obesity will support that aim. The NHS Health Check programme has the potential to prevent many cases of type 2 diabetes and, as the noble Lord said, to identify thousands more cases earlier in their development. The Change4Life programme—the campaign that started under the previous Government, which we are continuing —raises awareness of maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active. A great deal of work is going on in this area, which is one of the major focuses of our public health programme.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, the Minister has indicated that there is a clear positive correlation between the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes on the one hand and the rising incidence of obesity on the other. What action are the Government taking to advise the population at large of the dangers of overeating?
Earl Howe
I have already mentioned the Change4Life programme, which is designed to raise awareness across a number of public health areas, including obesity and overeating. I think also of the Healthy Schools programme, which instils the need to eat healthily and take exercise in youngsters at an early age. As the noble Lord will know, there is no magic bullet for the problem of obesity. It is something that must be addressed in a variety of ways through public health programmes and general practice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, does the Minister agree that foot ulceration precedes 85 per cent of amputations? A study in Southampton showed that, by keeping people in hospital and treating them well through preventing foot ulcers, over 36 months not only did patient outcomes improve but the National Health Service saved £1.2 million in in-patient time.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have an astonishing figure in my brief. On average, 73 amputations of lower limbs occur every week in England because of complications to do with diabetes. It is estimated that, with the right care, 80 per cent of amputations carried out on patients suffering from diabetes would be preventable. That is the scale of the challenge. We are clear that this is a major issue for diabetes. NICE has published guidelines on in-patient management of people with diabetic foot ulcers and infection. That is vital because amputations are often preceded by ulceration. That is also why the national clinical director for diabetes considers diabetic foot care and prevention to be a major priority.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that the retinopathy screening that was introduced by the previous Labour Government, and which has been so successful, will continue apace to match his own ambition of ensuring prevention by identifying diabetic disease of the eye at an early stage?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is quite right. England, along with the devolved Administrations, leads the world in this area. It is the first time that a population-based screening programme has been introduced on such a large scale. We are committed to continuing it. More people with diabetes are now being offered retinopathy screening than ever before and to higher standards, despite the increasing number of people with diabetes. The latest data that I have show that 98 per cent of people with diabetes have been offered screening for diabetic retinopathy during the past 12 months.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, is the Minister aware that people with diabetes are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital as people without diabetes? Will he undertake to look at best-practice models, such as that of the University Hospitals of Leicester, where diabetes specialist nurses have been stationed in the accident and emergency department and are able, in many cases, to advise against admission to hospital and provide more appropriate treatment and support? This is believed to have saved the University Hospitals of Leicester around £100,000. Diabetes UK estimates that, if rolled out nationally, such good practice might save the NHS up to £100 million a year.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of that excellent beacon of good practice in Leicester, which is an example that we welcome. It is an approach that is already being taken in other parts of the country. The NICE quality standard for diabetes states that people who have the condition, and who have experienced hypoglycaemia that requires medical attention, should be referred to a specialist diabetes team for advice and support to reduce admissions in exactly the way that my noble friend described.
Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their decision to award the Thameslink rolling stock contract to Siemens.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the competition for the Thameslink trains was designed and launched in 2008 in accordance with EU treaty obligations and UK public procurement regulations. I am satisfied that the proper process as originally advised to the bidders has been complied with. Both bids have been treated equitably and fairly in the process. The Siemens bid demonstrated that it offered better value for money against the published criteria and consequently the Government will not be reviewing the decision.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Earl for his response. When the Prime Minister and his colleagues came to Derby recently we heard lots about supporting engineering and manufacturing and creating jobs, but there is a wide gap between the words and the deeds. Why were the credit ratings of the two companies such a determining factor? This decision means that the last train maker in the UK—a maker of quality products and inward investor to this country—and the 1,500 people who will lose their jobs, whose families live in and around Derby, never stood a chance. That is a disgrace.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the ability of bidders to raise the finance. However, the model selected by the previous Administration is a good one and we support it. It is important to remember that the Siemens bid will also create employment in the UK, although I have to accept that it will not be as much.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on Tuesday, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire said:
“Over the months … we have been waiting for the decision, I personally lobbied the Secretary of State for Transport … Unfortunately, he told me every … time that I was not to worry because Bombardier was fine … as the company had lots of orders and would have no problem going forward. That is clearly not the case, so he misread the situation. I hope that he feels somewhat apologetic about the decision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/11; col. 10WH.]
That statement by the Conservative MP gives the game away. If the Secretary of State will not review the decision, what will he now do in negotiations with Siemens as the preferred bidder to maximise the number of additional jobs that it creates in this country to compensate for the thousands of jobs that will be lost in Derby and elsewhere in the rail supply chain as a result of the complacency and misjudgment which have now been revealed by one of his own MPs to have been behind the Secretary of State’s decision?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, any job losses are highly regrettable. However, Bombardier has previously advised the department that it expected to make redundancies at this time regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement order as Bombardier’s Derby factory is currently operating at peak capacity and several of these orders come to an end later this year. Noble Lords will know that there are several other rolling stock procurement contracts in the offing.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it is crucial that we keep in this country the engineering skills to design and build trains. Are there any planned negotiations with Siemens and Hitachi to bring those kinds of jobs to the UK? In the case of Bombardier, has he considered extending some of its existing contracts, for example to provide electrical units to the train sets it has already built, and that are much needed on the Great Western, Northern and Southern lines and would help preserve that skill base in this country?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on the last point, I am not sighted on that, but I will write to the noble Baroness if I have anything to add. There is an issue about the capacity for Bombardier to design rolling stock in the UK, but it is a matter for that company whether or not it maintains a capacity.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are the Government aware that under the EU treaties there is no enforceable sanction against a country that refuses to pay a Brussels fine? So, why do we not behave like the French and award the Thameslink contract to Bombardier? Do the Government further agree that there would not even be the slightest risk, alas, that we would be ejected from the EU if we failed to pay any eventual fine? So, why do we not just go ahead and do it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the United Kingdom has never been fined in respect of an EU infraction and Her Majesty’s Government have no intention of allowing that to happen. I hope that the noble Lord fully accepts the benefits of competition. It would be most peculiar to keep accepting bids that were not competitive.
Lord Broers
Does the Minister agree with me that this is just a symptom of a long-term problem whereby we have failed to co-ordinate our R&D expenditures, our government procurement and our encouragement of industry to put itself in a competitive position? We really must co-ordinate these things across the board so that our bid is clearly the strongest. I declare my interest as chairman of the Transport Knowledge Transfer Network of the Technology Strategy Board, which is trying to do these things but with precious little resource.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Another point concerns the need to schedule work such as rolling stock and other projects in order to avoid a situation of feast and famine. The McNulty report addresses that issue.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2011
Lord De Mauley
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 21 March, 23 May, 13 and 20 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, 23rd, 24th and 25th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 June
Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the draft orders laid before the House on 9 and 10 June be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
11:54 - Division on Amendment 244A - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 244A disagreed.
12:53 - Division on Amendment 305ZB - Ayes: 114 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 305ZB disagreed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Exemption from civil proceedings for trespass brought by offender
(1) Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (civil proceedings for trespass to the person brought by offender) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) at the end insert “, and”.
(3) After subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) at the material time, the defendant was not a constable acting in the course of his duty.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, the purpose of my amendment is to amend Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to exclude civil proceedings against the police for trespass against the person occasioned during an arrest. Section 329 was designed to cover a situation where an individual harms another while that other is attempting to commit a crime against the individual. It was enacted in response to the case of Tony Martin, who shot two intruders to his home who he thought were attempting a burglary. Section 329 provides that the court must give permission for an offender to bring a civil suit for an assault committed at the time and in the circumstances that the offender committed the act for which he was convicted. There was a great deal of public disquiet that a person engaged in burglary should be able to sue the householder who had injured him.
Under Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the defendant has a defence to proceedings brought by the injured offender if he believed that the offender was about to commit an offence, was in the course of committing an offence or had committed an offence and that the defendant’s actions were necessary to defend himself or another person, protect or recover property, prevent or stop the offence or catch or secure the conviction of the offender, but only if his action was not grossly disproportionate. In other words, it was designed to protect the householder who reacted instinctively against an intruder into his home and injured that person, so that no suit could lie in the civil courts unless the force used was completely disproportionate. Unfortunately, it appears that only the police have taken advantage of Section 329 when they injure an individual in the course of arresting him.
To cite the judgment in Anthony Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—2009, EWCA Civ 18, paragraph 7—the standard historically set for police action and
“painstakingly established in the course of two centuries and more, and fundamental to the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country”,
is that,
“an arrest must be objectively justified and that no more force may be used in effecting it than is reasonably necessary”.
When a police officer arrests an individual, he may, in the historic development of the common law, use no more force than is reasonable. That was replaced by Section 329 which requires only that the police do not use “grossly disproportionate” force in arresting and that arrests are not in bad faith, even though they may be entirely unreasonable. In the Adorian case, Anthony Adorian suffered injuries in being arrested which were so severe that the force medical examiner concluded that he was unfit to be detained. His class of injury is associated with head-on car crashes or falls from a significant height, but the claimant, Adorian, had been walking at the moment of arrest and, as the judge said in his decision,
“there is at present no evidence suggesting either that he has brittle bones or that anything happened following his arrest which is capable of explaining the injuries”.
When Section 329 was debated in the course of the passage of the 2003 Act, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, introducing it, said that it,
“would strengthen the civil law to improve protection for victims of crime against civil claims for damages by offenders”,
and that it,
“benefits third parties who are not the direct victim of the offence, but who may have intervened to protect the victim or deter the criminal”.—[Official Report, 11/11/03; cols. 1307-8.].
There was no mention during the introduction of Section 329 in 2003 of the police. Nothing was said about the police.
Lord Justice Sedley, giving the judgment in the Adorian case to which I referred, said:
“Conscious of art. IX of the Bill of Rights 1689, we say only that there is no indication that Parliament was aware, much less intended, that what it was enacting would have this effect”.
Nobody thought that Section 329 would be used by police who had used unreasonable force in effecting the arrest of an individual. So there is a mismatch between criminal and civil proceedings as far as the police are concerned. It is a defence to a criminal charge of assaulting a police officer to show that you are protecting yourself against unreasonable force on the part of the police. In that situation, the police cannot argue that although the force was unreasonable, it was not grossly excessive. That is on the criminal side. But if the same person who had been arrested unreasonably by the police tried to sue them for civil trespass to the person, the police could and do rely on Section 329 and will succeed unless the claimant shows not that their actions were unreasonable—that an unreasonable amount of force had been used—but that that their actions were grossly disproportionate. In other words, a test to be applied for the householder defending himself against intruders has only been utilised, as far as research can pinpoint it, by the police to defend themselves against civil cases.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I can be very brief and start by saying how grateful the House should be to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for explaining this amendment so clearly. We support the amendment. It seems sensible; and it seems equally sensible for the Government, when a sensible amendment is put before them, to react favourably. It would cost them nothing to accept the amendment and would put right something that has been slightly wrong in this section of the 2003 Act. As the noble Lord said, this is a classic example of unintended consequences. His analysis of the law seems to us to be correct and it would be sensible for the Government to accept the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for having sent a letter to all interested parties on 24 June, included in which is a part that addresses this particular issue. She argued that no formal consultation had taken place between the police and the Government although there had been some informal consultation. She suggested that the Government would not give way on this amendment but we will wait for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to answer for the Government. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, were minded to push this extremely sensible amendment to a vote, we would support it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this amendment is near identical to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, during Committee stage of this Bill, and to which we gave a fairly full response at the time, so I will be brief. We promised the noble Lord in my response at the time that we would give the matter further consideration. Having done so, I am afraid that the advice we have received is that we remain unconvinced that we want to make an amendment that would make it easier for a convicted offender to sue the police for damages until we hear good answers to the questions and issues that I mentioned in Committee and which I will not repeat here.
We have looked at this again and take the view that the previous Government also took when the issue was raised in 2009. The House should be very clear that Section 329 does not give the police carte blanche to use disproportionate force. They are still subject to the criminal law which permits only reasonable force. All that Section 329 does is raise the bar by making it more difficult for criminals to get financial benefit from situations where they were the ones committing an imprisonable offence. It is reasonable and fair to treat a person who holds the office of constable in the same way for these purposes as any other member of the public. We should not rush to the assumption that it is an unintended consequence for the police to enjoy the protection of Section 329. As I have suggested, the police will inevitably be the people most likely to be able to invoke Section 329, given that their job involves confronting people who are in the course of committing imprisonable offences. The text of Section 329 supports this since subsection (5) specifically extends the protection to people who believe their act was necessary to
“apprehend, or secure the conviction, of the claimant after he had committed an offence”.
I therefore remain unconvinced that an amendment to Section 329 of the 2003 Act in the way proposed by the noble Lord is the right way forward. I hope that after the reassurance that we have again considered this issue the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I note that my noble friend Lord Lester raised this matter in the Policing and Crime Bill 2009, and that at that stage undertakings were given by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, on behalf of the then Government to consult the police on the unintended consequences. That was reiterated on Report, and in February of last year, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that consultation had not yet taken place, and it still has not taken place. I do not think that it is appropriate that this matter should be put on the shelf until we have another Bill into which it can be inserted. It is very important that the police should not be able to shelter behind a provision that clearly was not designed for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just acknowledged. Consequently, I propose to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Browning
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, the government amendments to Schedule 14 correct a number of drafting errors that have come to light during the passage of the Bill. The changes are necessary in order to ensure that the changes to the existing police complaints legislation work properly. I assure noble Lords that in the main they are technical, drafting points that, for example, correct incorrect numbering and add consequential amendments that were missed. I realise that there are other amendments for debate in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 256 in this group. Before doing so, I apologise to the House that I may be unable to stay until the end of the debate. I have to attend a special meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority where the commissioner is coming to answer questions about the events surrounding the various police investigations into the News of the World.
The amendment relates to the handling of complaints against senior police officers in London.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I apologise to my noble friend Lady Doocey and I am most grateful to her for allowing me to intervene. This is the first time that I have heard a Member move their amendment and say that they might not be here at the end of the debate. Clearly, the Minister has to be in a position to respond to my noble friend. Perhaps she will consider her position and either continue and undertake to remain until the end of the debate on the amendment, or perhaps ask one of her very able colleagues to move the amendment on her behalf. I am concerned that we should not deviate from the normal practices of the House. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may be about to offer her assistance.
Baroness Hamwee
I hope that I can reassure the House. In discussions with my noble friend, neither of us realised that we would reach this group quite so soon. My noble friend should be able to be here until well after we have got through this group—unless she is going to take an hour and a half, in which case there will be other problems.
Baroness Doocey
I apologise to the House if I have got it wrong yet again and I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee. My amendment relates to the handling of complaints against senior police officers in London. The Bill proposes that responsibility for complaints against senior ACPO officers—that is, officers below the rank of deputy commissioner—should be moved from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. My concern is not that this would make the commissioner responsible for employing, promoting and disciplining officers—I do not have a major problem with that—but that it would also make him responsible for sackings and, crucially, for hearing appeals against his own rulings. It would remove all the elements of independence and transparency that the Metropolitan Police Authority currently provides and would in effect make the commissioner judge, jury and executioner.
The proposals are deeply flawed because they concentrate too much power in the hands of the commissioner without any proper checks and balances. There is also no effective framework to safeguard impartiality. I am aware of the Government's response to the argument. They argue that it is commonplace for complaints to be decided within an organisation rather than by an external arbiter. However, this fails to appreciate that police officers are in a unique position. They are officers of the Crown who have the power to detain members of the public and to take away their freedom through arrest. Consequently, there is no valid analogy with how other organisations—even the Armed Forces—deal with complaints, conduct, dismissals and appeals. It is in the interest of the police that they should be able to demonstrate an independent element in the assessment of the seriousness and reputational risks of allegations made against their most senior ranks. The Bill envisages allowing appeals to the IPCC, but only at the end of the process. That is no substitute for an independent review of whether standards of conduct may have fallen below those that the outside world would recognise as proper.
Lack of independence also creates another problem. A very likely consequence of the new system is an increase in the number of complaints against the commissioner for failing properly to investigate complaints against ACPO officers under his command. If those making complaints against a senior officer feel that the issue has not been properly or sufficiently well dealt with in the first instance, they will almost certainly lodge a complaint against the chief officer. The whole rigmarole in turn creates an increased possibility of legal challenge.
I believe there is a more fundamental problem. In any closed institution, such as the police, it is common for custom and practice to become entrenched. An independent element is vital to provide a counterbalance and to ensure due process. It is worth considering the virtues of the current system for handling complaints. At present the Metropolitan Police Authority hears complaints through its professional standards cases sub-committee and there is a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal. This current system is not an accident of history. It evolved to address concerns about the perceived lack of independence and accountability in how complaints and conduct matters had been handled previously. Are we really confident that policing has matured sufficiently to deal with these concerns? The Government seem to be ignoring the lessons of the past and are therefore likely to repeat the errors of the past.
Since the Bill abolishes the Metropolitan Police Authority, the purpose of my amendment is to restore equivalent safeguards to the new arrangements. The amendment would, within London, make the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the relevant appeals body. It is also essential that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has statutory access to all information and systems where complaints are recorded. Without this, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime will be totally reliant on the commissioner advising it of complaint or conduct matters. It would also be unable to discharge the functions proposed in the Bill to ensure that chief constables have fulfilled their duty in the handling of such complaints. The Government’s proposals do no favours to the PCC. They expose him or her to accusations—unjustified, one would hope—of conflict of interest, bias and favouritism. This amendment would avoid these pitfalls without in any way affecting the proper authority of the PCC and the correct limits to his or her discretion. I therefore commend this amendment as a means of preserving the necessary elements of independence, transparency and impartiality. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I understand the thrust of the noble Baroness’s argument, but it is interesting that in her amendment she seems to be proposing that outside the Metropolitan Police area the chief constable still carries out that function. I wonder why she has not amended the situation outside London. The logic of what she is saying is that if it is the MOPC in relation to the Metropolitan Police area, it would presumably be the police and crime commissioner who would do the same thing in other areas. I should be grateful if she would clarify that point for me.
Baroness Doocey
I can only plead ignorance and apologise. My amendment was meant specifically to deal with London and I do not think I was sufficiently good at checking that the final version of the amendment dealt just with London. I crave your Lordships’ indulgence.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that. She has raised an important matter of principle and it will be interesting to see what response the Minister gives. If it were a sympathetic response, in which we had an opportunity at Third Reading to discuss this again, she might wish to look at the wording of the amendment. That depends on the Minister.
The principle that the noble Baroness has enunciated must be right. I hope she will pursue this. As for the government amendments, we, of course, welcome them.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I have a query in relation to Amendment 245. A number of years ago, I was a member of the complaints committee of Northumbria Police Authority. I well remember being advised that every complaint that was written down was provided to the committee to see, whether or not it was regarded as spurious and whether or not action had been taken or was going to be taken. We were given all the original correspondence and a summary of the action that had been or would be taken. That system seemed to work well.
However, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification on a point in the Bill. Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 14 to the Bill substitutes paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 with a new sub-paragraph which states:
“Where a complaint is made to the Commission, it shall give notification of the complaint to the appropriate authority”.
So far, so good, but it then states:
“But the Commission need not give that notification if the Commission considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify its not being given”.
It is not clear to me, but it may be made clear by regulations or other means, what the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is. Years ago, I was in a position where every complaint was written down and was provided to the complaints committee. We need to be reassured that a structure is not being created whereby complaints made are simply not acted upon because there are deemed to be exceptional circumstances that justify there being no further progress on them.
Baroness Browning
My noble friend’s amendment would mean that the responsibility for dealing with appeals in relation to low-level complaints against the Metropolitan Police would be handled by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime rather than the responsibility resting with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. While the Government recognise that giving the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime responsibility for dealing with appeals against the handling of low-level complaints is one way of providing some independent scrutiny of such matters, we are not persuaded that the duty to consider individual appeals should rest with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
It is commonplace for complaints to be decided—as the noble Baroness said, because I think she has heard me say this before—within an organisation rather than by an external arbiter. In practice, the chief officer will not be hearing an appeal against his own decision. The duties will be delegated so that, for example, the initial decision is taken by the line manager of the officer complained against and the appeal is conducted by the professional standards directorate. A complainant who feels that an appeal has not been properly considered will have further routes of redress, first to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, which can direct the chief officer to look again at the matter, and secondly to the courts if the decision is irrational or unfair.
The Government consider that these safeguards are sufficient and achieve the same effect as this amendment suggests. Further, we are concerned that giving the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime responsibility for hearing all low-level complaints against the Metropolitan Police would place a significant burden on the office and distract it from its core duties of securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective force and holding the commissioner to account for the exercise of his or her functions.
As a final point, the amendment would mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already identified to my noble friend, that the police complaints regime would operate differently in London from the rest of England and Wales where low-level appeals would remain the responsibility of the chief constable.
With regard to the interpretation of “exceptional circumstances” raised by my noble friend Lord Shipley, rather than giving a detailed explanation off the top of my head, I will take advice and write to him about it. I hope that will be of help to the House. On this basis, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness Browning
“(6) In consequence of the amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)—
(a) in section 12(2) (complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies), omit “, paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 3”;(b) in section 29(1) (interpretation of Part 2), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of “recordable conduct matter”.”
“(3) In section 22 (power of the Commission to issue guidance), in subsection (5)(c), omit sub-paragraph (ii) (and the word “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (i)).”.”
“(6) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) The appropriate authority shall notify the complainant —
(a) that the appropriate authority has decided to handle the complaint as permitted by sub-paragraph (1) (in a case where the appropriate authority is not required to apply for permission under sub-paragraph (1A) to so handle the complaint); or(b) about the making of the application under sub-paragraph (1A) (in a case where the appropriate authority makes such an application).”.”
“(5) In paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule 3, for “10(4)(b)” substitute “10(4D)”.”
“(5) In paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule 3, for “11(3)(b)” substitute “11(3E)”.”
“(9) In sub-paragraph (9)—
(a) for “Commission” (in the first three places) substitute “relevant appeal body”;(b) for “considers appropriate, the Commission shall” substitute “considers appropriate—(a) sub-paragraph (9ZA) applies if the Commission is the relevant appeal body; or(b) sub-paragraph (9ZB) applies if the chief officer of police is the relevant appeal body.(9ZA) The Commission shall—”(9A) Before sub-paragraph (9A) insert—
“(9ZB) The chief officer of police shall take such action as the chief officer thinks appropriate in relation to the bringing of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the matters dealt with in the report.
(9ZC) If disciplinary proceedings are brought by virtue of sub-paragraph (9ZB), it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to ensure that they are proceeded with to a proper conclusion.”.”
Baroness Browning
“Chief officers of policeCurrent chief officers to remain in post1 (1) At the relevant commencement time a person who, immediately before that time, is in post as the existing chief officer of the police force for a police area becomes the new chief officer of that police force.
(2) Where a person has, prior to the relevant commencement time, accepted an appointment as the existing chief officer of the police force for a police area which is to come into effect at a time (the “effective time“) which falls at or after the relevant commencement time, that appointment is to take effect at the effective time as an appointment as the new chief officer of that police force.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is without prejudice to any right of the person appointed not to take up the appointment.
Transfer of rights and liabilities2 At the relevant commencement time, all rights and liabilities which immediately before that time were rights and liabilities of the existing chief officer of the police force for a police area are to transfer to the new chief officer of that police force.
Relevant legislative provisions”
“Interpretation3A In this Part “relevant commencement time” means—
(a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the time when section 3 comes into force in relation to that area;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the time when section 5 comes into force.Part 1AInitial transfer from police authoritiesTransfer of property, rights and liabilities3B (1) At the relevant commencement time, all property, rights and liabilities which immediately before that time were property, rights and liabilities of the existing police authority for a police area are to transfer to, and by virtue of this paragraph vest in, the new policing body for that police area.
(2) This paragraph does not apply to any rights or liabilities under a contract of employment (which are dealt with in paragraph 3C).
Transfer of staff3C (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), this paragraph applies to any person who immediately before the relevant commencement time is a member of the staff of the existing police authority for a police area (the “existing employer”).
(2) A contract of employment between a person to whom this paragraph applies and the existing employer is to have effect from the relevant commencement time as if originally made between that person and the new policing body for the police area in relation to which the existing employer was established (the “new employer”).
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not break the continuity of a person’s employment and accordingly such a person’s period of employment with the existing employer counts as a period of employment with the new employer for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (2)—
(a) all the existing employer’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with a contract to which that sub-paragraph applies are by virtue of this paragraph transferred to the new employer at the relevant commencement time; and(b) anything done before that date by or in relation to the existing employer in respect of that contract or the employee shall be deemed from that date to have been done by or in relation to the new employer.(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) are without prejudice to any right of a member of staff to terminate the contract of employment if a substantial change is made to the person’s detriment in the person’s working conditions; but no such right arises by reason only of the change in employer effected by this paragraph.
(6) Where a person—
(a) has, prior to the relevant commencement time, entered into a contract of employment with an existing police authority which is to come into effect at or after that time; and(b) would, if the contract had come into effect before that date, have been a person to whom this paragraph applies,that person is to be treated as a person to whom this paragraph applies.(7) A person who would (but for this sub-paragraph) be treated as being dismissed by the operation of this paragraph (whether by an enactment or otherwise) is to be treated as not being so dismissed.
(8) Sub-paragraph (7) does not apply to a person who, by virtue of sub-paragraph (5), does not become an employee of a new policing body.
(9) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 3D.
Police civilians3D (1) The new policing body for a police area—
(a) is to have, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), relevant powers to arrange for the new chief officer of the police force for that area to discharge functions of that body; and(b) must exercise those powers for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).(2) That purpose is securing that the police civilian members of staff of that new policing body are under the direction and control of that chief officer.
(3) Any arrangements made in compliance with section 15(2) of the Police Act 1996 between the existing police authority for a police area and the existing chief officer of the police force for that area which are in force immediately before the relevant time are to have effect at and after that time as if made under this paragraph between the new policing body for that area and the new chief officer of that police force.
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to a person who—
(a) immediately before the relevant commencement time, is a police civilian member of the staff of an existing police authority, and(b) at that time becomes a member of the staff of the new policing body for a police area by virtue of paragraph 3C.(5) For as long as the person continues to be a member of the staff of that body, the person is to be—
(a) employed as a police civilian member of that staff, and(b) under the direction and control of the new chief officer of the police for that area.(6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not prevent the new policing body from making arrangements with the person for the person to cease to be a police civilian member of staff of that body (whether or not the person remains a member of the staff of that body).
(7) After the relevant commencement time, a new policing body may, for either of the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (8), make arrangements—
(a) with any member of the staff the body who is not a police civilian member of staff to become a police civilian member of that staff, or(b) with a person who is not a member of that body’s staff to become a police civilian member of that staff.(8) In relation to the new policing body for a police area those purposes are—
(a) replacing police civilian members of staff of the existing police authority for that area who did not become members of the staff of the new policing body in accordance with paragraph 3C;(b) replacing police civilian members of staff of the new policing body who have ceased to be police civilian members of staff of that body otherwise than by virtue of a transfer scheme under Part 2 of this Schedule; or(c) to supplement the police civilian members of staff of the new policing body.(9) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) are subject to—
(a) any provision included in a collaboration agreement under section 22A of the Police Act 1996, and(b) section 24(3A) of that Act (aid of one police force by another).(10) In this paragraph—
(a) “relevant powers” means powers corresponding to those conferred by sections 101 and 107 of the Local Government Act 1972 on police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996; (b) references to a police civilian member of staff of an existing police authority or a new policing body are references to a member of the staff of that authority or body who is employed solely to assist the police force maintained by that authority or body;(c) the chief officers’ powers of direction and control referred to include powers of engagement and dismissal.Seconded staff3E In the case of a person who, immediately before the relevant commencement time, is seconded to the existing police authority for a police area, the secondment is to have effect, after that time, as a secondment to the new policing body for that police area.
Interpretation3F In this Part “relevant commencement time” means—
(a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the time when section 1 comes into force in relation to that area;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the time when section 4 comes into force.Part 2Subsequent transfer by new policing bodyPower to direct new policing body to make transfer scheme4 (1) The Secretary of State may direct a new policing body—”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“5A (1) The Secretary of State may direct a new policing body—
(a) to modify a transfer scheme made by that body, and(b) to submit such a scheme to the Secretary of State for approval.(2) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 4 apply to a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as they apply to a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4.
(3) In the application of paragraph 4(2) to (5) by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) references to paragraph 4(1)(b) have effect as references to sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph;(b) references to the making of a scheme have effect as references to the modification of a scheme;(c) references to a scheme have effect as references to a scheme as modified.(4) The Secretary of State may modify a transfer scheme made by a new policing body if—
(a) the authority does not comply with a direction given to it under sub-paragraph (1), or(b) the Secretary of State decides not to approve the modified scheme submitted by the body.(5) A scheme modified by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (4) is to be treated as if modified (and made) by the new policing body.
(6) A scheme modified in accordance with this paragraph is to be deemed for all purposes to have come into force with those modifications.”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“(3) A transfer scheme may confer functions on any person (including the Secretary of State).”
(a) ceases to be a member of the staff of an existing police authority, and(b) becomes a member of the staff of a new policing body.(4) Section 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (politically restricted posts) does not apply to the person for as long as the person—
(a) continues to be a member of the staff of the new policing body, and(b) carries out duties which are the same, or substantially the same, as the duties the person carried out as a member of the staff of the existing police authority.”
“(1A) The replacement of an existing chief officer, the transfer or abolition of the functions of an existing chief officer, and the transfer of the rights and liabilities of an existing chief officer, do not affect anything done before the replacement, transfer or abolition.
(1B) The transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of a new policing body do not affect anything done before the transfer.”
“Foreign property etc: perfection of vesting15A (1) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 414 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (foreign property, rights and liabilities: perfection of vesting) apply in any case where a transfer by or under this Act provides for the transfer of foreign property, rights or liabilities.
(2) In the application of those provisions by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) references to a transfer or pension instrument have effect as references to the transfer by or under this Act; and(b) references to the transferor and the transferee are to be construed accordingly.Transfers: supplementary provision15B (1) All property, rights and liabilities to which a statutory transfer applies are to be transferred by that transfer, notwithstanding that they may be or include—
(a) property, rights and liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred, or(b) rights and liabilities under enactments.(2) The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer scheme include—
(a) property, rights and liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred, or(b) rights and liabilities under enactments.(3) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a statutory transfer or a transfer scheme (whether or not any consent required to the transfer has been obtained).
(4) No right to terminate or vary a contract or instrument shall operate or become exercisable, and no provision of a contract or relevant document, shall operate or become exercisable or be contravened, by reason of any transfer by virtue of a statutory transfer or a transfer scheme.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above have effect in relation to—
(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property, or(b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property,as they have effect in relation to a transfer of land or other property.(6) A transfer scheme may make provision for the apportionment or division of any property, rights or liabilities.
(7) Where a transfer scheme makes provision for the apportionment or division between two or more persons of any rights or liabilities under a contract, the contract shall have effect, as from the coming into force of the provision, as if it constituted two or more separate contracts separately enforceable by and against each of those persons respectively as respects the part of the rights or liabilities which falls to that person as a result of the apportionment or division.
(8) The provision that may be made by a transfer scheme includes provision for—
(a) any transfer of land or other property by virtue of the instrument,(b) the grant or creation of any estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property by virtue of the instrument, or(c) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property by virtue of the instrument,to be on such terms, including financial terms, as the person making the scheme thinks fit.(9) The Secretary of State may by order confer on any body or person to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred by a statutory transfer or transfer scheme any statutory functions which were previously exercisable in relation to that property, or those rights or liabilities, by the transferor.
(10) It shall be the duty—
(a) of existing police authorities, new policing bodies, existing chief officers, new chief officers and local authorities, and(b) of the trustees or managers, or administrators, of any pension scheme,to provide the Secretary of State with such information or assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to a statutory transfer or a transfer scheme.(11) Where any person is entitled, in consequence of any transfer made by virtue of a statutory transfer or transfer scheme, to possession of a document relating in part to the title to, or to the management of, any land or other property in England and Wales—
(a) the instrument may contain provision for treating that person as having given another person an acknowledgment in writing of the right of that other person to the production of the document and to delivery of copies thereof; and(b) section 64 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (production and safe custody of documents) shall have effect accordingly, and on the basis that the acknowledgment did not contain any such expression of contrary intention as is mentioned in that section.(12) In this paragraph—
“relevant document” means—
(a) any enactment, other than an enactment contained in this Act;(b) any subordinate legislation made otherwise than under this Act; or(c) any deed or other instrument;“statutory transfer” means a transfer under Part 1 or 1A of this Schedule;
“transfer scheme” means a transfer scheme under Part 2.”
(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—
(a) amend, or otherwise modify, any enactment;(b) make any provision that may be made by a transfer scheme under Part 2 of this Schedule (whether the provision in the order relates to that Part or Part 1A of this Schedule);(c) provide for the new policing body for a police area to make any payment which—(i) before a day specified in the order could have been made out of the police fund of the existing police authority for that area, but(ii) is not a liability which is transferred to the new policing body by virtue of Part 1A of this Schedule;(d) provide for a new chief officer or a local authority to which property, rights or liabilities of a new policing body are, or are to be, transferred by virtue of a transfer scheme under Part 1A of this Schedule to make any payment which—(i) before a day specified in the order could have been made out of the police fund of that new policing body, but(ii) is not a liability which could be transferred by virtue of such a transfer scheme;(e) make provision in relation to the accounts and audit of—(i) existing police authorities, and(ii) new policing bodies.(3) Provision of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(e) may, in particular—
(a) amend, or otherwise modify, any enactment relating to the accounts and audit of public bodies in its application to—(i) an existing police authority and the financial year in which that authority is abolished, or(ii) a new policing body and the financial year in which that body is established;(b) provide for the Secretary of State to give directions as to action to be taken in relation to the accounts and audit of—(i) an existing police authority in relation to the financial year in which that authority is abolished, or(ii) a new policing body in relation to the financial year in which that body is established;(c) provide for a person who, in acting in accordance with such a direction, fails to comply with a code of practice or other document relating to proper accounting practice to be taken not to have so failed to comply.”
““existing chief officer” means—(a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the chief constable of the police force for that area before the coming into force of section 3 of this Act in relation to that area;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis immediately before the coming into force of section 5;”
““new chief officer” means— (a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the chief constable established for that police area under section 3 of this Act;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis established under section 5;”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“(i) in paragraph (a)(i), for “a senior officer, the police authority” substitute “the chief officer or a person exercising or performing functions of the chief officer in accordance with section 42 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the local policing body”; (ii) in paragraph (a)(ii), for “a senior officer” substitute “the chief officer or a person so exercising or performing functions of the chief officer”;(iii) in paragraph (b)(i), for “a senior officer, the police authority” substitute “the chief officer or a person exercising or performing functions of the chief officer in accordance with section 42 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the local policing body”;(iv) in paragraph (b)(ii), for “a senior officer” substitute “the chief officer or a person so exercising or performing functions of the chief officer”;”
(i) for “police authority” substitute “local policing body”;(ii) for “the authority” substitute “the body”;(c) in sub-paragraph (6)(c), for “police authority” substitute “local policing body”;(d) in sub-paragraph (6), in the words after sub-paragraph (c), for “the authority” substitute “the body”.”
Baroness Browning
“and to the person (if any) appointed as the deputy police and crime commissioner under section 19.”
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, what a marathon. I wish to move Amendment 304A and speak to Amendments 304B and 304C. I return without apology to the subject of “appropriate” versus “necessary”. The Bill reduces the evidence test for the attachment of licence conditions so that these are “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. These amendments would delete these provisions from the Bill and retain the “necessary” test. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, set out extremely well the need for these amendments and the significance of the change from “necessary” to “appropriate”. I am sorry that he is unable to be with us today.
Review proceedings are quasi-judicial and designed to deal with infringements of the licensing regime, and have a wide range of penalties that are available to be deployed against the premises in question, from the imposition of new conditions restricting the operation of the premises to the suspension or even withdrawal of a licence. Licensing authorities are already able to impose conditions that they and other responsible bodies need in order to promote the licensing objectives without difficulty. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister claimed that “necessary” places a significant evidential burden on licensing authorities.
There is no evidence to suggest that local authorities find the evidential burden too restrictive and plenty of evidence from across the country to suggest that it is not a barrier to imposing tough trading conditions. For those that have experienced difficulties with a lack of representations being made by responsible authorities about problem premises, the Bill makes local authorities responsible authorities. This means that they will be able to tackle problem premises in their own right, not just rely on evidence supplied by other responsible authorities. The licensed trade asserts that the current “necessary” test has worked well and has ensured that conditions attached to licences are fair and address specific concerns, as opposed to being unfair and disproportionate. Where is the evidence to the contrary?
I understand from the Home Office that the plain English meaning of “appropriate” is “suitable”. That seems far too subjective. How about “convenient” on that basis? In these circumstances, the substitution of “necessary” for “appropriate” would allow decisions to be taken on the grounds of, for example, political expediency or subjective judgment. My noble friend the Minister may say I am wrong and that this will not be the case, but how equipped will licensing authorities be to adopt the correct interpretation of “appropriate”? It has been confirmed that the Local Government Association has concerns in this respect. The fact that “appropriate” is not clearly defined in law, unlike “necessary”, on which there is considerable case law, increases the likelihood of legal challenge and appeal.
“Necessary” is also a key component of the test of proportionality under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have given the Minister and her colleagues a copy of the analysis done by the licensed trade into the impact of the convention, and your Lordships will be glad to hear that I will not go into enormous detail at this stage. Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR provides for the “peaceful enjoyment” of possessions and states clearly that:
“No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”.
The state can enforce such law,
“as it deems necessary to control the use of property”,
for the public interest.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill makes clear the importance of the “necessary” test to ECHR compliance in respect of licensing. It acknowledges that an alcohol licence is a possession and is protected under the convention. The imposition of a restriction on a pre-existing permission or the removal of it without clear evidence of harm or irresponsible practice will in some cases amount to interference in the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. There is no analysis in the Explanatory Notes of what the reduction in this evidence burden would mean for compliance. The existing “necessary” test clearly helps to ensure a fair balance between public and rights-holder interests. How will the “appropriate” test do that?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I joined in the debate on these two terms at the previous stage, and on rereading Hansard I wonder now even more than I did at the time how assessing whether something is appropriate could be evidence-based. If I were still a councillor having to decide whether a condition is appropriate, I do not think I could avoid it being a subjective judgment. My noble friend has referred to this. I also asked at the last stage whether the assessment had to be reasonable. If it is “appropriate” rather than “necessary”, I assume that it would have to be, but the Minister very elegantly sidestepped that question. I do not blame her because I had not given her notice of it.
My final point refers to the statutory guidance, again just mentioned by my noble friend. We are not talking about a particular application, but licensing in general is a quasi-judicial activity. Perhaps this is not strictly quasi-judicial, but it comes quite close to it. I am concerned about the need to rely on guidance as distinct from primary legislation in the way this is approached.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the Minister will recall that I spoke on this matter in Committee. I have no intention of running the risk of prolonging the debate by repeating what I said on that occasion, but nothing that has happened since the previous stage alters in any way the views I then expressed. The only thing I would say in a wholly friendly manner to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is that I used the human rights argument on a series of occasions during our debates on the Licensing Bill in 2003. I have to say, in a manner which I hope he will not find too discouraging, that on every single occasion the Front Bench of the then Government shut me up and told me that I did not actually have a case to argue.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am a bit intimidated by the thought that I might have to defend not only the point that we are talking about today but the whole panoply of human rights law, but perhaps we can duck that for now. As has been mentioned already, we had a good discussion on these points in Committee and we do not need to go over them. What is disappointing is that, as has been said, we do not seem to have moved on since then. We felt that the Minister’s responses to the original discussion were a bit lacking in the sort of detail required to be convincing, but it would have helped if we had been able to have sight of the guidance she promised. The guidance has not appeared, and therefore we are not much further forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us today, but if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wishes to seek further support from this Bench, we would certainly be there behind him in the Lobbies.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, for some reason we seem to be in a “vote early and vote often” mode today. These amendments seek to remove three clauses from the Bill that lower the evidential threshold that applies to decision-making by licensing authorities. The clauses replace the requirement that licensing authorities should take actions that are “necessary” with the requirement that their actions are “appropriate”. I do not want to engage the House too long on this debate because we would end up rehearsing all that was said in Committee, but I should say that I do not think that the word “convenient” is a substitute for “appropriate”, although I suspect that he was being rather tongue-in-cheek when he said that.
Lowering the threshold will make it less onerous for licensing authorities to refuse or revoke licences if it is appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives. The four licensing objectives will still apply. My noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested that I was not clear enough about this in Committee, so I reiterate that the four statutory licensing objectives still apply. However, lowering the threshold will make it less onerous for licensing authorities to refuse or revoke licences if it is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for advising me in advance of his concerns. On the “necessary” test and the importance of it being compliant with human rights law, the statutory test of what is appropriate as the basis on which licensing authorities must make decisions—alongside clear guidance to those authorities as to what is meant by this threshold, and the availability of statutory rights of appeal for licensing applicants and others affected by licensing decisions—ensures that the ECHR rights of those affected by licensing decisions are safeguarded. My noble friend prayed in aid his experience of previous legislation in this area. The requirement that an interference with ECHR rights must be “necessary” is a concept that has been developed in the context of human rights law and is not directly comparable with the meaning of “necessary” as it currently appears in the Licensing Act 2003.
My noble friend suggested that the only right of appeal against licensing decisions, including the imposition of conditions, is judicial review. That is not correct. Section 181 of the Licensing Act 2003 already provides for a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates’ court against most decisions by licensing authorities, including decisions on the granting or revocation of a licence and the conditions attached.
I must also inform the House that although it has been suggested that the Local Government Association is against these proposed changes, that is not the Government’s understanding. Indeed, in response to our consultation on rebalancing the Licensing Act, the LG Group said that it “broadly welcomes this proposal”.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think I am more sympathetic to the Government’s word “appropriate” than to the suggested use of the word “necessary”. In the context of the Bill, both these words are actually subjective in terms of what is being looked at. I assume that the Government prefers “appropriate” because I would have thought that it would be easier to argue either for or against in court than “necessary” would be, because that word is rather different. Is that not the thinking behind the Government’s proposal? I understand the arguments, but the central issue seems to be that of appeal. It would be easier for a court to reach a decision on what is “appropriate” than on what is “necessary”. However, please tell me if I am wrong.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am not in a position to try to second-guess how a court would determine that, because we are talking hypothetically and not about a specific example. I will come on to an example which might be helpful to the House. The lower evidence threshold would apply to most conditions, but to show that the imposition of conditions such as the use of plastic glassware or closure of windows after a late hour or the use of CCTV in or outside bars is “necessary” for the promotion of licensing objectives, including the prevention of nuisance or crime and disorder, is an onerous test. It would be less onerous for local authorities to show that such conditions were “appropriate” for the promotion of the licensing objectives. I hope that that is helpful to the House, because when we debated the equivalent amendment in Committee, I was unable to give an example such as that. I hope that that gives the House a feel for the thinking behind the Government’s change to the wording.
I can assure my noble friend that these decisions will still need to be evidence-based. We will include statutory guidance on the new tests, as I have suggested. I am not in a position to say that the guidance will be available at this stage of the Bill, but it will be made available. It will be consulted to ensure correct interpretation once the legislation is applied. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I thank also my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their support. The Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, illustrated only too well how cunning government departments are in answering questions about the ECHR. The response was fascinating, being essentially that there is “necessary” and “necessary”, and that, for the purposes of the ECHR, “appropriate” equals “necessary”. That seemed to be what the Minister was saying. It is clearly highly dangerous to quote the ECHR in these circumstances, because you get an Alice in Wonderland type of response.
However, I was very grateful for the remainder of the Minister’s response. Her undertaking to consult on the statutory guidance will, I think, be welcomed by all concerned. Some of the examples that she gave might not be considered “necessary”, although, as I said in my opening contribution, if licensing authorities are able to impose 64 conditions on a takeaway, they do not lack powers. I am not going to push this. We have had a good debate over two stages of the Bill. I have tried to express the concerns of the trade on this matter. I hope that that dialogue will continue in the statutory consultation so that “appropriate” is confined —so that it is not equivalent to “suitable”, and certainly not equivalent to “convenient”. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the amendment is designed to probe whether the Government have firm plans to introduce exemptions for the EMRO regime. I have a later, similar amendment, on which I shall not speak at great length, designed to probe whether there are plans to introduce exemptions from the late night levy and, if so, what those might be. As such, it represents at least a first attempt at defining some of those exemptions.
The Minister promised in Committee that there would be wide consultation on the exemptions to be introduced. It is important for the House to know what the Government are minded to introduce. For instance, will they introduce exemptions for private members' clubs which do not sell to members of the public but are membership-based? They are not, as I explained in Committee, generally positioned on the high street or close to centres of the night-time economy. Rather than basing the regime solely on premises type, can individual well run premises be exempted? Will exemptions recognise best practice and social responsibility initiatives such as those that we debated in Committee—for example Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch and so on?
I hope that the Minister can give us more detail and say that these exemptions will also be consulted on. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 305ZA would make it a requirement that regulations containing the cases or circumstances which may be exempt from an early morning alcohol restriction order include exempt cases that are defined by reference to particular kinds of premises or particular days. He was good enough to say that it was a probing amendment. I hope that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks when I say that the Government will ensure that exceptions to early morning restriction orders will define cases by reference to particular kinds of premises or particular days. Officials have already had useful discussions, including with representatives of the drinks industry and licensing authorities. As my noble friend acknowledged, we will carry out a full public consultation on the secondary legislation on EMROs later this summer. He asked specifically about private clubs. We will consider whether to include not-for-profit clubs and sports clubs as a separate class, and include that in consultation, before bringing forward the regulations. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank my noble friend the Minister. What he has said will be very useful standing on the record for those who want certain exemptions. He has given a useful taste of the kind of exemptions that will be consulted on and indication that the whole EMRO regime will be consulted on later this summer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
( ) the costs of social services and trading standards when discharging their functions as responsible authorities under this Act”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee and we want to probe further whether the Government have moved in their thinking. We welcome the Government’s move through Clause 123 to allow licensing authorities the ability to set fees locally on the basis of full cost recovery. Operating the licence system since 2005 has cost council tax payers over £100 million more than they anticipated due to the current, centrally set fee structure, which does not allow licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges. Given the economic climate, there is a real imperative to allow cost-neutral fees to be set as soon as possible. However, as we discussed last time, there is a drafting error within Clause 123, which would mean two-tier authorities not being able fully to recover all the costs associated with licensing. This was debated in Committee. When the Minister replied, he acknowledged that, as drafted, the Bill would exclude the relevant costs of trading standards and social services departments and that, even though they were discharging duties under the Licensing Act, they would not be able to recover them. He concluded by saying:
“I see sense in the intention of [the amendment] and, if I may, I shall reflect on it further”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 911.]
The purpose of the amendment is to press the Government for their response on this issue. I hope that they have some good news for us.
Baroness Hamwee
I support the amendment. I reacted rather to the suggestion that what is a marginal cost is therefore almost irrelevant in the case of the authorities affected. I, too, look forward to hearing the outcome of the reflection.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has explained, Amendment 305ZB seeks to ensure that the costs of social services and trading standards, in their role as “responsible authorities” only, can be covered by fees when they are located outside the licensing authority as well as within it. I certainly acknowledge that I said in Committee that I would reflect further on the proposal. I have done so very carefully and taken legal advice. Having examined it, I have found that the practical difficulties unfortunately outweigh the benefits.
The role of responsible authority involves, for example, considering applications and, in rare cases, applying for review. The costs arising will be very marginal—I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Hamwee objects to the use of that wording—in the context of overall fee income and the wider functions of these bodies. To set fees locally, each licensing authority will be required to calculate its own costs. We would not wish to require it to calculate the costs of another body without very good reason. The amendment would also imply a duty on county councils to report fractional costs and on the licensing authority to pass the funds to the county. The cost of this would then be passed on to fee payers even if the net gain to local government was very little or even nothing. The current fees regime makes no provision for district councils to pass funding to county councils in respect of these functions and we understand that no money has been transferred.
As I said, I have considered this matter carefully. In a nutshell, I am asking noble Lords to accept that the amendment would result in substantial extra bureaucracy and costs which would be passed on to licence holders for very little benefit. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether these practical difficulties have been discussed with the Local Government Association, which would undoubtedly have an input into this? If not, that is a pity.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, flicking rapidly through my papers, I cannot find the answer to my noble friend’s question. I shall write to her about it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite and I would have heard if there had been a discussion. I put that rather gently but firmly.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
There was, I think, a hint of menace in what the noble Baroness was saying. She was leaning forward slightly, and it was well judged to deliver that blow.
The LGA has indeed been concerned about this issue and has circulated documents widely which address the issue and make the main points that I repeated in the discussions earlier. It has also made it clear that it is very concerned about this matter. Although the Minister said that it was a marginal cost, every pound is important to local government. It is unfortunate that the Government have said that the cost of the bureaucracy of this might outweigh its benefits when those who are responsible for delivering it say that they want it to happen.
The Government are hiding under the question of bureaucracy. They promised a very important principle—that there would be a full cost recovery basis for licensing. They have gone so far down the line but they are not prepared to go the further stage. This is a disappointing result and we would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bilston
“Limits on temporary event notices
In section 107(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 (counter notice where permitted limits exceed) for “12” substitute “15”.”
Lord Bilston
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 305A, in my name and that of other noble friends in many parts of the House. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the limits on temporary event notices under Section 107(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 from 12 to 15 events per annum.
I readily concede that, within a Bill as controversial and weighty as this police reform and social responsibility legislation, our amendment is both simple and harmless. Yet it carries with it the hopes and aspirations of many thousands of clubs throughout the UK—working men’s clubs, Conservative, Labour and Liberal clubs, British Legion, miners’ and Armed Forces’ clubs, all of which play a vitally important part in the lives of their communities in every part of this green and pleasant land. The proposal to extend that by three occasions a year gives these non-profit-making clubs the opportunity to play a greater part in contributing to fundraising and community events and supporting good causes, which are the essence of good community life.
The All-Party Group on Non-Profit-Making Members’ Clubs—of which I declare that I am currently the secretary and was chairman for many years when I was in the House of Commons—fully backs this modest extension of the temporary events for clubs, as also does the Minister for pubs and clubs, Mr Bob Neill. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee in reporting on the operation of the Licensing Act 2003 also recommended an increase to 15, as proposed in this amendment.
Non-profit-making clubs up and down the land have carried a heavy burden in the past few years. The negative effects on trading by the introduction of the smoking ban, the greater expansion of cheap alcohol in supermarkets and the perpetual increases in the cost of beer and beer duties, together with the disastrous effects of the bankers-induced recession, have all conspired to place many clubs in the greatest danger to their survival that they have ever experienced. Support for this amendment would demonstrate in a small but practical way our appreciation for the value and service that these institutions offer to their communities. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, my name is on this amendment. I fully support all the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bilston. If the Government feel unable to agree to this change today in the Bill, I hope that I could have some information and assurance that the matter will be raised through other channels. How soon could we revisit the issue if it cannot be done in this way?
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will certainly be brief. I do not think anybody seriously believes that non-profit-making clubs are the cause of some of the problems sometimes associated with other clubs. They do much good work in the community and for charities, as has been said. They are not now always financially strong, as my noble friend Lord Bilston explained. We hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically on the amendment.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, with even greater brevity, I just intervene to say that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord on the opposition Front Bench, I want to appeal to the sympathy of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It sounds like a good worthy cause for people who have been having a bit of a struggle. I know a number of them in my own former constituency area, so I hope we shall get a sympathetic ear.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I add my support. Like my noble friend Lord Newton, I had many such clubs in my former constituency. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, moved the amendment very moderately and sensibly and made a completely unanswerable case. I hope that we have a very sympathetic response from my noble friend who will be replying to this brief debate and that, at the very least, he will be able to follow the injunction of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and give us some encouragement, because it really is a truly worthy cause.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, Amendment 35A would increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in relation to single premises in any one calendar year from 12 to 15. I am well aware of the noble Lord’s tireless work for these centres of our communities and thank him for that. This proposal is very much in line with the direction in which we are travelling. We are legislating to allow for greater flexibility and a more relaxed and liberal system, particularly for small, voluntary and community groups that make use of the temporary events notices to carry out licensable activities. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for not only agreeing with us in this general direction of travel but also taking the time to discuss this with me.
Through the Bill, we are already taking substantial steps to relax some of the requirements of TENs. For example, we propose to increase the total number of days in any calendar year on which a single premises can be used to carry on licensable activities under a temporary event notice from 15 to 21 days. We are also relaxing the provisions to allow licensing authorities to accept late temporary event notices. Furthermore, we are also using the Bill to increase the maximum period for a single event that may be authorised by one temporary event notice from 96 hours or four days to 168 hours, or seven days, to help festivals and other forms of entertainment that run over several days. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these are positive moves in the same direction as their amendment.
TENs are supposed to be a light-touch measure, outside the norm of the licensing regime for one-off, exceptional or occasional events. Just to give some balance, we have also considered carefully the views of many residents who responded to our consultation and who complained about noise nuisance from temporary events. We ask noble Lords to agree with us that allowing for an average of one such event a month, or 12 a year, achieves the right balance. However, the Government are committed to reducing the overall burden of regulation across the piece and have been consulting the public on this wider work, including alcohol licensing via its red tape challenge. So for example the Government have announced that they will shortly be carrying out a public consultation, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the reform of regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to accept that our direction of travel is very much in line with his own and to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Bilston
I thank the Minister for that reply, which is very positive. I naturally hoped that he might allow the amendment today, but on the basis of what he has said and the very helpful discussions that we had yesterday, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
I will speak also to Amendments 305C, 306ZA and 306ZB. Amendments 305B and 305C are designed to extend the ability of licensing authorities to determine the extent of the geographical spread of the late-night levy area so that it need not apply to the whole local authority area. As we discussed in Committee when, I believe, the Minister expressed some sympathy, this is one of the weaknesses of the provision for a late-night levy. It is a very blunt instrument to deal with the whole of a local authority area.
Clause 127(4) currently prohibits the licensing authority from applying the levy as it is currently stated in only parts of its area. Removing that provision and inserting the words of the amendment into subsection (2) would allow licensing authorities to designate a particular town or city centre within its control as being liable for the late-night levy rather than being totally broad brush in its approach.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I intervene extremely briefly. On the strength of my own experience in the two cities, where there is of course an enormous amount of late-night activity and in other parts of the constituency there is absolutely nothing happening at all, I would like my noble friend, to whom I was not very helpful on the last occasion, to know that on this occasion I am sympathetic to what he is saying.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendment 306ZZA in this group. On the issue of the division of the levy between the police and the local authority, at the previous stage I attempted to reverse the proportions, as provided by the Bill. This time I am suggesting a 50-50 split. I am sure that my noble friend will understand how completely reasonable that must be.
At that stage, my noble friend told me as reassurance that the levy had,
“been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late night enforcement costs”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 943.]
I do not doubt the costs borne by the police, but to some extent they are already taken into account in the way that their funding operates. I am concerned that the costs to local authorities, particularly as regards environmental health and some of the organisation involved in dealing with late-night activity, are not acknowledged.
I have brought this back not only to change the proportion but because of a thought that occurred to me after the previous stage. If an authority is to receive little financial benefit from the levy, it may take a decision not to impose it at all. I wonder whether the Government have considered that risk, if I may put it that way.
Lord Rosser
I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to what my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara said in Committee in respect of the amendments that the noble Lord has moved, in particular the support that we on these Benches gave for a more targeted application of the late-night levy. That continues to be our position.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there continues to be concern about the levy’s geographic coverage emanating from a belief that the levy should be a targeted tool. We are confident that we have provided tools such as early morning alcohol restriction orders to allow licensing authorities to target specific areas with alcohol problems. Businesses profit from supplying alcohol in a safe, late-night environment, so they should contribute to the very substantial police costs incurred. If we gave a licensing authority the power to target the levy, fewer businesses would contribute.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Amendment 305B and my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 305C risk the levy failing in its objective of raising a meaningful contribution towards policing. To retain the focus on policing, I must also resist my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 306ZZA, which would reduce the proportion of the levy money after administrative expenses are deducted that goes to the police.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will also agree not to press his Amendment 306ZA, with my firm reassurance that we will make regulations on exemptions and reductions. He asked specifically about rural pubs and also jazz clubs. We are currently considering the categories ahead of the consultation. Let me also reassure my noble friend that we wish to use the levy to promote participation in best practice schemes, and we will explore that further in consultation.
As regards Amendment 306ZB, we still wish to retain elements of local discretion, so we cannot accept an amendment that constrains this element of localism. Authorities should be trusted to select the right categories for their area. Many schemes are actively encouraged by licensing authorities. They are best placed to grant exemptions or reductions to those schemes that they feel are effective. On that basis, I ask that the amendment is not pressed.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for his support. It is interesting that even in a borough such as Westminster there are cold and hot spots. By analogy, therefore, that is true of most boroughs in the country. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support on this matter.
I understand the rationale behind the measure—that it is essentially fundraising designed to defray the costs to the police—but the exemptions will be extremely important in these circumstances. If there is no geographical exemption, there must be a category exemption in many cases so that country pubs can be exempted and not have to pay. If this measure is going to get acceptance, it manifestly must be fairly applied. This is essentially a local tax designed to pay for policing in relation to those establishments that are open late at night. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the consultation, but I hope that he and his colleagues will be in no doubt about the central importance of the consultation, even more so in the case of the late-night levy than in the case of early morning alcohol restriction orders.
Finally, the question that the Minister did not quite address was: why is the regime different for early morning alcohol restriction orders? It seems that while local authorities will not have so much discretion over them, they will have discretion about the late-night levy. I assume the answer to be that each is designed to achieve a particular balance in the circumstances. I take from the Minister’s nods that that is indeed the essence of the matter. I also take it that as the restriction orders are more discretionary, you need less discretion about the imposition of exemptions, and that as the late-night levy is for the local authority, those exemptions will not necessarily be applied so rigorously in those circumstances. However, there is considerable concern about the imposition of the late-night levy and I very much hope that there will be strong guidance to local authorities to exempt in appropriate circumstances—we shall return to the word “appropriate” at the end of Part 2—where the merits of the case demand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Fuel: Electricity Supply Licences
Lord Lucas
That this House regrets that the draft Modifications to the Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences disappoint the legitimate expectations of businesses who placed reliance on Government announcements as to the availability and amount of subsidy, and favours the least efficient forms of solar electricity generation.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Merits Committee
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I have no interest to declare in solar energy. Indeed, I am something of a sceptic and regard the subsidies we are discussing today as something of an unwelcome and unjustified imposition on the public. I am all in favour of the measures that the Government are taking to control the cost of these subsidies, but I regret—putting it gently—the way in which they have chosen to do that. I believe that they breach the trust that ought to exist between Governments and those who place faith in what they have said. The measure fails to take account of the opportunities for building new industries in this area, and it has been structured so as to be a much harsher imposition on consumers than it needs to be.
Before the election, we, the Conservative Party, were talking in terms of extending the limits of the feed-in tariff for solar to 10 megawatts—that is, if you are to believe Friends of the Earth. Personally, I do not often do so, but I suspect that the Government are more favourable towards them. However, on 1 February 2010, the Government said that adjustments would be made to the feed-in tariff,
“as evidence on actual deployment, costs and performance emerges … with the first review due to take place in 2013”,
subject to degression in the level of feed-in tariff from 31 March 2012. The meaning of that seems plain to me: anything that you get under way before 1 April 2012 will be at the stated tariff. Fine, that was said by a previous Government, but new Governments cannot just tear up what has been said before, which is what we appear to be doing.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, one of the great fallacies of this debate about the changes that the Government intend to make to the feed-in tariff scheme is how it has been characterised as being between the Government, who say that they recognise that the scheme needed to be changed, and those who argued that no change was necessary whatever the financial implications. I lay that to rest at the very beginning of this debate. One of the reasons for my Motion today is that we consider the Government's projections to be flawed in that no one expects or is asking for the scheme to be left exactly as it is. The Solar Trade Association, Friends of the Earth, Low Carbon Group and others are all calling for cuts to be made in line with falling costs and a faster degression rate, so that the level of tariffs reduces faster over time.
It has not been fully understood that feed-in tariffs are designed as a pump-primer for the industry, to get it going. They would not add significant capacity in the early years but are really a building block to get a much faster-growing industry, as we have for example seen in Germany. For the same reasons, feed-in tariffs should not be seen as a permanent subsidy. The speed, the scale and the way in which the changes have been made is hugely damaging to investor confidence across the renewables sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also outlined.
The purpose of the tariffs when they were brought in by the previous Labour Government was to encourage solar as part of the energy mix that is needed in this country to help achieve energy security, to help meet our renewables targets and to open up green energy generation to businesses, communities and householders. The consultation that the Government undertook on their proposed changes could have been a real opportunity for them to work with the industry to address its concerns. However, the consultation was only six weeks long, whereas the Government code of practice states that consultations should normally last 12 weeks or longer. Furthermore, 81 per cent of respondents opposed the Government’s plans and made alternative suggestions, but not a single change was made.
The consultation divided the market as being above or below 50 kilowatts, thus not only making the large-scale solar farms to which the Minister will no doubt refer unviable, but also community schemes and business and industry projects. The scheme was originally designed to incentivise projects up to 5 megawatts. The Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, has expressed his view that we do not leave our energy future to the exclusive preserve of the big six energy companies. Given the recent price hikes, I am sure that many of your Lordships would agree with that assessment. However, is the Minister aware that capping the scheme at 50 kilowatts is exactly what the energy companies lobbied for in the first place?
On the purpose of the Government’s changes, when the Government announced their consultation it was clear that this was a financial decision. The Government saw that there was increased interest in large-scale solar farms, particularly at the rate at which the tariff was set and with the significant fall of around 30 per cent in capital costs. That had not been anticipated by the department’s modelling, as undertaken prior to their introduction. Therefore, the Government consulted on proposals to reduce tariffs for solar developments of more than 50 kilowatts by 38 per cent to 42 per cent; for projects of more than 150 kilowatts by 50 per cent; and for projects of more than 250 kilowatts or any stand-alone installation of any size by nearly 70 per cent. That makes those larger developments and stand-alone developments unviable, which was clearly the Government’s intention. The Government’s argument is that these costs would have been too high if the industry had carried on growing at the same rate and, for the money involved, it would not have had enough capacity to make the investment cost-effective.
I understand that the Government want to avoid oversubsidising solar power. Capital costs have fallen so that is not an unreasonable objective. It is one that the industry fully understands. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what other options were considered to address the issue. Did the noble Lord consider any other tariff rates that would have reduced the costs but not choked off investment? Given that the costs are met not by government tax and spend but by the consumer—we are mindful of the need to keep prices down for the consumer—what estimate has the Minister made of the costs to an individual household over the next 10 or 20 years? I do not mean an estimate of the costs as though there were no changes at all. Most of us agree that some change was required and any analysis must take that into account. I see him frowning at me at this point. It is quite a tall order, so I am happy for him to write to me about this. However, those answers may go some way towards understanding the Government’s approach to this issue.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the only interest I declare is that I was a member of the campaign that persuaded the previous Government to adopt feed-in tariffs in the face of some reluctance in Whitehall. I think it was in November 2008 that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—a most enlightened Energy Minister—reacted positively to a Motion which had been tabled by no less a person than the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, then the Conservative spokesperson on DECC, to whose Motion was added no less a person’s name than my own.
The original amendment had no limit but led to the Government proposing the 5 megawatt limit, which dealt with the majority of schemes that we had in mind to benefit from that. The terrible thing is that that policy has worked. The decision, which was welcomed at the time by the parties which became the coalition, was also welcomed by and large by the industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, it led to plans being brought forward, investment funds being found, schemes being established and many more schemes being proposed. However, the new Government decided that they would have a review just as the policy was getting off the ground. The review took a bit of time. They then got round to announcing the new rates. The initial rates were perhaps not entirely susceptible to rational justification but provoked the desired result. As noble Lords have said, investment has been stopped in its tracks by the 70 per cent cut in the feed-in tariff subsidy provided for schemes of between 50 kilowatts and 5 megawatts.
Other noble Lords will no doubt also have received representations from firms and organisations saying that this decision stopped well advanced plans in several parts of the country. Certainly, firms in Somerset, Cornwall, Yorkshire, the West Midlands and Scotland have approached me, and all say that plans which would otherwise have come forward have been stopped in their tracks. The whole point of this policy was to bring forward such investment. It was pump-priming in the sense that it drove down the price of solar energy. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the price of solar energy came down by 30 per cent. In other words, as I say, the policy was working. That is rare enough in energy policy; to stop it after a few months because it is working seems to me bizarre in the extreme. The idea which is occasionally put about by the Government or other commentators that originally the policy was intended only to encourage domestic solar panels on housing, or small groups of housing, is absurd.
The reason why we wanted to move beyond 50 kilowatts was precisely because we were looking to semi-commercial or larger activities. For once, I cite myself, seconding the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. We were talking about single-site operators; we were talking about farmers; we were talking about all-district heating schemes; we were talking about individual large buildings, schools, university campuses, community projects and small industrial estates. Those were exactly the sites on both the public and community side and the commercial side which we were attempting to encourage to adopt solar energy by extending the limit to 5 megawatts. The idea that it has been a distortion that the benefit has gone to farmers and industrial operators is quite wrong.
One reason we proposed that was that most such schemes would involve single-site operators who would not be that interested in the ROCs market, that ROCs were an inadequate incentive for them and that feed-in tariffs would be a much better way of mobilising that market. So it proved, as it has in other countries. Two or three days ago, I had an e-mail from one of my friends, who has no particular interest in the field, who was driving through Germany, remarking on the farms that he was visiting and passing, many of which ran on solar energy, and the solar panels on public buildings, flats and so forth. Germany has made a major investment in solar energy and, as a result, there are about 100,000 jobs in Germany in the solar and related installation industries. It was working elsewhere; it was beginning to work here; but the Government stopped it in its tracks.
I must address one other issue which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Other noble Lords will have received a representation from Which?. I have often acted as consumer champion in this House, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who proposed the policy. We have to counter that argument. It is true that the cost eventually falls on the consumer, but that is true of every proposition to try to change the energy mix. The cost of ROCs eventually falls on the consumer. The cost of CERTs eventually falls on the consumer. The cost of various other schemes has all fallen on the consumer. That is an argument not for changing one bit of the green energy incentive plan but for looking at it in its totality.
I would have understood if the Government said: “We are looking at this in the light of trying to get a more rational system whereby, instead of different forms of subsidy employing dramatically different implied prices of carbon, we get something more consistent”. I would have understood if this had been part of a policy to ensure that the burden on the consumer was more fairly distributed than under the present system, which is almost a poll tax on energy consumers. That is not what is being said. The Government are not even saying that they are looking at the feed-in tariff consistently across the range of applications. Instead, we have hit a particularly promising and successful policy before it has really got off the ground.
The Minister’s colleague, Greg Barker, has spoken movingly and convincingly about his commitment to decentralised energy. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, this is the ultimate in decentralised energy in that it is very local, does not require a huge amount of connections and can operate without a huge burden on the grid. I do not understand why the Government have done this—or perhaps I do. Within the Minister’s department—which, generally speaking, I think is one of the better Whitehall departments—there was resistance even when the previous Government were trying to change the position. It took a lot of overturning. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who was able to face out that opposition. More importantly, it faced opposition from the Treasury.
The Earl of Liverpool
My Lords, I rise briefly to register my strong support for the two Motions. I declare an interest as a director of a company that has already received planning permission to build a substantial solar farm in the south of England, but whose whole future has now been put in doubt because of the Government’s decision to reduce the feed-in tariff so drastically. I simply wish to say that I agree with everything that has been said so far today on this subject, and I am very keen to hear what my noble friend the Minister will have to say by way of, I hope, reassuring me, my noble friend Lord Lucas, and the House that he will get together with the industry and try to resolve this serious difficulty. It is basically a nascent industry that has been snuffed out at birth. Having said those few words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, I had not meant to intervene in this debate. In fact, I am breaking the habit of the past 25 years, since I was the Minister responsible for taking the Electricity Bill through Parliament. I also declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers.
I just want to enter two notes of caution about what has been said. Of course, renewables and solar are a good thing—nobody doubts that—but they are also expensive, as has been admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. They also require, certainly when talking about wind power, heavy extra capacity. Therefore, on capacity grounds and on price grounds above all, whatever we say about renewables—I hope that we will say positive things—we have to be realistic. One thing that worries me about the present situation is that we set targets that turn out to be unrealistic. Oil power and carbon-related fuels will be necessary. We will have to have either carbon-free coal or oil-fired power stations to a very great extent in the future. We had better recognise that, otherwise we will be another £200 billion behind in investment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, as I have said on other occasions, I am pleased about the way in which DECC has managed to negotiate very positively with the Treasury over its budget, even in the areas of private taxation that are reflected in private energy Bills, and how the overall programme for renewables has started to move ahead. I also sympathise in many ways with the Government’s priority to make sure that as many people as possible are involved in the renewables industry so that households that want to fit solar PV to their houses, or SMEs solar PV to their business premises, can do that. Both those things are positive.
Having said that, the difficulties caused to the industry by this major change in policy over a short period of time have been very great. I understand and agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas on this. As many Members of the House will know, I come from Cornwall. I represent an electoral division there that as we speak is constructing a 5 megawatt facility to make sure that it can throw the switch before midnight on 31 July. I do not know whether any electricity will flow then: presumably it will, in order to come in before the tariff changes. In Cornwall, about half a dozen sites will hit the grid before the deadline arrives.
It is clear that a very large number of investors wanted to come into this field. Some were opportunists—which is not necessarily a bad thing, because we are trying to work with the market—but there was a basis to enable a number of new renewable energy companies that genuinely held the values of decarbonising our economy to start, work and gain ground in order to be part of that decentralised electricity-generating system that so many of us in the House want to see. Those business starts and the growth of micro-businesses into medium-sized businesses can no longer happen. The amount of investment, for example to secure planning permissions, was very great.
I accept that not all the schemes should have gone ahead. Planning permissions were extremely easy to obtain because people did not object to them as they do to a number of other renewable technologies. However, now the momentum has stopped in its tracks. I very much regret that. The particular practical difficulty is that even where too many of the larger schemes would have been very onerous, there were a number of community schemes, too, that have come to a halt or will not be fulfilled.
Two days ago, as well as receiving the electrical market review, we saw the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap, which I very much welcome. On the whole it is an excellent document. However, perhaps it is illustrative that chapter 3, “Actions”, names the technologies of onshore wind, offshore wind, marine energy, biomass electricity, biomass heat, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps—I am very pleased to see those there—and renewable energy in transport, which we sometimes forget about but which is of equal importance.
Solar PV is nowhere in that list. The document includes a case study of solar PV and states:
“The Government believes that solar PV could potentially have a role to play in larger-scale UK renewables deployment in the future”.
That is a very iffy assessment of solar PV. I am very aware, as we have seen today and during part of this week, that the UK is not the best country in the world for solar PV. However, there is no doubt that the technology is potentially useful. The costs are expected to come down very significantly in future. The initial FIT rate was too high and provided too great a return, but it has come down so much that it has acted as a veto on the industry. As a result, the green jobs that all of us want to see have been postponed or might not happen as they might have done.
The document goes on to say that the Government encourage solar PV on a large scale as part of the ROCs regime. Will the Minister say whether there is a way forward there for large-scale PV? The renewable obligations review is due in the next few weeks. The Government have cut out the higher FIT rates. Could they over a temporary period fix a higher ROC rate for solar PV so that we could again encourage investment in this industry? When the costs come down we can reduce the ROC rate, as we would do with any other technology.
Will the Minister tell us how many ROC schemes there are on solar PV at the moment? I do not know whether there are many. I would be interested to know what the scale of demand is at the minute. I think there is a good future for solar PV in this country. We want to encourage it for jobs and growth, and I would like it to be a larger part of the jigsaw of the renewable road map for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. It is important that we discuss these issues and get clarity on them. I hope I am going to do that in response. I have received a very good letter from the chairman of the British Photovoltaic Association in conjunction with the director of the Combined Heat and Power Association, the chief executive of the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association and the chief executive of the building council for sustainable energy. They say a number of things, including: “Those highly dependent on the previous tariff of photovoltaic levels are now few in number in comparison with the sizeable and growing industry for other parts of the feed-in tariff”. They also give a word of warning and, “urge people not to reopen the Government’s decision at this stage. It would cause lasting, and we believe irreparable, damage. This would apply not just to solar PV but also to the vibrant and growing activity of small and medium-sized wind, aerobic digestion and microchip”. Finally, they say: “We would urge you to oppose any attempts to overturn the Government’s decision implementation on 1 August”. I think that sets out the stall of the industry that we have consulted and discussed things with.
The noble Baroness said that it was a very short consultation. Of course it was a short consultation because the industry wants certainty. In government, we unfortunately have to make choices. We are in a situation of rising electricity and energy prices, and we have to make choices in order to prevent that. These are the questions we asked ourselves when getting to the point of making this decision. Do we consider that at a time of rising bills we should encourage the spending of £7 billion on solar PV? Does this represent value for money? Does it have a real impact on our demand for electricity, given that it produces under 0.1 per cent of our electricity supply? Even if everything worked as planned, by 2020 it would be only as much as 0.3 per cent of our energy supply. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is so sound on all these subjects—even though I do not think he is in complete agreement with me, for a change, on this one—we asked ourselves whether we are best suited as a country, given that we need electricity in winter when we have narrow daylight hours, and whether this is the most effective way of creating electricity. Therefore, is this a core activity for the Government?
We also looked at some of the schemes that were being offered. I am sure this does not apply to my noble friend Lord Liverpool, but schemes were offering a 21.4 per cent return on investment guaranteed by government-backed FITs and were being sold to people as the greatest investment opportunity for a long time. There are many examples of that. The Government are concerned that people could be taken advantage of.
Similarly, did we think the support that we gave the schemes was fair? If you were putting up onshore wind you would get one ROC, if you were putting up offshore wind you would get two ROCs, and this feed-in tariff is the equivalent of over five ROCs. Is that fair and reasonable for the rest of the industry?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, criticised us for frivolous and unreliable decisions worthy of a third-world country. I emphasise that this is not retrospective. It does not apply to people who have installed this. I absolutely repudiate his suggestion that this is frivolous and unreliable. To suggest that we should push on with this regardless is frivolous and unreliable, which is why we have stopped it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I can assure him that I do not agree with what he is doing, which is why I tabled the Motion today. I asked him another specific question about what options were being considered other than the two all or nothing questions that he has spoken about today. He has not answered that or my other questions. If he cannot answer today, I would be very grateful if he could write to me.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I can answer that straightaway. Let me make it clear that we considered every option. A whole magnitude of options are put forward in reviews and consultations with industry, so of course we considered other options. However, the option that was actually put to us, largely by industry, suggested that the contribution of FITs was going to be even more expensive than it is now, and I am afraid that that was an option that we were not going to embark upon.
In closing, I see no real sense in the feed-in tariff at the level that it was. We have made the right and brave decision. It is a decision to support the consumer, which is obviously a priority for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It saves consumers from a vast increase in bills on a form of electricity generation that is not really going to impact on the importance and size of the problem ahead of us.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, except that he did not actually reply to the last questions I asked him. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to come and see him to ask them again. They are: how are we going to deal with distributed generation in the energy market review, and what plans are we making for the day when solar becomes a competitive source?
Lord Marland
I can respond to that. I do not intend to respond to questions on the broad scope of electricity generation in this debate. If the noble Lord had attended the debate on our electricity market reform Statement, or if he wishes to read the paper that was published this week, he would see how we are attempting to deal with the supply and demand side. It is a very big subject that unfortunately I do not feel I can cover now.
Lord Lucas
I am not trying to tempt my noble friend to do so. I am merely trying to tempt him to spend some of his time subsequently discussing it with me. I agree that the EMR review is an interesting paper, and I have read it with great interest. However, I think it misses the point about solar.
I will argue with my noble friend about his use of the term “not retrospective”, and I suspect that my noble friend Lord Liverpool would too. If you put a lot of money into a project and the Government then produce a cut-off that makes it impossible to realise that project, while there may be a few lucky people in Cornwall, there are a lot of unlucky people elsewhere who are losing what for them is a lot of money, even if it is not for the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Fuel: Electricity Supply Licences
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House regrets that the implementation of the draft Modifications to the Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences will have a significant negative impact on the United Kingdom solar industry; further regrets that this could have a devastating impact on community energy schemes and has created uncertainty about the Government’s commitment to a green energy policy; and calls on the Government to reconsider their approach to the Feed-in Tariffs, to consider a gradual taper for any changes that it makes and to set out their future intentions for the solar industry and its role in contributing to the energy security of the United Kingdom through a mixed energy supply.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Merits Committee.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:25 - Division on Amendment 306ZC - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 306ZC disagreed.
16:28 - Division on Amendment 306A - Ayes: 102 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 306A disagreed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
306ZC: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Youth rehabilitation orders: alcohol monitoring requirement
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, after paragraph 24 insert—
“24A Alcohol monitoring requirement
(1) In this Part “alcohol monitoring requirement”, in relation to a youth rehabilitation order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order, the offender must—
(a) not consume alcohol,
(b) for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is alcohol in the offender’s body, provide samples of such description as may be determined, at such times or in such circumstances as may (subject to the provisions of the order) be determined by the responsible officer or by the person specified as the person to whom the samples are to be provided, and
(c) pay such amount in respect of the costs of taking and analysing the sample as may be specified in the order.
(2) A court may not impose an alcohol monitoring requirement unless—
(a) it is satisfied that—
(i) the offender has a propensity to misuse alcohol and expresses willingness to comply with the alcohol monitoring requirement, or
(ii) the misuse by the offender of alcohol caused or contributed to the offence in question, and
(b) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for implementing the requirement are available in the local justice area proposed to be specified in the order.
(3) A youth rehabilitation order imposing an alcohol monitoring requirement must provide that the results of any tests carried out on any samples provided by the offender to the monitoring officer in pursuance of the requirement are to be communicated to the responsible officer.
(4) Where the offender has not attained the age of 17, the order must provide for the samples to be provided in the presence of an appropriate adult.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time give guidance about the exercise of the function of making determinations as to the provision of samples pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State make rules for all or any of the following purposes—
(a) regulating the provision of samples pursuant to an alcohol monitoring requirement, including hours of attendance, interval between samples and the keeping of attendance records;
(b) regulating the provision and carrying on of a facility for the testing of samples;
(c) determining the maximum and minimum fee that may be specified under sub-paragraph (1)(c), and the frequency of such payments;
(d) regulating the functions of the monitoring officer; and
(e) making such supplemental, incidental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
(7) In this paragraph—
“appropriate adult” means—
(a) the offender’s parent or guardian or, if the offender is in the care of a local authority or voluntary organisation, a person representing that authority or organisation;
(b) a social worker of the local authority; or
(c) if no person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) is available, any responsible person aged 18 or over who is not a police officer or a person employed by the police;
“monitoring officer” means any person, other than the responsible officer, specified in an alcohol monitoring requirement as the person to whom samples must be provided.”
(2) Schedule (Youth rehabilitation orders: alcohol monitoring requirement) makes further amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.””
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, the amendments in this group have been improved since Committee to address all the Government’s criticisms. I thank the Minister for her interest in tackling the problems of alcohol in society and for discussing this scheme with me.
The amendments would allow magistrates an additional sentencing arm, that of an alcohol monitoring requirement, where offenders whose crime had been alcohol-fuelled could be referred to a compulsory alcohol sobriety scheme. Such schemes cannot happen, and therefore cannot be piloted and evaluated effectively, without primary legislation. This new sentencing power would allow courts to require an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested twice a day to demonstrate compliance as part of any sentence, with provision for how breaches should be dealt with. Alcohol recovery support would also be offered.
In Committee, the Government expressed concerns that I shall specifically address. First, they said that primary legislation was not necessary for there to be successful implementation of a pilot scheme in interested areas, such as parts of London. Primary legislation is essential. Without it, piloting such a scheme in a voluntary capacity would dilute its efficacy, not be cost effective and fail to tackle the recidivist alcohol offender. The main principles of the scheme—testing an offender regularly; making them pay for the tests, probably £1; and imposing sanctions if a test is breached—all require primary legislation.
Since Committee, the Government have proposed using a sobriety scheme in a penalty notice for disorder and conditional caution. Such a scheme might at first sight appear tougher than existing arrangements, could start immediately and might capture a few harmful drinkers into recovery, but it would not tackle the root problem. First, the offender would need to admit guilt, yet information from the police indicates that, where alcohol is involved, people often cannot remember their actions—that is the first spanner in the works.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and fully support her in what she said. We know how serious alcohol abuse is. We have known that for many years. At the end of the day, the difference between now and previous years is availability—in price and outlets. Clearly, it is difficult for any Government to increase price or reduce outlets dramatically. If we are not going to do that, we have to find another way of dealing with that. This amendment has real possibilities.
One thing that we ought to focus on here is the young person’s side. Indeed, the only uncertainty I have about the noble Baroness’s amendment is that with young people as opposed to older people there may be some desirability in giving the court an option on whether to make it subject to the agreement of the young person or compulsory. You might want to consider it being compulsory for young people if the parents are doing a fairly good job in parenting but struggle to manage the alcohol abuse of a young person who may have a predisposition to alcohol abuse because of the known genetic aspect of alcohol addiction. It may then be beneficial to have a back-up for the family if they are working with the young person. There may be a case for leaving it to the court as to whether it should be with the agreement of the young person or not.
That becomes much more difficult with adults, who tend to deny the problem much more emphatically. A young person will often admit that they got into trouble because of drinking. They will know that they have a problem. How severe that becomes depends on the support system that they have around them in terms of family and friends. We need not worry too much about the US example. I am sure it is very good but these things change culturally. The principles underlying it are what should apply.
We know that young people go out and drink heavily and consistently, over a period of time; that is the big difference from years ago, because they have the money to do it and the outlets are there and it becomes an ongoing problem. That is the time when we need to intervene and to take some action to address it. When I see very young people—and sometimes the same person on several occasions during the course of a week or two—you know that that person is already getting into deep difficulties, and you would like to intervene at that stage. Having an ability to put them on this sort of regime would be very good.
Other systems of conditional treatment have been tested and tried over many years; it is applied on mental aspects and on other issues relating to probation orders and other orders of the court. So it should not be beyond our ability to devise something specifically on alcohol abuse in cases like this. I also like very much the idea of doing it as a pilot scheme, because I would be the first to acknowledge that over the decades we have tried many things, not just with alcoholics but with other groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned the drug groups. We have tried many things that we thought were good ideas but which have not turned out to work as we thought they would. So I do not mind if we do this on a piloted basis, setting it up for a certain period of time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is absolutely right—and we all know it in this House—that the alcohol abuse problem is profoundly serious. The number of cases of young people, and increasingly young women at a very young age, with cirrhosis of the liver, which is one of the defining symptoms of alcohol abuse, is deeply disturbing. It is this issue of availability. If we are not going to stand up and say that we will reduce the outlet or increase the price, frankly we have to find something else. I cannot think of anything that is more effective than what is being proposed to the House today.
I have sat through sittings on this police Bill with various degrees of enthusiasm, but I have very great enthusiasm for this proposal. The House would be missing a very great opportunity if it did not back this amendment and if the Government did not give it a really good run for its money. It is a good idea and it is very likely to work. There are no guarantees in this game—we have thought that too often before—but there is a very good chance that it would work. It would be a missed opportunity if we did not put it in the Bill and give it a run. We owe it particularly to the young people in this country.
In the comments that I have just made, I do not want to include the older group of people. Of the current young group, many of them will not be able to stop drinking on their own in years to come; they will not just stop. Having in a distant past dealt with many people with severe alcohol problems, I think it is in many respects harder to get a person off alcohol abuse than it is from quite a few of the drugs available. The damage that is done to society is enormous. So I ask the Government to be generous and adventurous on this and to grab it and run.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my support to the excellent response that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has prepared to the points that arose in Committee. I was one of those who met Professor Keith Humphreys, who is the senior adviser to President Obama on drug and alcohol abuse, who gave us a very helpful presentation indeed on what they are doing in the States. They have made very good progress and are intending to roll out the programme over a much wider front, given the success that they have encountered.
On the point of different cultures, the one thing that those involved in drink and drug issues know is that they are widespread throughout countries in varying degrees. Some places have bigger problems than others, but those who have problems with drink and drugs have a common problem of approach. It behoves us that wherever we see people trying a new approach, if it is producing success and the kind of results that we have heard that this scheme is running, we should spend some time looking to see whether it can be applied in our home country.
The Americans are very progressive in many areas. They try schemes; yes, some of them fail, but they abandon those and move on. The problem I find from my experience of dealing with these issues in this country is that when we get an idea, we believe that it is going to work and research it very well indeed. We then start pouring a lot of money into it, which continues to go in regardless of what is happening with the scheme, yet we continue defending the status quo when others come to suggest trying to look for something a little different.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to think again on this and to be bold. The major issues which were troubling them have, I think, been answered by the noble Baroness in her response but I would underline the two points that I made previously. First, this will not work on a voluntary basis. It will work successfully on that basis in one or two areas, but then you will find that the probation officers move on and the police change. A different culture then occurs in the area where it has been successful, so it is not maintained and it disappears. This is all that we find happens when it is run purely voluntarily on an experimental basis. It needs instead to be in the Bill and to be a compulsory operation—again, on an experimental basis.
Secondly, there is a concern expressed that we might end up with more people going into jail at the end of the day. Well, some of those people will be going to jail in any event and will be costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money in the first instance. If this alternative runs, there is a chance that there will be significantly less cost to the taxpayer and to the public at large. I suggest to the Minister one way around this difficulty. Civil servants hate sunset clauses because they are seen as a mark of failure. We should be much more flexible in our approach to sunset clauses. If they are right that this will end up with more people going to jail—I do not believe that it will, and I think that most people around the House who attended these briefings do not think that—why do the Government not consider making these amendments subject to a sunset clause and bring that back at Third Reading? We can then find a way forward which would answer that problem.
I am sorry to think that my Front Bench is not going to give its full support to this venture. The Labour Party ought to be backing this. From a number of standpoints, it is a very helpful development indeed and even though our Front Bench may not be exalting my colleagues to join us in the Division Lobbies, I personally appeal very strongly indeed to the people on the Labour Benches to vote for this amendment, if we are pushed to a vote. However, I hope that is avoided and that we get a more positive response from the Minister than we have had before.
Lord Imbert
My Lords, I must declare an interest before I begin in that 50 years ago, when on night duty as a new constable on the streets of London, I found that the following morning, for weeks on end, one was standing in court with a defendant who was accused of a crime that turned out to be alcohol-related. As the Committee would expect, I have conferred with my former colleagues and, yesterday morning, I spoke to the territorial operations department of the Metropolitan Police to seek its view on this amendment. It is supportive, with one caveat: that this must be a magistrate’s decision. Police must not be expected to say, “This individual committed the crime because they were drunk”. That must be a decision of the magistrate but, with that one caveat, I know that my former colleagues support this amendment as indeed do I.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, who is a great deal more experienced in these matters than I am. I am also at one remove in following my namesake, who spoke earlier, and who alluded to the presentation which a number of us received on Monday morning. Reference has been made to the experience of the American professor from Stanford who gave a presentation to us about his White House experience. I would add the footnote that he also holds an honorary degree from King’s College London, so he is not without form on this side of the Atlantic.
Brevity is at a premium, so I shall not cover the ground that other speakers have covered. When the Minister spoke on the previous occasion in Committee, she indicated familiarity with the South Dakota experiment. I have a brief addition to make to that. Monday’s presentation emphasised the experience of the three states where the problem was most severe—North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana—and did so graphically with a parallel line high on the page representing North Dakota. A line at the bottom of the page indicated the average experience in the individual states in the US. A diagonal line from the top of the left-hand corner to the bottom right showed the way that South Dakota’s experience had so dramatically improved.
At the end of the presentation, I asked the professor what had been happening in the states that lay between the average figure at the bottom of the page and the experience in the Dakotas and Montana. He said that a series of them which fell in their own performance between the top and bottom lines had already also adopted the South Dakota experience, North Dakota and Montana having already done so. The most notable example of a state that had, as a result of the South Dakota experience, advanced to putting it on the statute book was California.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My name is attached to the amendment and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling it. I, too, attended Monday’s seminar. Also present was the Deputy Mayor of London, who was most appreciative of the scheme in that it would add to the ammunition which the authorities have in dealing with drunkenness.
I do not think that any other speaker has yet said that the issue is not about anti-drinking but is about anti-drunkenness. That is what sobriety means in this instance. I am still a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet where there is a lot of drunkenness on the streets. Not all of it is youth drunkenness, but it is drunkenness. We have tried various ways of stopping it. For instance, in the ward of Cricklewood that I represent, there is an anti-street-drinking order. That helps the police to enforce measures against drunkenness. We tried to apply the order in another area of my ward. The local authority has not supported that but the police have done so.
Although that is not specifically to do with the amendment in front of us, I mention it because I believe that those who enforce the law, whether magistrates or the police, must have as many armaments as possible to use with caution to ensure that our streets are safe and pleasant for society to live in. Too often, in the urban environment in which I live many people—not all of them young—are drunk on the streets and throw down their beer cans and bottles. Perhaps with this amendment we can help in some way. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done us a great service because whether or not the amendment is adopted, the Government have highlighted the fact that they are aware of the problem and have said that tests will be carried out. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter before us.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I add a few words in welcoming the amendment and urging the Government to respond positively to it. When I was a magistrate, I would have loved the possibility of this rehabilitation order to monitor ongoing alcohol consumption. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, suggested, it is one of a range of possibilities, but to have had this in one’s toolbox, as I gather the phrase is, would have been an enormous advantage.
As has been made clear, the amendment allows the magistrate this power only if alcohol caused or contributed to the offence—in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, I say that it is the magistrate who will take that decision—and if the offender has a propensity to misuse alcohol and is willing to comply with the requirement. As I argued in Committee, help with alcohol misuse should also be available but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said, we must consider the victims in assessing this possibility.
Most of what we now call domestic abuse, but when I was growing up we used to call wife-battering, is alcohol-fuelled. Violence on the streets, whether against property or against people, would undoubtedly be less without the addition of drunkenness. When are we going to do what the ordinary decent people who walk around our streets want us to do, which is to reduce alcohol-related disruption that affects their lives? That is the question that we have to answer.
As the previous speaker said, this is not anti-alcohol. Indeed, I should declare an interest that last night I was at the parliamentary beer dinner. I was very grateful that we had not reached this amendment by then. I am not against the consumption of alcohol but I am very much against the consumption of excessive amounts of it that then damages the people concerned or, in the light of this amendment, damages the life and well-being of others.
This is an enabling measure and does not require the courts to impose it. It is an opportunity for someone with the propensity to misuse alcohol in a way that damages others to have a period of sobriety—with help available, I hope—thus improving their own family lives as well as the well-being of others. I urge support for this.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I live in the middle of one of our cities so I see the typical culture late on a Friday or Saturday night, or indeed on other nights, and the malign influence on it of the excessive consumption of alcohol. In recent years I have also sat on the streets of Paris or Rome at 10 pm and seen virtually no evidence of the abuse of alcohol. Those who think that this measure is a step too far need to reflect upon the experience of many of our city centres.
Sometimes it is necessary for the law to take a clear stance to change culture. Drinking and driving is a prime example of that, where the law has changed the culture of how people approach the consumption of alcohol and driving to a much more responsible one. This is quite apart from the health benefits, which will be important to the noble Baroness who has moved the amendment. There is a clear case for sending a strong signal, with this or something like it, that I hope will lead to a change of culture on our streets.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I support the principal objectives of this measure. I will not repeat everything that I said in Committee, but when I first heard about the new proposal—I was also at the briefing on Monday that has been referred to—I found that the most powerful and compelling thing about it was its simplicity. It is clear in its aim and simple in its practice, and it encourages responsibility. I know that the Minister feels strongly about alcohol-related crime and takes the issue seriously, so I will want to listen carefully to her response today. The only thing that I want to highlight is that, as with any new measure put in place to tackle the issue of alcohol-related crime, the aspects of simplicity and responsibility in this proposal should be taken account of.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a useful and good discussion, repeating to some extent what we discussed in Committee but taking the debate a step further. The interesting thing about how the amendment now looks is that it has picked up a lot of the points that were made when we discussed this the first time around and tried to come up with a fresh look at some of the issues causing concern. To a greater or lesser extent, those aims have been achieved for the amendment. We should therefore consider it carefully.
At the heart of all this is a feeling that has not yet got through to some of those responsible for drafting and supporting the Bill, which is that alcohol is a drug and falls to be considered alongside cigarettes and hard drugs, and is not to be treated as a distinctive social phenomenon that we tolerate but are not concerned about unless it gets to a certain level. This came up time and again in our earlier debates, and is at the heart of what has been said today.
We know from the experience of trying to deal with this over the years and across many countries, and the number of reports that have come out, that you cannot treat any of the problems that alcohol causes in isolation from the three main strands. You have to deal with price; you have to deal with availability, in terms of the times that it is available to be purchased and used; and you have to have treatment. You cannot satisfactorily come up with a policy in this area unless you deal with all three. I think that the debates have again shown that we have still not got the answer on price, although there are some measures going forward that we might want to consider in due course.
Availability is indeed the subject of much of the discussion of some sections of the Bill. One hopes, although it is a bit of an experiment in some cases, that questions of availability will be dealt with. We may have to come back to that in the future.
Treatment is the big black hole into which we seem to pour all our aspirations, but from which we do not receive any real solutions. I said in Committee that, looking at how society deals with alcohol—and drugs more generally—we are moving far too quickly to a penal approach. We do not think about the impact that other possible solutions might have. We do not seem to be bringing forward alternatives for consideration at a time when there are worrying consumption trends and concerns about the fact that our young people seem to be drinking stronger and stronger drinks and causing problems. Although I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was saying about drunkenness, it plays to my concern about the effects of the pursuit, use and abuse of alcohol, which come before that rather sympathetic view of drunkenness: “He’s just drunk; sorry about that”. Actually, it is much worse than that because that leads on to violence, as we have heard, both in the home and outside. It leads on to car crashes, traffic incidents and other problems—and, of course, the impact on children, which we have heard about.
The figures cited initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, were astonishing. If that is the effect of these schemes, admittedly in different cultures and places, we are bonkers if we do not try to take account of those and get some schemes going on this. On whether this scheme is the one that we should get behind, we have our doubts. We are not necessarily going to support this in the Lobbies if it goes to a vote because we are strongly of the view that the Government’s role in this matter is to remove the barriers to those who would wish to undertake pilots in this area, but not necessarily to support this particular scheme in this particular location. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. Governments should not stand in the way of those who have the interest, the capacity, the funding and the structure to introduce such a plan, and we wish them well with it, if they wish to go ahead with that. It seems completely wrong for the Government to be obstructing that at this time.
The consequence of our position—and this will probably be true of the government Front Bench—is that it seems to be only the Front Benches who are against the scheme. Speeches from all around the Chamber have been supportive of it. We were discussing that on the Front Bench before I stood; we seemed to think that we were probably in the wrong on this matter. I am afraid that I do not quite see the solution to it, but we will have a further discussion after I have sat down to see if I can persuade us to move gently towards any Lobby that might be opening up before us. We will certainly encourage people to move through that Lobby, even if we cannot do so ourselves. That may feel a little strange.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am just trying to be honest. I shall also be honest about the Home Office. The problem here is less that this is a bad scheme, or that these schemes on the whole will not help, but that the idea that the Home Office should sponsor this is a bit silly. At heart this is a public health issue. The idea that the Home Office, which is the home of repression and locking people up—as I characterised it, although perhaps I overstated the case—should be responsible is a little like asking cats to be responsible for the welfare of the mice in their house. You cannot do it. I challenge the Minister, if the Home Office cannot get behind this, at least to remove the obstructions to this scheme getting off the ground. We would support that. The Home Office should give up responsibility for this area and pass it to the Department of Health.
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord poses many challenges to me. It might be appropriate for me to remind the House that responsibility for drug and alcohol abuse is within my ministerial brief at the Home Office. I am conscious that, in addressing this part of the Bill, I have already spoken—perhaps extensively—in Committee about my commitment. While I hear what the noble Lord says about the Department of Health, which is very important and takes the lead on alcohol, this is none the less a matter that will have to be addressed by joined-up government. As has been said by several people, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who moved this amendment, we need to look at a holistic approach.
I put on record that the Ministers in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice would like to see a sobriety scheme. Since we met to discuss this scheme in Committee, there have been extensive discussions at ministerial and official level with Members of this House and the office of the deputy mayor. We have tried very hard to come to some accommodation to find a scheme that works. The principle of the scheme is not in dispute.
I shall outline to the House why I must reject the amendment of—I am tempted to say “my noble friend” because we have worked closely together on so many issues in the past—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She made her case very strongly. She will know that I have great respect for her expertise in this area and her dedication to resolving these problems, particularly that of crime resulting from alcohol. However, I must reject these amendments.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I first reiterate what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others. Sobriety, in itself, will not always tackle alcohol-related offending. Many offenders will require clinical treatment and support to aid their recovery. I choose those words carefully. Mention has been made of treatment but it is the Government’s intention, on both drugs and alcohol—there is often a combination of the two—that we should move on from treatment into recovery, which has to be the end goal. A lot of valuable work has gone into treatment. Nobody in any way suggests that treatment programmes are not an essential part of the journey. However, the end of the journey must now focus, for both alcohol and drugs, on recovery; it must not just end with treatment. I have to say that it is rather unclear whether the purpose of the amendments before us is punitive or rehabilitative. I see nothing in the amendments that gives us a steer as to how we should view this.
Lord Soley
Surely the purpose of provisions such as these is preventive and educational, particularly for young people. I accept what the Minister is saying but treatment is rather a different ball game.
Baroness Browning
I accept what the noble Lord says on that and do not dispute it at all. I support the principle of a sobriety scheme that seeks to tackle the problems caused by alcohol-related offending—particularly by binge drinking, which can blight communities—but I must still resist these amendments. Contrary to what the noble Baroness has said, an effective and robust sobriety scheme can be implemented using existing powers. Piloting this approach will provide us with firmer evidence on which to consider the need for legislative changes such as those proposed. I believe that a scheme could be started almost immediately.
My noble friend raised a number of concerns about piloting a sobriety scheme using conditional cautions. I wish to take a moment to focus on those. A scheme based on conditional cautions which is already on the statute book is favoured by the Government. Indeed, there is already interest in some parts of the country in looking at a scheme based on conditional cautions. However, I understand that London supports the scheme put forward by the noble Baroness.
It has been suggested that conditional cautions would not allow repeat offenders to be targeted by a sobriety scheme. While serious and persistent offenders should obviously be prosecuted at court, conditional cautions can be considered where an offender has committed previous offences. For example, a pattern of alcohol-related offending which has previously resulted in an offender receiving a penalty notice for disorder, a simple caution or perhaps even being prosecuted for a low-level offence may well be appropriate for a sobriety condition as part of a conditional caution.
It has also been suggested that offenders are unlikely to consent to a sobriety condition, but I believe that many will consent when they are informed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that the alternative is to be prosecuted for their conduct and to face the prospect of the prosecution applying for a drinking banning order on conviction. In these circumstances I believe that very many offenders will consider that accepting a sobriety condition—which can include requirements to undergo testing, and to pay for those tests, and which has clear consequences for non-compliance—is by far the preferable option. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about the educational aspect and the right reverend Prelate talked about a change of culture. As I hope I have already reassured the House, I am adamant that we will pursue a change of culture. I will not go into too much detail because I have probably said this two or three times now, but I find it unacceptable that we have a culture in this country whereby it is acceptable for people to be seriously drunk in public places either as individuals or collectively. That is a significant change of culture that many of us have witnessed in our lifetime. Using the toolkit—that is the terminology—I am looking for every opportunity to change that culture. I do not underestimate how long that will take as the problem has taken decades to present itself as we see it now, but I hope to impact on it as much as possible.
I note the changes that the noble Baroness has made to her amendments since they were previously discussed. I also note that she and the Deputy Mayor of London have received legal advice on the amendments. There were question marks over the differing legal advice that the Home Office and the Deputy Mayor of London had received, particularly around matters to do with offenders’ convention rights. Although I agree that a sobriety scheme as the noble Baroness envisages it could be compatible with an offender’s convention rights, I believe that any primary legislation in this area would require careful consideration about when such a scheme would be proportionate and what safeguards might be needed to ensure that a court does not impose an alcohol monitoring requirement that risks breaching an individual’s human rights. This is a difficult area and one which the results of piloting conditional cautions would help to illuminate, as well as providing us with evidence of the scheme’s effectiveness.
I have touched on the issue of treatment leading to recovery, which is the Government’s aim. As has been mentioned, extremely serious criminal consequences can arise from alcohol abuse. It is important to distinguish between what we might euphemistically describe as binge drinking and those very serious crimes, in which I of course include domestic violence, where the way forward may well be a conviction. Whether it is associated with a conviction or not, it will require a most extensive package to address what are often the complex needs of the offender.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Are the Government contemplating putting into legislation the package that the noble Baroness is talking about, or will it be run on a voluntary basis? If it is the latter, why is it not attached to what is before us now?
Baroness Browning
The sobriety scheme based on conditional cautions has all the legislative power that it needs now. I do not need to put it into this statute; there is sufficient statute to run it now. If we were to move on later to something as described by the noble Baroness, we would, as I indicated, need to pick up the results of those pilots in future legislation.
If we take forward these pilots on the basis that I have outlined to the House, it will allow us to test locally some of the more challenging elements of such a scheme, including its funding, proportionality, enforcement and impact on reoffending. Although I recognise the problem that the amendments seek to tackle and am sympathetic to their objectives, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I am unable to support their adoption. However, I give my full support to testing the principles of the scheme that she proposes and hope to begin a number of pilot schemes before too long.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I thank the Minister for her reply. I must preface my remarks by thanking her for her sincere commitment to tackling the alcohol abuse that we see in this country. None of us who have spoken today are anti-alcohol per se; it is the problem of the outcomes of harms.
I am a clinician, and if I am to evaluate any scheme of any sort, I compare one scheme with another scheme. The conditional caution scheme that the Minister outlined will require police constables to decide whether it is an alcohol-fuelled offence and whether to offer the scheme. That is the problem and is why, as my noble friend Lord Imbert outlined, the matter should be left with the magistrates. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, a magistrate herself, pointed out that it does not change the status quo; it does not stop something happening but simply provides an additional arm. If there is to be a sincere comparison of the different schemes in different parts of the country, I say hooray to that—let us do proper pilots and monitor them properly.
A sunset clause was suggested in the debate but the Minister did not mention it in her reply. She has seen the amount of support around the House today for including a scheme so that it can be piloted. These are people who have committed an offence who will be sentenced anyway; they will be either incarcerated or fined, probably in addition to losing their driving licence and other things. However, if there is a massive fine it will harm the children in the family much more than the offender because of all the things they will not be able to do when the money suddenly goes out of the household. With the proposed scheme the offender will pay directly—financially and, more importantly, with their time and commitment. Recovery is crucial. As I pointed out, recovery would be attached to this. It would be offered to people and they would be supported. We have evidence—I know it is from the US, which is why I am suggesting that the scheme should be piloted here—that long-term recovery is improved when people are put through a court-directed alcohol-monitoring scheme.
Before making a final decision, will the Minister say whether, in the light of today’s debate, she will consider coming back at Third Reading with a sunset clause? That would allow us to do a proper scientific study in the areas which want to use the scheme as outlined in the amendments, which requires primary legislation, in addition to the schemes which use police cautions as the Minister outlined. I need to know her response on inserting a sunset clause before we really decide where we are going.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not pick up on the point about the sunset clause. I am not able to offer the noble Baroness a change in my view on such a clause. The amendments need substantial work to make them workable from a technical and legal point of view.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I have taken extensive legal advice on this. I have files of costings advice in my office. Report stage is not the appropriate time to go through this. However, we have a chance to do something different and imaginative that might provide us with a fantastic tool to help people into long-term recovery. If we close the door on it now, so be it: but I want to keep the door open. Therefore, I feel obliged to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Marlesford
“Parliament Square committee
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a committee with responsibility for managing the controlled area of Parliament Square.
(2) The committee’s members shall be representatives of—
(a) all of the bodies which own or have responsibility for the controlled area of Parliament Square, and(b) the metropolitan police force.(3) The committee shall co-ordinate the work of its members in order to ensure that the controlled area of Parliament Square is kept clear of litter, detritus or other debris.
(4) The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, we now move to the Parliament Square elements of this Bill. In moving Amendment 306A and speaking to Amendment 306B, which are very much interlinked, I am trying to save the Government from themselves. We are all agreed on the need for something to be done about Parliament Square and I think we are agreed on what should be done. Parliament Square is an appropriate place to have protests but at the moment it is completely out of control as a result of the encampments. In recent weeks and months, the encampments have grown greatly. A few months ago there were only eight tents; now there are over 30. In fact, a lot of Parliament Square has been taken over not so much by protesters but by rough sleepers. Obviously something has to be done. I am not producing the final word on this but I am producing what I believe to be a much more sensible and workable solution than the one in the Government’s own Bill.
We are all agreed on the need to end encampments, but I am seeking to remove Clause 147 and to replace it, in Amendment 306B, with my own clause. First, we have to look at Clause 145, which I am not in any way interfering with. It sets out provisions making the encampments illegal and sets out very clearly and in great detail how the tents and sleeping equipment should be classified. It says,
“‘sleeping equipment’ means any sleeping bag, mattress or other similar item designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping in a place”.
That is a perfectly sensible and very wide definition, and of course cardboard boxes could be added because people sometimes adapt them to sleep in. But in a moment we will come to what I do not like in the Bill and noble Lords will see why it is rather inappropriate, not as a definition, but because of Clause 147.
Clause 147 spells out the terms and conditions for the seizure by the police of all the items listed in Clause 145. One of the problems of Parliament Square is that it has always been the responsibility of lots of different bodies: the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police, and to some extent the Highways Agency. We want one committee—I do not mind terribly how it is organised—with representatives from all the bodies so that together they can run the thing in a sensible manner. That is set out in Amendment 306A.
Amendment 306B has been tabled because I really do not think that Clause 147 is an appropriate way of doing this. The police are to be asked to seize all these things. Clause 147(4) authorises the police to,
“use reasonable force … in exercising a power of seizure”.
Normally the word “seizure” is used for drugs, weapons, documents relating to serious organised crime and so forth. Are the police really to be used to seize blankets? Is there not a better way? And then what are the police to do with the things they seize? It is all laid out in Clause 147, which I wish to replace. Clause 147(5) states:
“An item seized under this section must be returned to the person from whom it was seized … no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the item was seized”.
Does that make sense? Clause 147(6) goes on to state:
“If it is not possible to return an item under subsection (5) because the name or address of the person from whom it was seized is not known … the item may be returned to any other person appearing to have rights in the property who has come forward to claim it, or … if there is no such person, the item may be disposed of or destroyed at any time after the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the item was seized”.
We are aware of a shortage of police. Are they really to be given the role of maintaining tents, sleeping bags, mattresses and cardboard boxes until the appropriate time and seeking, no doubt diligently, to find out who they originally belonged to and returning them to their rightful owners? I am all in favour of the laws and rights of property, but this is a rather expensive way of doing it. Is it surprising that Councillor Colin Barrow, the leader of Westminster City Council, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours explaining why the proposals in the Bill simply will not work?
I fear that the Home Office is displaying a deep angst about this matter. I can see why that has been generated because when we had the democracy village on the green bit of Parliament Square, it took almost £1 million in legal fees to remove it. It was a tremendous performance. However, once the courts had ruled, it was eventually removed with remarkably little aggravation because in general people obey the law, provided that the law is in place.
We come now to my proposal, which is much simpler. The proposed committee will run Parliament Square, helping to decide what is appropriate in terms of demonstrations and all that, and of course we all start from the presumption that demonstrations are a good thing. The committee will have the power to authorise the removal of the items set out by the Government, but that will not be done by the police. Subsection (3) of my proposed clause simply states:
“The committee shall ensure that between midnight and 6am every night any items listed in subsection (2) are removed”.
I do not intend for this material to be removed by the police, but probably by Westminster City Council’s refuse removal people. That is a simple, unprovocative and unconfrontational method, and in general, people do not confront those who are kind enough to remove rubbish. Although I admit that it may be necessary in the first few days for the police to be present, I believe that it will quite quickly settle down given how quickly the democracy village came to an end. If people wish to bring their tents, they will have 18 hours out of 24 in which they can have them, but, on the whole, you have a tent because you want to sleep in it. If it is going to be removed at midnight and you then have six hours without it, the chances are that you will make your sleeping arrangements in a different manner.
My proposal is moderate and limited; it genuinely seeks to help the Government to achieve what we all want and what they have tried to achieve not quite so elegantly in their Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This is the third time that I have risen on these issues in the past month. Perhaps I may repeat a couple of sentences from the letter of the Conservative leader of Westminster City Council, so that those in the House who do not know what he said in it are quite clear in their minds when they are drawn into the Division Lobby. He states:
“The council has concerns over the current wording of the bill. Our chief concern is that protesters would simply move to other parts of the square, requiring further prolonged and costly legal action. Fundamentally, we do not believe that the bill as it currently stands would deliver a solution to the problem once and for all, and we are concerned that it will be a further example of poor legislation in this sensitive area”.
If that is the view of the local authority, which has responsibilities in this area, we should go back to a blank piece of paper or adopt the Marlesford amendment.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I can contribute to this debate with unaccustomed brevity, because I agree with both the contributions that have already been made. I hope that an additional reason for us all to be brief is that our noble friends on the government Front Bench have already read a great deal of the contributions that have been made, not least on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Marlesford but also on 10 June, when I, too, had the opportunity to put before your Lordships' House a Bill to try to deal with this particular point.
We must have a positive contribution to finding the solution to this problem. It is just not good enough to remove what is there. We need to move on; we need to move into a more positive situation where the square again becomes a genuine public space in the centre of our parliamentary democracy, with the abbey, the Supreme Court, the Treasury and Parliament all around. Our fellow citizens have a right to expect a proper, well planned solution for the future of Parliament Square.
In the debate on 10 June, I said:
“Our overall objective must surely be that the heart of our parliamentary democracy should be seen as such, with clear guidelines on what should be permitted and even encouraged to enhance this role, without recourse to unwieldy, excessive and unworkable regulation”.—[Official Report, 10/6/11; col. 518.]
I share the view of my noble friend that we must not impose on the police another set of defective regulations which are virtually unworkable. It is improper for us as legislators to impose a responsibility on them in that respect.
I am sure that my noble friends have also seen that there is real public interest in this issue, as was evidenced by an article in the Evening Standard yesterday—although that was a classic case of picking a good day to bury good news. Even so, there is real concern among all those who visit London, whether it be fellow citizens of the United Kingdom or people from abroad, about the unfortunate mess that is currently at the heart of our democracy.
I hope that the Government will give a positive response to my noble friend’s new clause and amendment, because, without it, I fear this situation will continue to be outrageously ridiculous.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I said at its Second Reading that I commend the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for its simplicity, its clarity and, above all, its good sense. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said, Parliament Square is not an item on its own; it is part of a whole. If you see something looking like that, it reflects on the whole, and it reflects on all of us that, for years, the Houses between them have proved completely incapable of solving something apparently simple. Therefore, the public will ask, “What hope have they got of solving anything more complicated?”. This House and the surrounds of Parliament are cleaned and prepared every day for the following day. The beauty of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that it enables the whole area, including the square, to be cleaned and prepared for every day and does not allow it to be traduced for purposes for which it is neither designed nor suitable.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Marlesford has said. I took part in the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and briefly intervened on my noble friend Lord Marlesford, but I have been speaking on this issue for many years. I raised it first in the other place when the squalid encampment first appeared in Parliament Square. All noble Lords, I am sure, believe in freedom of speech and freedom for peaceful demonstration, but that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing the defacement of a world heritage site that is the centre of our parliamentary democracy. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to come up with a solution but, sadly, the last time a Government tried—a Government from another party—they failed. They produced draconian regulations and the squalid encampment remained.
I fear that my noble friend Lord Marlesford is only too correct in pointing to the deficiencies in the Bill as it is currently before your Lordships’ House: placing the duties of lost property custodians upon the Metropolitan Police is not the best way of using its all-too-depleted manpower. When my noble friend the Minister replies, I hope she will acknowledge the unworkability—and, indeed, the absurdity—of the proposals to which my noble friend has alluded. I hope she will accept the amendments of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. If she feels for technical reasons that she cannot do that, I hope she will agree to come back at Third Reading with a government amendment, having discussed the matter with the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Tyler and others, and come up with a solution that we can all accept.
I have absolutely no desire to go into the Lobby against my noble friend the Minister, but unless she can either accept the amendment or promise to come back on Third Reading, after consultation with my noble friend Lord Marlesford and others, with a sensible and workable solution, the House will have no alternative but to express its concern in the only way that it can.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I spent a great part of my working life protecting the freedom of speech, which is one of the most important things that anyone can do in a democracy. I also vigorously resisted the thought police. I now find that I have to consider the blanket police, the cardboard box police, the sleeping bag police, and a vision of shaking people out of sleeping bags in the middle of the night and wondering whether you log them as lost or found property.
I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It is very much in the public interest that we should do something—if not what the noble Lord suggests then something closely akin to it. As has already been alluded to, we are in the cradle of democracy. I find it difficult to walk into your Lordships’ House—as do many noble Lords—because of the mass of tourists who are here at the moment. Tourists flock from all parts of the world to look at us and the buildings around us, and they have to step over 20, 30 or more tents and placards. This is not only repugnant but quite unacceptable.
We should not overcomplicate matters, as the Government’s Bill suggests at the moment. I am a great believer in keeping things simple. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is a solution which goes a long way towards the simplicity we are looking for and we should support it. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, I hope the Minister will take this away and come back at Third Reading with something workable which is closely akin to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I certainly support the amendment. It is extremely clear, giving a clear chain of command to deal with these matters.
My complaint is not that these demonstrations are visually offensive. People who demonstrate against the established order are not likely to be immaculate in their appearance or even, with all respect, in their conception. My problem is that these demonstrations offend the right to demonstrate. It is a very precious venue for demonstrations to occur. The imperishable rights of free speech, for which people have given their lives over the centuries in this country, should be preserved. The problem is that these demonstrations take root. They took root in the most obvious, physical way by people sleeping there. That not merely causes offence, which I understand, but obstructs and cheapens the right to demonstrate.
I am all in favour of large numbers of demonstrations taking place in Parliament Square. There are lots of things in our country to demonstrate about and lots of evils to complain about. We should cherish the right to protest but I am against monopoly. This is a self-centred, self-indulgent form of monopoly that is harmful to the rights of free speech. For that reason particularly, I support the excellent amendment.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I have spoken every time that Parliament Square has come up in your Lordships’ House. I rise once again, as sort of the sole defender of the unlimited right of people to demonstrate, despite all the ugliness that they might display. What I like about the proposed new clause in the noble Lord’s Amendment 306B is subsection (1), which asserts that the committee will,
“facilitate lawful, authorised demonstrations in the controlled area of Parliament Square”.
As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, one reason why people stay overnight is that they are not quite sure that they will be allowed to come the next morning to demonstrate. Once a committee has been established and lays down the rules under which people can lawfully demonstrate—that is, between 6 am and midnight—that situation will be clarified. Then the rest of Amendment 306B will ensure what everyone else wants—tidiness in Parliament Square. I have never been a great fan of tidiness. I have seen far too many tidy parliamentary squares in various eastern European and other regimes. I much prefer untidiness. It is characteristic of democracy.
Lord Cormack
The noble Lord has tidied himself in a way that has impressed every Member of this House.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope that what I am about to say does not damage the reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I, too, have argued throughout for the repeal of the SOCPA provisions and for not putting anything else in their place. I have said several times that aesthetic considerations—in other words, tidying up the square—should not be given more weight than considerations based on democracy.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his response to the debate. His amendments call for a committee consisting of representatives of the various bodies. The Metropolitan Police force is mentioned and clearly Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority would be other candidates. I do not know if there are any more. In putting these amendments forward, what response has he had from those organisations—I assume he has consulted them at some stage during all of this—to the proposals that he now puts forward for a committee that will have some powers and obviously functions?
Lord Judd
My Lords, like others I find this amendment very helpful and sensible. I make only one observation. I think perhaps that some of the language being used in support of the amendment could be interpreted in a way that is not intended. We must not inadvertently move into a culture in which we see demonstrations as a sort of tokenism, whereby people have their ration of time for demonstrating. From time to time, there will be issues on which people feel so deeply and profoundly that they will want to continue their vigil through the night and perhaps through several days. I hope that in accepting and endorsing this amendment we will not in any way associate ourselves with a view that people can have their ration of time, and that is it. But we cannot have this physical obstruction and complete spoiling of one of the richest heritages in the country.
Lord Hylton
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I say that it may be foreseen that there may be occasions on which people wish to have an all-night vigil, but that does not mean to say that they have a right to bring tents and to sleep in them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I was approached only last night by my noble friend Lord Marlesford to ask what my views were and whether I would vote for him. I cautiously—because caution is my watchword—promised that I would come and listen to him. That is why I am here and, indeed, on my feet. I have not been approached by Westminster City Council, but all politics are local and I once represented that council in the other place, and am therefore sympathetic to it.
I have one personal footnote to make to this debate, a prior example to the body that my noble friend seeks to establish—the Paving Commission in Regent’s Park, which was set up during the period of Nash to look after good order in Regent’s Park. I realise that the Government might say that that is not an exact analogy, but the fact remains that the Royal Parks are another of the places in this great city where free speech is demonstrated, Hyde Park being a particular of that. The Paving Commission consisted entirely of those with a local interest, under an early-19th century statute, with two exceptions—the bailiff of the Royal Parks, who is a civil servant at the assistant secretary level; and a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, which effectively means a senior government whip in the House of Commons.
I served as a commissioner for a couple of years and made a small contribution to the work of the Paving Commission by saying that it was all very well for the debates that we had in our regular monthly meetings for those who actually lived in the park, because they recognised absolutely everything that was being talked about. The bailiff of the Royal Parks to some degree and myself to a larger degree, because much of Regent’s Park lay outside my constituency, were not so familiar. I made the suggestion to the head of the commission that we should have a picnic every year and that the whole commission should make a tour of the whole park. I am glad to say that that suggestion was adopted and ever since nobody has ever been able to work out why they had never done it before. The scheme has worked extremely well for 200 years. It is a little difficult to apply modern parking regulations to legislation that was set up in the early part of the 19th century, but imagination has been deployed.
Therefore, having said to my noble friend last night that I would certainly listen to him, it would be churlish of me not to say that I would not listen to my noble friend the Minister. But I have to say on the basis of the debate that we have had so far that I am minded to vote with my noble friend and with Westminster City Council.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I sympathise with the objectives and purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in tabling these amendments and with those who have spoken in favour of it. There are two points on the practicability of the scheme that I would like to query, which both relate to this Parliament Square committee. First, would the authorities of the Palace of Westminster be represented on it? That is just a query; I do not know what is intended. Secondly, it seems that this committee would be in almost permanent session. I wonder if that is really practicable and I would welcome comments on that before I make up my mind on how to respond in a Division.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the issues that have been raised this afternoon. Indeed, there will be more because while we are still waiting for Committee stages on both Private Members’ Bills to come through, we have the debate today and one more opportunity on this Bill to try and resolve this. The issue itself is not difficult to encapsulate. As many people have suggested, we need some imaginative thinking about the relationship between Parliament, the abbey, the church, the public buildings and the public spaces around them that goes across the various dimensions that have been mentioned in this debate—security, access, traffic, tourism, history, heritage and, of course, the absolute requirement to ensure that demonstrations can take place.
The good thing about the amendment—indeed, it was in the Bill that we discussed last week—is that there is a laser-like focus on the two issues that we have been focusing on today. They are that we want to have a clear space within which the buildings that I mentioned can exist and the activities that we have been talking about can happen, but we also want to encourage demonstration—a very important aspect of this amendment. That far, we agree with everybody who has spoken that that is what we are trying to do but, as has been said already, the problem is that we do not seem able to solve it.
It seems to me and to our side that, as again has been mentioned, we have to be a bit careful that we do not rush into action here. That may seem odd given the number of years we have been working on it but I detect a sense of—what shall we call it?—tentism springing up. We should not do that without thinking very carefully what we are doing. As was said earlier, there are many different ways of demonstrating and it just seems to happen that tents seem to be the vogue at the moment. What that has to do with modern life, I have no idea.
It is also rather sad, in some senses, that the extraordinary contribution to public life which Brian Haw made before his untimely death has been swept away as something that we are against, even though it is in some ways a peculiarly British way of trying to express a view by a sort of silent protest in the face of all possible opposition. With the whole establishment and everybody against it, he continued to make his point. It may not have been to everybody's liking or as effective as he might have wanted it to be but it was there, it was different and it was distinctive. We should worry if we were to squeeze it out by a rush to some form of arrangement.
We also have to be a bit careful about what is happening here. I have never been of the view that a committee is the answer to the problem that we have, and I am a bit surprised to hear other people saying it. Committees do not really solve many things. We had a rather strange intervention last week from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who said that the military would have recommended a committee in this situation. I thought that was a contradiction in terms. The other thing that we have to be careful about is that the evening round of the vehicles under Westminster City Council's jurisdiction will be picking up the tents and other materials, if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to be believed. That is really a form of theft, is it not? Again, we should be careful before Parliament legislates in that way. There are people who own those things and we cannot act completely without the rights involved in that.
Noble Lords will detect from what I say that I am sympathetic to what is proposed and would like to support it. The problem is that the amendment in its present form has not been subject to sufficient scrutiny. We had a little of that during Second Reading; in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a number of points which he felt would improve that Bill. An important way to take forward the aims and objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to have the Committee stage at the right time, to try to go through that Bill and improve it. Unfortunately, the timing would not fit with the present Bill. I do not know how we resolve that but I will come back to it in a minute.
However, it seems to me that there are ways in which the elements that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is putting forward do fit with the intentions of the Government. It would be sensible to try and bolt together the two impulses so that at Third Reading, before the Bill leaves this House, the Minister can bring forward proposals. I note that when she responded to the debate last week, she said of discussions and meetings that:
“Those are ongoing and I do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward further measures before the Bill completes its passage through this House. I do not think I can give more detail at the moment”.
She always says that, doesn’t she? It is a bit irritating, and I hope that this time we can get down to it. She went on,
“but it is certainly a matter under consideration and the talks are ongoing”.—[Official Report, 1/7/11; col. 2014.]
Well, more time has passed and presumably talks have taken place. Now let us hear where they are, as the time as come for us to try to resolve this, at least in the first stage.
We on this side would like to support the intention behind the Bill. In summary, we think that provision would be better incorporated within this Bill and taken forward as one piece of legislation. However, it will need—
Lord Morgan
The noble Lord constantly says, “We on this side believe”. I do not recognise his views as at all representative of me. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1955 and I see no relation between my long-held opinions and what are supposed to be the views of our Front Bench. I think that our Front Bench should cover itself with a fig leaf of modesty.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I was trying to cover myself with a fig leaf of invisibility—and I will do that now.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment. Indeed, it was just two weeks ago that we had a more extensive debate on his Private Member’s Bill on this subject. The Government are committed to restoring rights to non-violent protest. They are also committed to ensuring that everyone can enjoy public spaces and do not consider it acceptable for people to camp on Parliament Square. Therefore, we are taking a new approach to the square. Instead of trying to deal with the problem of encampment by criminalising and targeting protests and protestors, what we have brought forward seeks to prevent the disruptive activities that have caused concern—namely, erecting tents and staying overnight with sleeping equipment. We hope that we have done this in a targeted, proportionate and enforceable way that applies to all, not just to protestors.
I stress that the Government wholly appreciate my noble friend’s intentions behind his amendments. We are in complete agreement with the need for a Parliament Square, clear of tents, that can be enjoyed by all. That of course includes those who wish to come to make their views known and to protest. We believe that that should also open up the possibility for those who may want to demonstrate in a peaceful way through all-night vigils—something that is precluded at the moment.
We wholly agree that we need the different enforcement agencies to work closely together to achieve this. We also agree that the square should be a thriving space that accommodates protests by all groups, not just a few. However, I am afraid that my noble friend’s amendments will not achieve that. They risk leading to a significant escalation in confrontation and disorder, which our proposals are crafted to avoid. I cannot see how my noble friend’s proposals will result in anything other than nightly stand-offs between police and council workers on the one side and on the other groups that will disregard the views of the committee that he proposes to put in place.
This is not just government hysteria or hyperbole; this is based on the experience recorded by the courts of wilful disregard for the law by groups such as Democracy Village and a determination by the present encampment to challenge both legally and confrontationally on the ground any attempt to move them or their equipment. Furthermore, even assuming that they could be moved, the net effect for those who use Parliament Square will be no different. After a nightly battle, the tents and other structures would simply be re-erected at 6 am the next day. The square would be clear only when no one was around to witness it. As I understand my noble friend’s amendments, he suggests—and he repeated it in his opening remarks—that council refuse collectors should simply sweep the square at midnight and clear it of detritus. I would like to put it to my noble friend that there may be people attached to that detritus, and there would almost certainly be people inside the tents.
The Government had originally proposed that the powers to use reasonable force in enforcing our provisions should be available to authorised and trained officers of Westminster Council and the GLA. There was widespread Cross-Bench concern in the House at those enforcement powers. The Government listened and have removed those powers from the Bill. My noble friend’s amendments envisage refuse collectors seizing tents and other structures. We do not think that that is appropriate, proportionate or desirable. If that were indeed their responsibility, it would certainly contribute to the nightly scuffles and punch-ups that I have alluded to.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I understand that the ministry has met the council leader, but in his letter he says that the Government’s proposal will not work. He says that it will not fulfil the objectives set by the Government. I cannot imagine what has happened in the conversation with committees and officers of the council meeting to come to that conclusion. What happens if the Bill is enacted as the noble Baroness would want and it turns out as time passes that Westminster City Council is right and the Government are wrong?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, as I have indicated, no one says that this is an easy matter. We have sought to reform the legislation by giving more opportunity for peaceful protest on the square while seeking to remove the problem of the encampments. I have discussed Westminster City Council’s concerns with it, but it is quite clear that it will fully co-operate as partners in this legislation. We continue to discuss that with it. While I understand that Westminster City Council would perhaps have liked us to go further and extend the area that we are considering, given the proportionality concerns raised in this House and another place we have sought to get the balance right. I am assured, and I have no reason to doubt, that Westminster City Council will play its part with other partners such as the parks authorities and the GLA in endeavouring to make this legislation work. If in three or four years’ time noble Lords come back and say, “Well, that didn’t work”, I will be disappointed. However, this is the best way forward: trying to address the problem while maintaining the space outside the House for democratic protest.
Lord Kilclooney
It is great that the Minister met the leader of the city council. Can she now say whether he has changed his position of opposition to what was happening?
Baroness Browning
I think I am correct in saying that when he wrote that letter he was probably extremely concerned and wanted to have more dialogue with my department. That dialogue has taken place and will be ongoing. We will certainly take seriously any concerns of Westminster City Council and any other enforcement agency that will be required to participate in this new legislation, and will continue to work with them. I have in front of me the words that I have expressed about the council. The House will be unsurprised to learn that those words have been agreed with it. I am not saying this off the top of my head. There is a constructive dialogue, and we will seek between us to overcome any concerns that it might have.
Lord Cormack
As it is quite clear that there is real concern in all parts of the House, and, from what my noble friend has just said, continuing concern in Westminster City Council, can she not adopt my suggestion of a little while ago and have further discussions between now and Third Reading with a view to seeing whether these proposals, which many of us feel are deficient, can be improved? This is a real chance to deal with an eyesore that has been here for far too long. We do not want, in three or four years’ time—or even three or four months’ time—to have to say that it is not working.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I hope I have explained very clearly why the amendments before the House would not address the problem that we are seeking to address. My noble friend asked me to look at this further. We have already made concessions on this legislation to get the balance right, particularly as expressed in this House and another place, and to ensure that it was not overprescriptive for those who want to exercise their democratic right to protest outside this Building. I am not in a position to bring this back at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will examine carefully my concerns about a committee as outlined in the amendments.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I respectfully draw the noble Lord’s attention to the rules on Report.
Lord De Mauley
I am sorry but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the rule about not speaking more than once to an amendment.
Lord Judd
I thought it was possible to seek clarification from a Minister during their wind-up speech. The point on which I seek clarification is whether it would be wise, at some point, to meet those who organise vigils to suggest to them that counterproductivity in campaigning does not help their cause.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I never pretended that this was the last word. I am disappointed that the Government feel that their Bill is the last word. I am delighted to hear that the Minister will discuss these matters in more detail with Westminster City Council. I find it a little strange that the letter from which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, quoted was written as recently as 21 June. After all, the Government have had this Bill in gestation for many months. If I had been on Westminster City Council, I, too, would have been a little miffed if I appeared to have been ignored.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and others, the committee will certainly be all-embracing. Whoever should be on it will be on it. It will not have to sit all the time; it will have a, presumably very small, permanent staff—perhaps someone seconded from the Met, someone from Westminster City Council and someone from here who will keep a watching brief for us. I was surprised when the Minister said that she did not know whether the committee would report to her. My amendment says:
“The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament”.
I do not say that that is necessarily the right idea, but for her to say that I have made no provision for reporting is simply not true. It is in the amendment. My worry is that the Home Office just does not like ideas from outside. It does not even read them; it just rejects them, which is disappointing. Given the Minister’s answer, and to encourage the Government to think a little more, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee
“(2) But an order under subsection (1)(b) may not prohibit a person from entering the controlled area of Parliament Square nor restrict a person’s right lawfully to demonstrate there.”
Baroness Hamwee
We remain in Parliament Square, as it were. Noble Lords will be glad to know that we have now got as far as page 100 in the Bill. Instead of giving the court the power to impose a sanction on an open-ended basis following the conviction of anyone who has committed an offence under the prohibited activities in the controlled area of Parliament Square, the amendment would limit that power and provide that no order may,
“prohibit a person from entering the controlled area of Parliament Square nor restrict a person’s right lawfully to demonstrate there”.
This is a simple proposition, I hope, that was suggested to me by the organisation Justice. It is right that Parliament Square is a public place which, as we have seen, will be well controlled, or better controlled than I would like. As noble Lords are all saying, it is a place where properly organised demonstrations and expressions of opinion are entirely appropriate. It is hard to imagine why it will be necessary to prohibit entry to the square altogether. These provisions will be targeted at demonstrators and it is important to the democratic process, again as noble Lords say, that provisions aimed at preventing setting up camps, in particular, do not have the by-product of silencing protests altogether. Rather than this blanket prohibition the court should properly look at dealing with offences on an offence-by-offence basis, not making an order, which is equivalent to an injunction, for the future. It is almost more akin to convenience than a proper criminal sanction. That is what underlies my amendment.
While I am speaking, I wonder whether I can have a word about two of the government amendments in this group, Amendments 307ZA and 309ZE. The Minister will explain the application of this very old legislation—the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926. I assume that this is a device to extend certain controls relating to seizure to other areas near to Parliament. What will be given by these provisions are powers to yet another class of official—we have park constables in this legislation. Are we giving powers to unwarranted officers to make seizures? How will that regime fit in with the arrangements to be made for Parliament Square? The legislation refers to a park trading offence, and as I read the existing legislation, that will require some regulation. Perhaps that can be clarified. My concern is that we should not be adding to the confusion by a different regime. As regards Amendment 306C, I beg to move.
Lord Dubs
I should like to speak to Amendment 307 standing in my name. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we spent quite a lot of time considering this Bill. I hope that the Minister will not mind if I go public on a private conversation she and I had some little while ago. I buttonholed the Minister in the Corridor and said that I had an amendment that I was sure she would see to be so sensible that she would give it her support. She looked at me and said, “Yes, that’s what they all say”. I still believe that this is a very helpful amendment.
When we give powers to the police there should be codes of guidance under which the police would operate. There are many precedents for having such codes: I will come to them in a moment. The Bill contains complexities that the police will find it hard to work around. Reference has already been made to structures, sleeping equipment and authorisation for amplification such as loudspeakers. These will be difficult decisions for the police to make—all the more so because I think I am right in saying that one has to get authorisation 21 days in advance for using loudspeakers, but only six days in advance for holding a demo. One has to apply much earlier for the right to use loudspeakers than for the right to demonstrate at all. This is confusing, and it will be difficult for the police to implement.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will ask the Minister for clarification on government Amendment 307ZA. My honourable friend Lady Hamwee referred to this a moment ago. The amendment has appeared for the first time in the Marshalled List on Report. It amends the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000. That was an eminently sensible Act. It targeted the renegade burger vans that were invading Hyde Park and gave the police powers to seize the vans and the various paraphernalia. I do not think that anyone has disputed the legislation or the way in which it works. If I read the amendment correctly—I may not have, which is why I seek clarification—it will allow seizure powers to be applied in any instance where a by-law in any Royal Park appears to be violated. That is a huge broadening of powers. As many noble Lords will know, many by-laws affect the Royal Parks. As far as I know, there is no problem that requires a fix—so in a sense this is a solution finding a problem, which itself raises issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, put the point exceedingly well that the issue of democratic protest applies not just to Parliament Square. Many Royal Parks also have a tradition of allowing legal, peaceful demonstration and protest. The fact that there is public access at all to Richmond Park comes from public protest, which has a very long history. I am concerned that in an attempt to tidy up loose ends and provide a more sweeping basis for various powers, we are about to put in a piece of legislation that is not required because there is no problem to solve, and that puts across a problematic message that demonstration needs to be in some way curtailed. I seek reassurance and an explanation of why this appears in the Bill, what its purpose and intent are, and what the legal effect of it will be.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I had not intended to speak in this debate and I ought to confess that—how can I best describe it?—I copped out on the previous debate as I found my noble friend Lord Marlesford and all the other speeches very persuasive until I heard my noble friend from the Front Bench who I thought made some significant points that undermined the possible practicality of that amendment.
This amendment is also designed to modify the Government’s proposals. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that it seems to me that we have quite an awkward situation here. Almost no one believes that what the Government have in the Bill will work. Everyone believes that something needs to be done. I was persuaded that my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment was not quite the ticket, so I landed up in the position I have described. Equally, I do not find myself very attracted by the proposition, which my noble friend on the Front Bench implied in her speech, that it might take four years to find out. Well, if it had not worked in four years, she would be disappointed.
The fact is that we are going to know quite soon following the passage of this Bill, if that is what happens, whether it has been effective in achieving the objective we all want, which is a situation in Parliament Square that is consistent with the buildings around it and its world status. I do not seek to persuade my noble friend to concede to the amendment or to put her in a very difficult position, but I would like her to acknowledge that in this debate points have been made by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that need some further consideration. I would welcome an assurance that if what is in the Bill does not work, the Government will continue discussions with a view to coming forward with some other proposition that has a better chance of working in pretty short order.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who, in an earlier debate, suggested that, as far as this part of the Bill relating to Parliament Square is concerned, I said I would reflect and bring things back. That is why government amendments are in this group. I am keeping my word and seeking to make some changes.
Clause 148 empowers the court to make any appropriate order which has the purpose of preventing the defendant engaging in prohibited activities in the controlled area. We want to retain some flexibility for the court to deal with a determined individual who has persistently failed to comply with direction by barring him from the controlled area when it is proportionate and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is seeking to make guidance statutory. The Government are committed to providing the necessary guidance and support but consider that there is nothing to be gained by making the guidance statutory, which could risk interfering in operational capabilities. I will explain why. Statutory guidance is frequently more restricted and concise, lacking the practical examples and case studies that are often present in non-statutory guidance. This means that statutory guidance can end up being less helpful than non-statutory guidance. If action is challenged, the courts will have a look at any type of government-approved guidance, statutory or non-statutory, in considering the lawfulness of the action. The practical impact of making guidance statutory would be limited but the usefulness of the guidance could be reduced. That is probably because we can all envisage a series of scenarios that might apply in this instance. It would be very difficult to capture them all in statutory guidance. In this case, it is believed that non-statutory guidance would be more helpful if these cases were ever tested in the court. However, the noble Lord’s amendment provides a helpful template for the areas and issues which our non-statutory guidance will cover. I thank him for that.
I now turn to the government amendments. As I stated in Committee, we want to ensure that the area in which the new regime applies is as small as possible so that it targets the problem of the unique situation of Parliament Square without extending any further than necessary. We recognise the concerns of some that the controlled area is too small and that the effect of these measures could be to displace disruptive activities to footways beyond the controlled area. That is why we have been working with Westminster City Council and the GLA to ensure that relevant by-laws are strengthened to deal with disruptive activity in the wider area.
In consultation with the House authorities, it has become clear that additional provision is needed for other areas around Parliament Square not covered by Westminster City Council or Greater London Authority by-laws but which are covered by Royal Parks regulations; for example, the lawn area around the statue of George V, and Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, these amendments make provision for a power of seizure to be attached to Royal Parks regulations to support the position we have taken for effective enforcement of GLA and Westminster City Council by-laws. These amendments have the support of the House authorities and are in line with the proportionate and targeted approach we are taking in the Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square.
Lord Cormack
I was at odds with my noble friend in the previous debate. I would like to thank her—on behalf, I am sure, of many Members in all parts of this House—for what she has just said about the area around the statue of George V and the other areas.
Baroness Browning
I am glad to have reassured my noble friend. I will pick up on a couple of points raised in the debate. My noble friend Lady Hamwee talked about powers for parks regulations. These powers will be exercised by the Metropolitan Police as it has a distinct Royal Parks operational command unit.
My noble friend Lady Kramer also asked about other parks that might be affected by these amendments. The amendments are an enabling power only. They enable DCMS, when making Royal Parks regulations, to apply a power of seizure to any, all or some of the Royal Parks regulations. This comes back to the fact that these reforms are very much focused on the power of seizure. In turn, the Royal Parks regulations apply to a specified list of parks which include Hyde Park, Victoria Tower Gardens, Hampton Court Gardens and Richmond Park, to name but a few. It would be open to DCMS to apply a power of seizure to any, all or some of the parks in that list. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend but if she has any particular concerns about the read-across of this to any park she is interested in, I would be very happy to discuss it with her or let her have fuller information in writing.
These amendments are a targeted approach synonymous with what we have set out to achieve in this Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square. Before I move them, I will just touch on the fact that my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree said that in an earlier debate I had mentioned “four years”. I just said that off the top of my head. Perhaps I should stick to the official brief. I always get into trouble when I go off-piste. I could easily have said six months, a year, 18 months, whatever.
What I was really trying to convey to the House is that we believe that we have a proportionate and sensible proposal to go forward to deal with this long-standing problem. I am not going to be daft enough to say, “Problem solved, my Lords”, and have everyone come back to me in two or four years. We think this is our best effort. It has the support of those who are going to enforce it and they will work together to make it happen. We are hopeful that our endeavours will resolve this problem, but it is not realistic to expect me to say what the timescale will be. My noble friend has known me long enough, and indeed I remember the time when he was a Minister and I was on the Back Benches asking him awkward questions. He knows that we will do our best, and I do not think we can be expected to do more.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister has argued for giving the court more flexibility than I think is appropriate in the circumstances. It amounts in effect to precluding a demonstrator in advance. But clearly I am not going to be able to persuade her.
On the government amendments, I should say that I am left with a considerable feeling of unease. I asked who would exercise the powers and the Minister has explained that it would be the Royal Parks Police, so we have yet another player in the mix. But that troubles me much less than what I suspected might be the case, which is that these new provisions could extend powers to any of the Royal Parks. I have to say to my noble friend that it is a great pity—actually, it is quite troubling—that these provisions are being brought before the House under the heading, as it were, of Parliament Square when we have been talking about the environs of Parliament. We are being asked at this stage to agree changes to legislation which clearly could be far more wide-reaching geographically than most noble Lords would have assumed. I wonder whether I can invite my noble friend, either at this stage or through some device at Third Reading, to give assurances that the Government will not use these provisions more extensively than the environs of Parliament. As I say, I think that that is what noble Lords were expecting. I do not know whether she is in a position to respond, but we do have more stages to come.
Baroness Browning
We are on the last day of Report and I cannot commit at this stage to bring this back formally at Third Reading. However, I am happy to engage in discussions with my noble friend on the points she has raised.
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful to the Minister and I certainly will want to take up that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Guidance issued under this Part
(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance on—
(a) prohibited activities under section 145;(b) directions under section 145(1);(c) seizure and retention of property under section 147;(d) authorisations for the operation of amplified noise equipment under section 149.(2) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(a) shall include—
(a) further details defining the terms—(i) “structure that is designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in a place for any period”,(ii) “sleeping equipment”,(iii) “the purpose of sleeping or staying in that area”, and(iv) “the purpose of sleeping overnight”;(b) guidance about the treatment of amplified noise equipment used by disabled persons for the purposes of communication.(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) shall include provision about—
(a) the circumstances in which a direction under section 145(1) may be made;(b) the form of any direction given under section 145(1), in particular—(i) the circumstances when a direction or the variation of a direction must be in writing;(ii) the arrangements for the identification of a constable or authorised officer making a direction or variation of a direction;(iii) the appropriate duration of any direction or variation of a direction; and(iv) the requirements for notice and communication of a direction or a variation of a direction to the person or persons subject to such a direction.(4) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(c) shall include provision about the circumstances in which the powers under section 147(1) shall be exercised, in particular—
(a) the identification and notification of the owner of any relevant prohibited item; and(b) the use of force by constables under section 147(4).(5) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(d) shall include provision about—
(a) the criteria for withholding authorisation; (b) any exemptions from authorisation for equipment used by disabled persons for the purposes of communication;(c) the conditions which may be imposed by the responsible authority in connection with any authorisation;(d) the target timetables for processing applications for authorisation (including fast-track procedures for priority authorisation);(e) the form and manner of—(i) the application for authorisation,(ii) the notice of authorisation, and(iii) the notice of variation of any authorisation;(f) the maximum fee to be paid for determining any application.(6) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a draft of the proposed guidance; and(b) conduct a public consultation on the draft guidance.(7) In preparing draft guidance, the Secretary of State must, in particular, consult—
(a) the metropolitan police force;(b) the Greater London Authority;(c) Westminster City Council; and(d) the Director of Public Prosecutions.(8) Guidance issued under this section must be made by statutory instrument and is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Baroness Browning
“(A1) In section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 (power to make regulations), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision applying (with any necessary modifications) sections 4 to 6 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000 (seizure, retention, disposal and forfeiture of property) in relation to offences under that subsection that are not park trading offences for the purposes of that Act.””
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher
I rise to move Amendment 307ZB and to speak to Amendments 307ZC and 307ZE, which together seek to provide some flexibility for the Government in deciding how best to regulate the use and supply of so-called legal highs. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has asked me to inform the House that he had requested the Public Bill Office to add his name to these amendments, and the absence of his name from the Marshalled List is purely an administrative error. These amendments are similar, although not identical, to those tabled in Committee. They now refer to the medicines Acts, consumer protection and advertising standards legislation, all of which provide legislative frameworks within which it would be possible for legal highs to be controlled.
As the Minister knows, I am not seeking to tie the hands of the Government—quite the opposite. A great deal of work needs to be done, and indeed is being done, to explore the best ways to control these substances. What I am seeking is flexibility in this legislation so that when the analysis of the various legislative frameworks and their potential application in this field has been completed, the controls could be put in place without waiting for further legislation. We all know how long that can take.
I am anxious that the Government avoid a repeat of the mistakes of the past. In Committee, I set out briefly the appalling consequences of the war on drugs, which has been pursued by this country and across the world for 50 years. From the Global Commission on Drug Policy report, we know that a rapidly growing number of highly respected world leaders and opinion formers now recognise that we need to end the criminalisation of young people and focus on evidence-based, health-oriented policies. The amendments are consistent with the growing policy consensus across the globe.
On the thrust of my amendments, we know that some of the substances referred to as legal highs are potentially very dangerous to the health of young people. We also suspect that other substances may be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. It would be most unhelpful if these substances were to be dealt with in the same way. It would be particularly unhelpful if they were dealt with under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which, as your Lordships know, criminalises users as well as suppliers. As the Bill stands, that is the assumption, albeit that under the temporary ban in the initial stages users will not be targeted. The assumption is that, if these substances are brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act, users will inevitably be targeted over time, as they are under that Act in respect of other drugs.
I welcome the Government’s focus on treatment of problem drug use. This focus makes it clear that the Government accept that it is a health problem—certainly, drug abuse is. On this assumption, the priority for us all in developing drugs policy is to try to ensure that young people avoid the substances and the associated health problems if at all possible. This means having clear messages about the relative risk of different substances and the provision of health treatment as well as social support for all those who need it.
I welcomed the Minister’s comments on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, where she talked about the importance of a rounded and holistic approach to drug addiction. The Minister referred to different departments being brought together to provide that support. As the Minister knows, I have drawn attention to the Swiss model, which, instead of trying to get a whole lot of different departments to work together, which we know is extraordinarily difficult, brings all those services under a single umbrella, providing an extraordinarily effective service—health and social support, benefits and the rest of it—so that they achieve a two-thirds success rate over 18 months.
As important as all that is the separation of the markets for these legal highs between the markets for the really dangerous substances and those for substances which are much less dangerous. That is the fundamental point of my amendment. If there is a single market and a single set of traffickers, young and vulnerable people move inevitably from one drug to another.
On giving clear messages about the relative risks of different drugs, we know that the classification system of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not work. When cannabis was moved from class B to class C and back again from class C to class B, the trends in the use of cannabis did not change very much—the fact is, young people do not really understand the classification system. By contrast, the tobacco controls have been really rather effective over time. Tobacco and alcohol are just two substances controlled outside the Misuse of Drugs Act. There is no reason why substances should be controlled under that legislation. Solvents are controlled through the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act; medicines legislation has been used in a number of countries for controlling methadrone—for example, in the Netherlands and Finland—and for controlling Spice in Austria.
The controls referred to in my amendments could allow the authorities to direct users towards relatively less harmful substances as substitutes for the much more harmful ones. They also provide an opportunity to introduce controls that are not feasible under the Misuse of Drugs Act, including age restrictions, controls on marketing and packaging and requirements that substances are sold with information on dosage levels and adverse effects. All of that would be extraordinarily helpful for vulnerable young people. Sale could be limited to a relatively small number of establishments, unlike the liberal policy we have for alcohol and tobacco.
Controls are not by any means the whole story; we want prevention, too. The best preventive measures include sensitive support in school, or in other venues where young people congregate, for children who are readily identified as underperforming, alienated and unhappy. These are the children at risk of being enticed into the taking of synthetic drugs and who, once enticed, will be vulnerable to a dependence on those drugs. If they fall into the drug addiction trap, the most destructive response to these vulnerable young children is to criminalise them. As they say, you can recover from drug addiction but you can never recover from a criminal conviction. With a criminal conviction, the child’s life is in pieces; family, friends, education and hope of employment are all in tatters. It is for these reasons that I implore the Minister to do all that she can to ensure that the regulation of legal highs is undertaken in such a way as to avoid criminalising children and young people if at all possible.
If we are now too late to take this action within the Bill, I would be greatly encouraged if the Minister could give the House her assurance that she will be asking her officials to begin work without delay on the necessary legislation to achieve these objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having brought back these amendments on Report. I hope the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic and positive response.
I was impressed by what the Minister said in a previous debate today—there was a great deal of personal conviction behind what she said—and her insistence on the importance of not only treatment but of cure. If that applies as a governing principle in the sphere of alcohol abuse and the much more serious social consequences that that has, why not have the same approach at the centre of the Government’s policy on drugs?
If we are to get the response to drugs right—the noble Baroness was right to emphasise this—two principles are absolutely essential. First, any action which is taken should be based not on emotion, instinct or control concern but on evidence-based outcomes of thorough research. Any moves or legislative arrangements that are not properly researched can do far more harm than good. That is the first point.
The second, absolutely crucial, point is the one made by the noble Baroness about criminalisation. One certain way to make it more difficult to rescue the young from drug addiction is this excessive tendency towards their criminalisation. We have to realise that it is not a soft approach but a hard-headed one. Very often drug addiction is a symptom of victimisation: the drug takers are often victims themselves in one way or another. I am greatly impressed by the increasing amount of research which is now being undertaken which suggests that the most important factor in leading young people and others into drug abuse is the environment, social conditions and so on of which they find themselves a part.
The Minister rightly referred to culture and about wanting to change it. I have a tremendous sense of awe at the responsibilities faced by the Home Office in so many spheres. Many good and dedicated people work in the Home Office but it would be right to adopt a cultural approach there which puts rehabilitation and not only control at the top of the agenda. I am afraid that the proposals in the Bill before us do not make it absolutely clear that the rehabilitation argument, and the resistance to taking action which drives people further into the problem, should prevail.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for ensuring that we keep an open mind and consider all options available to best respond to the threat of new psychoactive substances—sometimes referred to as legal highs—which are specifically designed to get around existing legislation.
As I explained in Committee, the temporary class drug orders will constitute a UK legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses while its nature is still in question. As the noble Baroness is aware, some of these new substances present harms equivalent to those from class A and class B drug use. In these circumstances, the appropriate response is to disrupt the supply chain and protect the public as a priority while giving the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs time to consider evidence of a drug and its harms. The proposals before the House will help us achieve that aim. Of course, our response to both the general issue and individual new substances must be both preventive and proportionate.
These amendments seek to ensure that the Government amend and consider alternative legislation to tackle the threat of new psychoactive substances, alongside control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are keen to see all existing legislation used to curb the availability of these substances, though not as a substitute regime for harmful drugs whose proper place is under control under the 1971 Act. The UK needs a legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses when there is evidence that its harms are commensurate with class A or class B drug use. Temporary class drug orders will provide a preventive and proportionate response to the threat posed by disrupting the supply chain and protecting the public as a priority while giving the ACMD time to assess the drug and its harms.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness will of course be aware that in bringing in these temporary orders while a substance is evaluated, we are not in any way criminalising the user. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 1(2) of the 1971 Act by which the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs already has the remit to provide,
“advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs”.
We will not prejudge the advice that the ACMD is preparing, including its thematic advice on new psychoactive substances.
On government Amendments 307C and 307D, the Government have always been committed to proper scrutiny of our drugs laws. We accept the recommendation of this House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the affirmative procedure is preferred while still enabling us to take swift action against the threat of a new psychoactive substance throughout the year. The advice sometimes comes forward very quickly and there are periods when the House is in long Recess through the summer. The amendments take account of the concerns of the House’s committee but at the same time ensure that we are not tardy with the harms that we are notified of by the ACMD. To remain in force, a temporary class drug order will need to have been approved in both Houses within 40 sitting days.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments. I would be very concerned that we would potentially deal with psychoactive substances which would ultimately fall within the class A or class B category. Notwithstanding that, it is up to the ACMD to offer the Government alternative advice as to other routes if it felt that was appropriate. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Meacher
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not at all clear how she envisages the less dangerous substances should be regulated. I am not at all clear that this can be done under current legislation other than through the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the concern reflected in these amendments. I believe that there is no alternative as the Bill stands, so I wonder whether the Minister could respond to that point.
Baroness Browning
I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness. As I explained, the ACMD in making its recommendations to the Government is able to indicate any routes that it thinks that the Government should take. I am very happy to explore that with her. We are awaiting a report from the ACMD on these new psychoactive substances, and it may well be that that will inform the Government better as to the range of options available to us.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for that response. My understanding is that in fact there will be a need for further legislation and it is my concern that the Government do all they can to take steps to prepare for that so that there is no gap or delay before these substances can be appropriately controlled through regulatory mechanisms other than the Misuse of Drugs Act. But with that point made, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Browning
(a) is subject to subsection (10), and(b) ”
“(10) An order under this section—
(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made, and(b) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order is made unless before the end of that period the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(11) In calculating that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.
(12) Subsection (10)(b)—
(a) is without prejudice to anything previously done or to the power of the Secretary of State to make a new order under this section;(b) does not apply to an order that only revokes a previous order under this section.”
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being able to be in the Chamber when I could have moved this amendment in Committee. The Explanatory Notes state that the purpose of the two subsections in the clause is to amend Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by removing the requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with wide and recent experience in each of six specified activities—medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry and chemistry—and persons with wide and recent experience of social problems connected with drugs.
I have to admit that to me the proposal to remove this requirement defies common sense and logic. It is hard to think of any better summary of the expertise that should be co-opted on to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs so that it is available to the Secretary of State and Ministers responsible for dealing with a major social problem. That is the immediate and narrow reason for moving my amendment, but there is a wider reason concerning the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 itself, legislation that is now 40 years old and regarded by many who work in the field as being outdated and in need of urgent repair. Much of what I shall say now complements the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Meacher.
The Act was introduced to replace a more liberal legal framework and to reflect United Nations treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the developing US-led war on drugs. The debate on drugs laws has moved on since then, and questions have been raised as to the efficacy of the approach of the war on drugs, so it seems timely to revisit a law that was made in a very different climate.
The 1971 Act established the drug classification system as a basis on which to set levels of offence and punishment for possessing, supplying and using premises in relation to controlled drugs. The advisory council was established to provide scientific evidence of the harm done by each substance to enable Ministers to classify it on a scale of harm. However, the scientific basis of drugs classification has since been challenged and the fact that alcohol and tobacco, which score high on the level of harm that they do to people and society, are not included on the list of controlled drugs has been cited as evidence that social and political considerations influence policy-makers as much as scientific evidence. The proliferation of internet sales has also raised questions about the Government's ability to classify all drugs and the value of doing so when they can easily be adapted.
Criminalising the possession and use of drugs does not bring down crime or offending rates. On the contrary, it feeds them. Drug and alcohol dependency is a health problem, not a crime. Other than taking punitive action against dealers, drug-related crime is better dealt with by supporting recovery and tackling the interconnected problems that have contributed to drug misuse. Treating drugs as a health matter rather than a crime helps to reduce a range of harm to individuals, families and communities. That is at the heart of proposals in the Rehabilitation Revolution—the subject of the Ministry of Justice’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Drug misuse is closely associated with mental health problems and is often a response to other problems in a person's life, for which they cannot be held responsible, such as childhood neglect. To reflect this, there are clauses in the Department of Health’s Health and Social Care Bill and the Department for Work and Pensions’ Welfare Reform Bill on the treatment of misusers.
I mention all these to draw attention to the fact that the misuse of drugs is currently part of four separate Bills tabled by four separate ministries, all based on an out of date Act. It seems to have become a custom that, instead of producing single-issue Bills—such as the admirable one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which we have just debated—ministries now table multi-issue monsters that dabble with a number of issues, rather than tackling one in detail. I submit to the Minister that, acknowledging that the reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is essentially Home Office business, reform might be better done by tabling one Bill to revive that Act rather than via a variety of clauses in a variety of Bills tabled by a variety of ministries.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept my amendment in the spirit in which it is meant—not least in the interests of retaining the best advice, which will be essential in any reform process—and give the House an undertaking that urgent consideration will be given to both the reform of the 1971 Act and membership of the advisory council. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act is not in the Bill as a proposal, and I am not really in a position to be able to respond to him on his amendment today. Clearly, however, if there was a need to reform the Act itself, the Government would always be receptive to hearing the views that are being put forward on that, so while I have noted what he said about overall reform of the Act we would naturally need to have advice from wider quarters as well. I hope he will accept that I have heard and noted what he has said on that.
As for this amendment and its aim to retain the existing statutory nature of specified areas of expertise in the ACMD’s membership under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government take a view that placing one area of expertise on a greater footing than others brings into question the need for the latter. Our proposals therefore place all ACMD members on an equal footing. We want to make the best use of our independent experts, the ACMD, in this challenging area of government policy. The scientific community was consulted about our proposal, which will give the ACMD's membership the flexibility to adapt to the modern challenges of the drug landscape. We have the full support of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, with which we have developed a broader non-statutory list of expertise from which the ACMD’s membership will be predominantly drawn. This list is contained in the draft working protocol that was laid in the House Library on 1 April. It includes all six groups of expertise that are currently statutory.
The working protocol also sets out the future involvement of the ACMD in recruiting new members and the process by which we will secure the relevant expertise that is needed. It may be interest the House to know that we have received broad support for the change and our intent is to have non-statutory lists of expertise from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the British Society of Criminology, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, and the Science and Technology Committees of both Houses were also consulted. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, welcomed the added flexibility to the ACMD’s membership.
The Government and the ACMD are prepared to be held to account on the terms of the protocol, so a final version will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has had an opportunity to study that protocol and its proposals, but I hope that he will have taken reassurance from the wide scientific body that has supported the Government in these measures. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Of course I accept what she says about the 1971 Act, and I admit that it would probably have been more appropriate to have raised the matter in Committee, if I had been able, rather than to leave it until this late stage. However, I am much reassured by the welcome she has given to possible suggestions about the renewal of the Act because I know that a number of people would like to put this forward. It is rather difficult at the moment to decide who should do so, as so many different aspects are being raised in different Bills. Perhaps this is something that we could discuss and then decide how it might be done
On the membership of the advisory council, I was not aware of the protocol and I have not seen it. However, I am much reassured that it exists and I am encouraged by the support for it, which the Minister described. I look forward to seeing it, and in that spirit I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4AA) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall give consent if—
(a) the evidence establishes a realistic prospect of conviction and the prosecution would be in the public interest, or (b) the evidence raises a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed and that the suspect committed it, and the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a continuing investigation will provide further evidence, within a reasonable period of time, so that all the evidence taken together is capable of establishing a realistic prospect of conviction.(4AB) In the case of consent granted under subsection (4AA)(b), the Director of Public Prosecutions shall keep that case under review, so that if evidence establishing a realistic prospect of conviction is not available within a reasonable period, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall take over and discontinue the case.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I beg leave to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Macdonald, who like so many of us was here until late last night but is unavoidably abroad today.
Clause 155 is of importance as it ousts a long-held and apparently unfettered right of the private citizen to seek an arrest warrant, particularly in relation to offences of universal jurisdiction. For our part, we agree with the thrust of the change that has been made. As the prosecution of offences of universal jurisdiction—for example, war crimes—has always required law officer consent before a plea is entered in the court, why not require the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent on the same test before the process may be commenced at all? The alternative is the possibility that a case may proceed in the absence of any likelihood of law officer consent being forthcoming. It is a hopeless case. In that case, the prosecution will inevitably and quickly collapse when the consent of the law officers is withheld. It will have been nonsense from the start. That is most undesirable in such cases, which may have sensitive international connotations.
It seems to me that to require the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the clause does, merely creates an additional safeguard at no markedly adverse cost to justice. It has to be recognised that the proposal represents an inroad into the right of the citizen, unrestricted and unfettered, to seek arrest warrants, so it is particularly important, if this is an inroad, that the tests that the Director of Public Prosecutions will apply in considering the grant or the withholding of consent are crystal clear to the public, who to an extent are losing a right of unfettered access to the court. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve that clarity by putting those tests into the Bill.
What are the tests set out in the amendment? They are the tests that are used by Crown prosecutors in considering whether to charge individuals with criminal offences. This is appropriate because in a private prosecution the issuing of a warrant is analogous to the charging process in a conventional state prosecution. It is the actual issuing of the warrant that sets the ball rolling and puts the defendant under the jurisdiction of the court.
The full code test requires the prosecutor to consider whether the evidence before him raises a realistic prospect of conviction—in other words, that a reasonable tribunal would be more likely than not to convict upon that evidence. If the answer to that question is yes, there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and the prosecution would be in the public interest, a charge must follow.
The second test that is set out in the amendment is known as the threshold test. That is to be used in circumstances in which a prosecutor has enough material to suspect an individual of an offence and a real expectation that material satisfying the full code test will become available within a reasonable period. Noble Lords who were in Committee will recall that the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, suggested that the public interest test should come in at that stage. In fact, that is not the case in ordinary prosecutions in this country.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Keir Starmer, has said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee that he believes these tests, which are normally used in this country for granting consent to the issue of a warrant where universal jurisdiction offences are alleged, to be the appropriate tests. There was some issue in Committee about what he had actually said on this topic in the evidence that he gave to the Public Bill Committee. I quote a paragraph from that evidence:
“Quite rightly, a number of groups and individuals have said to us, ‘We may have practically everything. We just need to change the nature of the evidence and it won’t take long. You surely wouldn’t refuse us consent on that basis?’ So we have an exception that allows us to apply the threshold test—is there enough for reasonable suspicion and do we anticipate that, within a reasonable period, the evidential gap, as it were, could be plugged? There would then be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. That prompts the question, what is a reasonable period? It seems to us that it is probably best measured in the period between the application for arrest and the likely time that the Attorney-General will consider consent, because that is the existing window. That is the only period that can sensibly be used for that purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee, 20/1/11; col. 125.]
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew asked whether my noble friend Lord Macdonald had consulted Mr Starmer before he put down this amendment. The answer is yes, he had. Since the proceedings in Committee, my noble friend Lord Macdonald has spoken further to Mr Starmer about the matter and has received an indication from the Director of Public Prosecutions that he may convey to the House that the position he expressed in his evidence remains his position. Those are the tests, as set out in the amendment, that he would apply in considering consent to any application for a warrant in a case of universal jurisdiction.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Will my noble friend be kind enough to confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has not indicated his assent to this amendment?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
If my learned noble friend will control himself for a moment, I shall come to that question in due course. Mr Starmer has indicated that he would wish to apply a public interest filter to both the tests that are set out in the amendment. Unlike an ordinary prosecution, Mr Starmer would wish to consider the public interest question on the threshold test as well as the full code test. His view is, of course, accepted.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am sorry but that is not good enough. Will my noble friend now answer my question? He has left hanging in the air the possibility that the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated his agreement to this amendment. Is that true or untrue? I believe that it is untrue. The implication should not be left hanging in the air. Perhaps my noble friend will bear in mind that I am exercising more self-control than his last few sentences possibly justify.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I must admit, my noble friend has always been known for his self-control. We have known each other for 30 or 40 years. The simple answer to his question is that, as I explained a moment ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions wishes to include in the guidance that he proposes to give the public interest test, at the first part, in considering the threshold test. He has said that binding guidance to that effect—
Lord Soley
I do not understand that. I want to know—it is important—whether the answer is yes or no.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The answer is no; it is obvious. That is why I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division. It is as simple as that. That is what I was about to say. The Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that his views will find their way into the Code for Crown Prosecutors once the legislation has been passed. We are content with that. Failure by Crown prosecutors to follow the code renders their decision-making susceptible to potential challenge by judicial review. I repeat, to make myself completely clear: I do not propose to press this matter to a Division. However, I am interested in the Minister’s response on this important, and clearly slightly divisive, question. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
If nobody else wishes to speak on this matter, I certainly will. I was very pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, agree with the thrust of Clause 155. As he stated, it is absurd to allow for an arrest warrant to be issued without the consent of the DPP when a private prosecution cannot proceed without the express consent of the Attorney-General. I oppose Amendment 308A. Its purport would be to include in the legislation criteria that would tell the director how to exercise his discretion in giving consent to the issue of an arrest warrant. As we have just heard as a result of the cross-examination techniques of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, it is clear—as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not wish to see his discretion confined in the legislation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I say for the sake of completeness that I concur with the submissions just made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and particularly endorse his sentiments about the importance that where offences of this nature are identified, they should be prosecuted with vigour and rigour and that those who have committed such heinous offences should most certainly be brought to book.
I was somewhat perplexed by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and supported by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for this reason. I agree with the legal analysis of the flaws identified so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was surprised to find those flaws in an amendment drafted by lawyers of the eminence of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald and the noble Lord. The errant drafting of the amendment has given us a cogent reason why the matter should be left to the current Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions.
For completeness, I have confidence in the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to discharge his duty with commendable precision. I have equal confidence in the current Attorney-General and Solicitor-General that they, like their predecessors before me, will discharge their duty with distinction and propriety. I have every confidence that each of them, irrespective of political complexion, can be safely entrusted to discharge the heavy burden of exercising their discretion in those cases and that no further amendments should be made to inhibit them from doing that which must be right in cases of this severity. I am glad that the consensus now appears to be that the gap which was so carefully identified by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his evidence should be closed.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I rise rather hesitantly, because I feel intimidated in talking in this debate, which seems to be populated by QCs. I am neither a QC nor a lawyer. I rise to give a more layman's viewpoint on behalf of those, like me, who are not adept in the intricacies of the law.
No one on any side of this debate is trying to stop universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of suspected war criminals. That must be stated clearly. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the amendment is unnecessary and, I would say, even unhelpful. As many noble Lords will know, the usual course at the moment is that the police investigate and pass a file to the Crown Prosecution Service if they believe that such an offence has occurred, if there is a realistic chance of conviction and, as noble Lords have said, if it is in the public interest.
I read Hansard carefully after the previous debate—that is why I was inhibited by the cabal of QCs who were speaking—and I particularly noted the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whom I know cannot be here today but who has intimated that he is against the amendment left on the Marshalled List. He said in Committee that,
“there are two elements in the code for Crown prosecutors. One is the test as to the adequacy of the evidence and the second is the public interest. Both have to be satisfied before a prosecution takes place”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; cols. 1008-9.]
For non-lawyers, it is perhaps useful to say so.
Comment has been made about the current Director of Public Prosecutions, who is universally admired. Those who have inquired of Mr Starmer have been given reassurance that, if extra resources are needed to pursue prosecutions, they will be there. If people who are at the moment going to the magistrates’ court to seek a private prosecution, in advance of the alleged criminal coming to this country, were to give that evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS would investigate the case before that person then comes to this country. That seems to me pretty good.
I particularly disagree with the amendment—and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on this—because the DPP does not need to be told, as it says in the amendment, that he “shall give consent”. I hope noble Lords have confidence, as I have, in the Directors of Public Prosecutions, both past and present, so to do. I am slightly dismayed that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was unable to be with us in Committee and, for obvious reasons, cannot be here today. He was also a Director of Public Prosecutions and it is very important to know what he would say.
It is worth mentioning the difference with a private prosecution, via an arrest warrant in a magistrates’ court, where a much lower prima facie case needs to be made. The magistrate is shown the alleged evidence but that court does not have the facilities to investigate that case in more than a superficial manner. The arrest warrant could then be issued if the paperwork looks good—it is only paperwork. The alleged criminal is not informed. No basic defence can be submitted and, if that person comes to this country, under that arrest warrant he could be put in jail for a couple of nights while the DPP decides whether to prosecute. Many people believe that in the many cases that come forward, for one reason or another, they would not have involved a prosecution. The tests used by the magistrate amount to,
“little more than asking whether the papers disclose an arguable case”—
I take that comment from legal advice given in an article that has just recently been written.
This has not been mentioned by other speakers but I would go on to the practicalities. Can it be right that people who have served in their countries—whichever country—as, say, a Defence Minister, Foreign Minister or a member of the armed forces and who are no longer such, and who come to this country, should be liable for arrest at the magistrates’ court rather than be under the consideration of the DPP?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I remind him that we are on Report and this is becoming rather more of a Second Reading speech than a speech on Report, which should be narrowly connected to the amendment under discussion.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Thank you. I am happy to bring it back to the amendment. The amendment supposes that it is right to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions what he or she should do. I believe that DPPs past and present are able so to do without the amendment.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, this debate reminds me of those cycle races in velodromes where everyone waits for the first rider to break from the pack and start racing. I hope that not too many people will catch me up, but I expect they will. I am sure that a noble Lord sitting behind me will catch me up.
I will briefly run through once again the current right of a private citizen to initiate a private prosecution by applying to a senior district judge to issue an arrest warrant for such criminals as war criminals. We are not talking about ordinary crimes, but about very big war crimes committed against international law. This ancient, common right has belonged to the people of England and Wales for many years. It is a valuable safeguard against political interference by the Government. This is why I have objected so strongly to the proposed change in Clause 155, which could delay an arrest, allowing the suspect to escape, and could introduce political interference from the Attorney-General who might influence a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, almost indicated this by linking the whole chain of command to the Attorney-General. I am no lawyer, but I thought that the Attorney-General was a Minister of our Government—an officer of the Government. The noble and learned Baroness was almost admitting that political interference could occur.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I am very happy to assist the noble Baroness. The Attorney-General has three roles, as many noble Lords may know. The first is to advise to Her Majesty the Queen, the Government and Parliament. The second—the Attorney of the day must do this independently—is to supervise and superintend all the prosecutorial authorities in this country. The third is to be the guardian of the public interest and the rule of law. The second and third roles are exercised entirely independently from the ministerial role. The Attorney of the day can be relied on to remain a stalwart guardian of the public interest and, if necessary, to challenge acts of Government and Parliament. Any Attorney worth their salt should do that without fear or favour.
Baroness Tonge
I thank the noble and learned Baroness for that explanation. I found it a little reassuring, although in the past I as an innocent layman felt that this did not always happen. The fear remains that there may be political interference if this ancient common right is taken away.
I must progress. As I have already said, this right has not been abused in the past. There have been only 10 applications in 10 years, only two of which have been successful. The only reason that I heard the Government give in Committee for introducing the change was that it might be abused in the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Should the noble Baroness not be asking whether the Attorney-General might ever in any circumstances have in mind a political position taken by the Government in determining his or her decision?
Baroness Tonge
I do not want at this stage to get into a debate on the Attorney-General. It would be to intrude into areas where I am not expert. There was a very famous case in the recent past where the Attorney-General was alleged to have been influenced by the Government. However, this is not why I want to speak tonight.
The clause worries me because of the debate around it. We must accept that there is a debate.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would reconsider what she has just said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is not in his place. It would be a courtesy, if such an assertion is made, to ensure that he is present to respond to it.
Baroness Tonge
I apologise to the House, and I agree with the noble and learned Baroness. In fact, I did not make an assertion; I said that there were incidents in the past where, allegedly, that had occurred.
When we look at this issue, we begin to think—certainly, the people who lobby me in great numbers think—that the real reason for the change in the law was the incident relating to Tzipi Livni. The Foreign Secretary, for whom I have high regard, argued that in the case of Tzipi Livni, the law had been abused when an arrest warrant was issued against her. He stated that:
“She is an Israeli politician of great importance, and a strong advocate of the peace process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/11; col. 1130.]
That may be, but he did not criticise the evidence against her contained in the arrest warrant which had been obtained by a private citizen.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to interrupt, and I am extremely surprised that we have not heard my noble friend on the Front Bench intervening in the way in which he intervened on my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill a few minutes ago. What my noble friend is saying is out of order, inappropriate and not related to the amendment. She is having a rant at Mrs Livni.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I was considering rising on precisely that point. This is Report, and we are intended to stick very closely to the amendment. This speech is ranging very widely, much more widely than is normal on Report.
Baroness Tonge
Nevertheless, my Lords, this is an extremely important issue that shows the general public how our Government conduct themselves. It is important that these things should be said and put on record. I am not going to be silenced on the grounds that this is Report. Many other people have talked at length on other subjects.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am very sorry, but we are on Report, and there are rules of the House. I understand the passion with which the noble Baroness is speaking, but the rules on Report are rather tight, and there are other occasions on which one can make these points. I think the sympathy of the House is limited in this respect. We need to address the amendment, and that briefly.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, this puts me in some difficulty because I wanted to contrast the way we had altered our law at the request of a foreign Government, which is how it is perceived, and how we plan—
Baroness Tonge
I am not going to give way again. I must finish. We must contrast this action with what has happened in the past couple of weeks where Raed Salah, a Palestinian—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I have only a few words to add. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Tonge has chosen to disobey the normal rules of the House and has stormed out in a way which is not appropriate to noble Lords and noble Baronesses in this House. It is something that I, as a member of her party, feel very strongly about, and I hope that none of my noble friends would normally behave in that way. It is quite shocking.
I would say, and I was about to say in her presence, that she has completely misunderstood the role of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I was involved in some negotiations during the previous Government as a person who was keen to extend the cover of the universal jurisdiction. It was made clear to me as part of the package—there were other Members of your Lordships' House of all and no parties involved—that an absolute requirement to make acceptable the broadening of the universal jurisdiction was a provision of this kind.
The basic reason is that we have only one standard of prosecution in this country. It is a good standard, it is set out in the current version of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and it is completely politically independent. There was a discussion as to whether the provision in Clause 155 should be applied to the Attorney-General—the noble and learned Baroness at the time—or the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was decided, precisely to emphasise the principle of political independence, that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be the person named.
Having said that, I absolutely agree with every word the noble and learned Baroness has said about the role of the Attorney-General. Indeed, I was fortunate enough to receive an e-mail that winged its way from sunnier climes, where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is busily engaged in unavoidable other activities. I was very flattered to receive the e-mail. In it he said that he supports this clause and is opposed to the amendment, as he said with great eloquence in Committee.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
No, I am not going to give way because I think we have spent—all right, I will give way to the noble Lord because I like him.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I tried to take a very neutral position when I originally moved my amendment. However, it should be made absolutely clear whether the Attorney-General could ever be influenced by a political position taken by a Government in any decision that he or she might take, in any circumstances.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
The noble Lord knows how much I admire him, so if I say that is a really silly question I do so in a spirit of generosity. The answer is that we in this Parliament—and the noble Lord has been in this Parliament a lot longer than I have—have to make certain assumptions. Those assumptions include what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, the former Attorney-General, said to the House a few moments ago. The sanction for people—and Governments —who behave in that way is that they will lose the confidence of Parliament. The question that the noble Lord puts is so hypothetical as to be absurd, in my experience and, I believe, in his political life too.
I do not want to delay the House too long. All I really wanted to say about the amendment is that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, achieved a superb deconstruction of the amendment, and he has done it again today. I do not really want to add anything to what he said, together with the support that he received from the noble and learned Baroness, and indeed the very cogent summary that we received from a non-lawyer, my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill—thank God we have non-lawyers who are prepared to speak in these debates. I close by simply saying that this clause from the coalition Government, which I and my noble friends usually support, has been introduced in a continuous thread from what was agreed by the previous Government. It brings a single high standard of prosecution to this country and one that can be changed, as it has been in new versions of the Code for Crown Prosecutors test.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by agreeing with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that it is important that we have an efficient system of prosecution available in this country to deal with cases, when the evidence is available, that relate not only to war crimes but also to many of the other offences listed in this clause in respect of which the United Kingdom has sought to assert universal jurisdiction. My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill made it clear that nothing in this clause seeks to end universal jurisdiction, nor indeed does it end the right of private prosecution for universal jurisdiction cases. Although such grave offences may well seem better suited to prosecution by the state, we think it right that citizens should be able to prosecute them.
Clause 155 allows anyone to apply to a court to initiate a private prosecution for universal jurisdiction offences by using arrest warrants where appropriate. It prevents a warrant being issued in cases where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. As these are cases where issuing a warrant would achieve nothing, that is surely right. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in moving his amendment. Indeed, with a singular exception, no one has dissented from the reform and from the purpose of Clause 155, which introduces the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Through this amendment, what we are looking at is the question of whether the criteria applied and approach taken by the DPP in giving consent is something which should be on the face of the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s view, which I think is shared by most noble Lords who contributed to the debate, that it should not.
Those of us who have read the clear and cogent evidence given by the DPP to the Public Bill Committee in the other place will have seen clearly how, if Parliament passes this provision, he intends to exercise the duty of whether or not to give consent. He has also made it clear that he proposes to apply the same code tests to the evidential and public interest tests that are used for prosecutions generally, and he has further indicated, as has been mentioned in this debate, that where necessary he would apply the lesser standard of the threshold test. He indicated to the Public Bill Committee that he intends to publish guidelines so that everyone will know how he would deal with decisions on whether or not to give consent.
I, too, want to endorse the comments of noble Lords that we can have confidence that the DPP will exercise his discretion properly. He has a track record which gives us full confidence that he will do that. I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that that is a good reason not to inhibit that discretion by putting things into statute. These tests are of general application and it is not clear why they should be set in stone by this amendment. Indeed, in Committee my noble friend Lord Carlile said that the amendment attempts,
“to fix in statutory stone something that is much more evolutionary—and needs to be”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 1011.]
We would not wish to stop that evolution, particularly given the commitment to transparency on the part of the DPP.
A further point was noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in Committee and has been highlighted today, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It relates to the public interest dimension of the threshold test, which is not mentioned in the amendment. I rather thought that my noble friend Lord Thomas was suggesting that it was not necessarily part of the threshold test. However, paragraph 5.12 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors states:
“If both parts of the Threshold Test are satisfied, prosecutors must apply the public interest stage of the Full Code Test based on the information available at that time”.
If we put something in statute, there is a danger of actually missing something out that is in the test as it applies at the moment. Perhaps that underlines why it is not desirable to have this in legislation.
My noble friend has indicated that he is not going to press his amendment, and I think that will meet with the general support of the House. I encourage him to confirm that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, a great deal of heat has been engendered in the course of the debate and I do not propose to add to it, although certain things were said about deconstructing this amendment with which I do not agree. However, I can take them up at a different time. Let me make it clear that there have been discussions between my noble friend Lord Macdonald and Mr Keir Starmer and they have come to a conclusion that is acceptable to both; namely, that the test should be published in guidance. No doubt it will be applied appropriately and in accordance with the traditions of this country, which are that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General should act in the public interest and not for the purposes of any political party. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
“(d) an order under paragraph 16 of Schedule 15 which contains provision amending an Act (whether or not it also contains other provision).”
Baroness Browning
“(3A) Section 100 and Schedule 15 apply to England and Wales and Scotland.”
“(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to the amendment made to section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 by section 152(A1) above (which accordingly extends to England and Wales only).”
Lord Rosser
“Expiration of and report on Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1
(1) Except so far as otherwise provided under this section, Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1 expire at the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which section 1 of that Part comes into force.
(2) Before the expiry of Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1, the Secretary of State must—
(a) organise an independent review of the policing governance arrangements introduced by those Chapters.(b) publish a report on the policing governance arrangements introduced by those Chapters, and(c) lay a copy of the report in Parliament.(3) The report required under subsection (2) must, in particular—
(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the policing governance arrangements in Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1;(b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved with different arrangements.(4) The Secretary of State may, by order, revive Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1 if a draft of such an order is laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) An order made by the Minister under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A draft order laid before Parliament under subsection (4) must be accompanied by a copy of the report required under subsection (2).”
Lord Rosser
The Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales. Concerns have been expressed about the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and their unchallenged powers. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter’s operational responsibility. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. Concerns have also been expressed about the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime and the impact of the politicisation of the police, which, frankly, this Bill introduces.
The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change. Amendment 311 calls for an independent review of the policing governance arrangements and for a report to be prepared, laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament. The report must set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the new policing governance arrangements, the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and whether they remain.
It does not seem unreasonable to call in the amendment for an assessment to be made of the impact of the new governance arrangements, what their objectives are and whether they are being achieved within the period of four years provided for in it if the provisions of the Bill are to remain in force. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment and its provisions for an independent review of what they themselves accept is a major change for policing in England and Wales.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not agree with the amendment, for the following reasons. Noble Lords will be well aware of my concerns about the Bill, so I say this with a certain force. This legislation seems no different from other legislation that is contentious. It will be on the statute book in some form or other and able to be reviewed, renewed or repealed by a later Government—indeed, by the same Government, who may have second thoughts about it. I hope that it will be reviewed, but as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny, which it is high time Parliament had in place. Even without that post-legislative scrutiny, we have from time to time been reminded by the Leader of the House that there is an arrangement—it seems to me to be fairly loose, but I am assured that it exists—for substantial new legislation to be reviewed by government, which I do not think is the same as Parliament, after it has been in force for three years. Of course, if we had more time, I might tease the noble Lord about why he feels that it is necessary to provide for someone else to do something in four years.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, Amendment 311 would mean that the police and crime commissioner provisions of the Bill cease to have effect after four years unless, following an independent review and report, the House approves an order by the Secretary of State for the arrangements to continue.
Many noble Lords have spoken in the course of these debates of the risk of disruption to the police service, and I have set out as we have gone along how that will be minimised. However, it would be extremely disruptive to the police service if, a few months before the second set of elections, the elected PCC is removed and the unelected police authority is re-established.
I hear what my noble friend Lady Hamwee says about review. I fully support the principle that legislation is reviewed. I say this having served in another place for nearly 20 years. We get very excited about legislation when we are legislating and after a year or two we forget about it. Then things transpire and we think that perhaps we should have looked at it. As a principle that is a very good thing. However, I am unable to accept Amendment 311 as it would be extremely disruptive. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the key phrase in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I think I have written it down correctly—was: “I hope that it will be reviewed … as part of post-legislative scrutiny”.
Baroness Hamwee
I said:
“as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny”.
Lord Rosser
I think the noble Baroness is being somewhat optimistic if she believes that is necessarily going to happen.
The amendment provides for an affirmative decision by Parliament on the report that would be produced. The Minister said that it would be extremely disruptive for the police. Of course, it would also be extremely disruptive for the biggest system change in policing for years to continue if did not work or operate properly as Parliament intended. If it is working properly, no doubt the report would be received and the affirmative resolutions would be carried. If it is not working, surely it is only appropriate that it should be challenged and processes put in place to try to put it right.
However, I do not intend to pursue this matter to a vote. I have expressed my views on the response that I have received from the noble Baroness and the reason why I think the amendment is justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Localism Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
My Lords, according to the programme we are supposed to conclude the Committee stage of this Bill on Wednesday after one further day’s debate. That does not seem to be a realistic prospect. I would like to make good progress with the Bill and the House has the flexibility to do better than that and to give itself some additional time. We could hoof the Education Bill out of the Moses Room on Monday. We could perhaps use the Moses Room on Tuesday or put the Finance Bill into the Moses Room and use the Chamber on Tuesday. We could sit on Thursday. There seem to be a number of options available to enable us to complete the Committee stage of the Bill before we rise. I very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us which of them they propose to use. One way or another, we are not going to complete it unless we do something.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. We might wish to be where we are now but none of us would wish to be where we are with the Bill, if I can make that distinction. We are where we are. We on these Benches remain committed to completing the Committee stage of the Bill as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, there are a number of options available to enable us to do that before the Recess. We are willing to stay as late as may be on Wednesday evening and if necessary to come back on Thursday or take what other measures can achieve that. It is not for us to determine the progress of other Bills or where they may be taken but we and your Lordships’ House can urge the Government and the usual channels to co-operate with each other to ensure that we achieve the objective that we all share: to complete the Committee stage of the Bill as soon as possible before the Recess.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I, too, support the statement of my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is quite appalling that we have made such little progress. My next amendment is Amendment 149. Today is the eighth day that I have come here believing that we have reached Amendment 149. Instead, as I have said to people, I find 50 other amendments piled in before it. I have counted them while I waited through proceedings on the police Bill, and 125 amendments are piled in before me today. Of those, only three groups have simple numbers, and come from before the first day of the Committee. They are original amendments. Others go as far as Amendment 152ZZA. That seems the most far-reaching number that I have found for any of the other amendments. It is unbelievable how many Zs and things can come up in this. This is a terribly important Bill and the rate of progress has been dreadful. It is very important that we deal with this before the Recess because there is so much work to be done before Report. The Minister and those who have moved amendments will need to do a lot a work before we get to Report. We must finish this before we rise. If we have to sit on Thursday, I am only too happy to do so, or I will sit all night on Wednesday. For the Bill to just drift on in the way that it has is a disgrace to the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we all share the desire for the Bill to make as speedy a passage through your Lordships’ House as possible. It is not up to us or indeed to the Ministers who support the Bill to arrange these things but for the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in raising the issue talked about being able to reschedule Tuesday and other days in the week. The noble Lord perhaps ought to be mindful that some of us, not just one of us, have commitments under the Welfare Reform Bill as well, which has its Second Reading. We understand that that is a very important Bill for the Government.
I am very clear that we need to do the job properly in scrutinising this Bill. In so far as it might be alleged that there has been delay, it cannot be laid at our door. I do not believe that the noble Lord did that. We still have a lot to get through: most of the planning stuff, some very important housing stuff and issues around London. Frankly, even if we sat right through the night on Wednesday, I do not see that we would conclude by having one more day, particularly as we must have the Third Reading of the Bill that we just sat through. I do not think it is practical.
I really am opposed to sitting through the night when we are discussing a Bill that has a lot of intricacies in it; a lot of it is complex and technical, and we need to deal with it when we have minds that are still relatively fresh. I do not personally see that it would be a great disaster if we picked this up and concluded it when we are back in September. The key thing is that we should have the time to scrutinise the Bill properly and have the time and opportunity to do it when we are at least not all falling asleep on the Benches.
Lord True
I have taken some part in this Bill and, on the basis of having spent 13 rather misspent years in the usual channels, I heard what my noble friend Lord Lucas and others have said about potentially sitting on another day. As other noble Lords have said, I would be very willing to do that to make progress on the Bill. I did not hear the noble Lord opposite express similar willingness.
One thing that I looked up, which might be helpful to these discussions, is what has happened in previous years. This is in fact the earliest date on which the House would rise in July since and including 1996, apart from 2003. If one looks at three separate years after the party opposite formed a Government, in 1998 we were asked to sit until 31 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; in 2002 we were asked to sit until 30 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; and in 2006 we were asked to sit until 25 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask noble Lords opposite to show the same willingness as noble Lords on this side have to allow the usual channels some flexibility in considering not only sitting late but perhaps allowing an extra day to complete this important Bill.
Lord Best
Perhaps a word could be said from the Cross Benches, too. I have quite a lot of the amendments that might detain us further on. Although we must all accommodate whatever the usual channels decide, it is quite late notice for next Thursday suddenly to be removed from our diaries when we had every reason to expect to be on Recess at that time and had other plans. I, for one, would be letting down an awful lot of other people, which I may have to do if we have to sit next Thursday. If it is of any help—and I am sure that we all have our different preferences—I would be quite prepared to go into all hours of the night on Wednesday night and will try to remain fresh, if that is required of me.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution. It is not easy, because we had no idea of the exact time when the earlier Bill would conclude today. There were great expectations that there would be a serious amount of time to discuss localism today, but noble Lords in regulating themselves felt that it was important to consider the previous Bill. Those who have been observant will have seen that various noble Lords have been talking off the Floor of the House, as others have been talking on the Floor. If we could make a start on the Localism Bill now, even though there are only 22 minutes before seven o’clock, we could do one or two amendments. That would be sensible.
The usual channels can channel away a little longer and, I hope, make a statement before we conclude tonight. We do have it in our diaries to come here on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The prospect has been put—
Lord Bassam of Brighton
It might be for the convenience of the House if we invite the government Chief Whip to make her statement now, because I think it would help us to draw proceedings to a close. I, as ever, wish to be helpful.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my deputy and I are joined at the hip, like twins. In this occasion, the Gemini were slightly apart, and I had the advantage of being able to have a further conversation with the opposition Chief Whip as well as briefly with the Leader of the Opposition and their spokesman on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is spokesman not only on this Bill but also on the Welfare Reform Bill, which as he has just this moment said is very important. We have perhaps found a new way forward, which needs further examination but would provide for the inclusion of the Localism Bill next week. It would also meet some of the concerns expressed around the House that, having started the Welfare Reform Bill Second Reading, we would do the Committee stage as soon as we got back in September.
The discussions now afoot would mean that we would do whatever we may within about the 20 minutes or so remaining tonight on the first amendment on the Localism Bill. However, we would expect to continue discussions. The proposal is around the idea that Monday would go ahead as anticipated, with the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill followed by the Finance Bill, but on Tuesday it may well be that instead of the Welfare Reform Bill Second Reading, we could then have a full day on the Localism Bill and on Wednesday, as already scheduled, start the day on the police Bill Third Reading but then move into the Localism Bill, with a fair expectation of being able to conclude that business.
People say that the House of Lords stays the same over centuries, but things can happen in seconds here by agreement. That is one of the interesting things of this place, where there is self-regulation. I know that there is continuing good will on these matters. I think that this is the time when Chief Whips sit down and invite the Convenor and others to come to a meeting to discuss what the impact might be on their Benches.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, as ever, my door is open for discussions and if there is some small progress this evening and we can carry on discussing next week’s business, that would be very helpful.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford
“Registration of land
In section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 (registration of greens), after subsection (10) insert—
“(11) Regulations may provide for amendments to be made to the criteria by which a new town or village green can be determined in order to restrict the scope for such applications.””
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, particularly my membership of the CLA. We come to the section of the Bill which causes it and others concern. As I see it, if an area of land is designated as a town or village green, any development on it is prohibited notwithstanding any grant of planning permission. As a result of the changes made by the Commons Act 2006 and a series of court cases, it is now far easier to probe that a particular area is a town or village green than was previously the case. It is of course important that bona fide applications should succeed but, all too often, spurious applications are being made with the aim of overturning the effect of planning permission being granted. I believe that the Minister and his team have been in discussions with the CLA, so I will not go into further detail on that.
However, I have also been contacted by Sue Chalkley from the Hastoe Housing Association, which has raised the issue of vexatious use of the towns and village greens registration system to delay or block legitimate development. It is concerned that such misuse is causing increasing delays and costs to developers. The risk of having land blighted by a TVG application is a considerable deterrent to landowners. In rural communities, this problem is more acute and may well jeopardise the provision of much needed affordable rural housing.
I give but one example: in Marsh Gibbon in Bucks, eight affordable houses were planned, with six for rent and two for shared ownership. A half-acre site was chosen by the parish council and the planners. The field had been farmed for over 200 years, most recently for strip-grazing dairy cattle. Full planning permission was granted in February 2008. The parish councillor and the landowner were adamant that the field was not a village green. A TVG application was made on the whole of the 15-acre field. In June 2010, the inspector’s decision came. The TVG application was unsuccessful, but one should be aware that there was a delay of two and a half years at a cost of £80,000 to Hastoe Housing Association.
We need those village developments, as indeed we need developments elsewhere, and I am very concerned that the Bill will not help in that way. In answering a Question on 23 May, my honourable friend Richard Benyon indicated that from 2005 to September 2009, 650 applications were made, 99 were granted and 551 were rejected. I understand that it costs nothing to put in a TVG application, but the costs incurred to the registration authority can be significant. There is a problem and I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I, too, am a member of the Country Landowners’ Association and a landowner. Briefly, we need to ensure that there is an authentic local view at work here. We need a reasonable level of general support to be established and demonstrated, and we need a coherent and reasoned justification for things to be included as “commons”. We do not need national agendas, narrow sectoral bases of arguments, frivolous or vexatious grounds, or to give succour to a no-development ethos. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this is currently capable of being a free bet. That cannot be allowed to continue. There are clearly well-documented instances of abuse of process and therefore I support her in the amendment.
Lord Lucas
My amendment seeks to remedy this difficulty by allowing neighbourhood plans to rule out the creation of village greens that the neighbourhood plan does not recognise.
Lord Best
My Amendment 170CK, which comes later in the Bill, is not quite as imaginative as the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is a more pedestrian way of dealing with the matter by amending the Commons Act 2006, which is essential. At nominal cost to the applicant, frivolous and vexatious applications can add so much cost and delay to a scheme as to deter the developer or housing association from proceeding. I have personal experience of this, being familiar with a development in York. We were attempting to create a significant new mixed-tenure community of some 540 homes and, despite the council being fully in support of that, havoc was wreaked by a village green application to incorporate the whole of a 53-acre site. It was made on the basis that a local resident had been walking their dog on the site for the past 20 years, thereby meeting the criteria of lawful sport or pastimes. Since the tolerant owner had taken no legal action against them, the case could be made that this large site could possibly be England’s largest village green. Although the proposition was in due course thrown out, it involved my charity in considerable frustration, the potential loss of public and private funding, considerable expense and delay of more than a year. A less tenacious developer might well have given up, depriving the city of York of what will be a huge asset for generations to come.
Perhaps I may quote from one landowner in Norfolk, whose perspective has been sent as an illustration by the Hastoe Housing Association. They state:
“I believe that affordable homes are vital in sustaining rural communities. As a result, when Hastoe with the backing of the parish council approached me about selling them some land, I agreed. Many people retiring from the south-east have moved to this area of Norfolk, raising prices beyond the local people’s means and threatening the future of the [village] school … Unfortunately, this decision to help has resulted in me becoming involved in an extraordinary process that will last several years and cost me many thousands of pounds. What is so frustrating is I have detailed crop records for the past 20 years and an acknowledgement from those claiming the arable field as a village green, that they never walk on it when it is in crop. On top of that, those making the claim have taken more than two years putting in their village green application, are funded by somebody whose main home is not in the village and have refused to reveal themselves to the rest of the village. However, it appears that the law is so badly drafted and open to so much interpretation, that the County Council admits that it is extremely unlikely to throw out the claim until it has gone to Public Inquiry as they do not want to run the risk of having to pay for any legal challenge to their initial decision”.
Naturally, this example of big society action by the landowner means that he and no doubt dozens of others are unlikely to part with any land until this overindulgent legislation is reined in.
My amendment looks at the nitty-gritty of the situation and proposes ways in which the law could be amended. I will briefly outline what it says. Amendment 170CK would stop retrospective application for town and village green status after planning consent has been granted, which is currently possible. It would prevent efforts to overwhelm the authority with excessive paperwork, allow authorities to reject vexatious or frivolous applications and allow the recouping of costs in such cases. It would make deregistration possible where a review showed that the village green status had, some time later, become obsolete. I hope that the amendment commends itself to your Lordships and the Minister.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I remind the House of the interest that I declared at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am vice-president of the Open Spaces Society, which is the expert voluntary organisation on village and town greens and spends a lot of its time advising people who wish to register greens. It strongly advises people not to do so purely to resist development and not to proceed if the evidence appears to be poor. Not everyone takes that advice, unfortunately.
The amendments attempt to tackle this perceived problem—it is indeed a problem in some areas—by amending this legislation and thereby amending the Commons Act 2006. I suggest that this is probably the wrong time and the wrong legislation to do that. Town and village green legislation, as noble Lords who took part in the discussions of the Commons Act in 2006 will know, is extremely complex and somewhat difficult. Section 15 of that Act laid down a new system for the registration of greens, but that was based upon much older commons legislation, going back to the past, describing what is and is not a green.
I have some questions. Is there an identified problem? Yes. Is it hugely widespread? No, but it is serious where people are abusing the system. Some instances of that have been identified here today and I could provide some more. Does it need sorting out? Yes. Does it need new primary legislation and is this the right Bill to do it? No. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has identified, what is required is an overhaul of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, which result in a system of greens registration that, in my view and that of the Open Spaces Society, is overly bureaucratic, takes far too long and can be far too costly.
I was involved on the other side, as it were, in an application for a green in Lancashire where Lancashire County Council wanted to build a new secondary school, which I was in support of, and a group of people tried to suggest that the land on which it was being built was a green. I met them, advised them and told them that it was not, but fortunately Lancashire County Council, perhaps because it was a project of its own that was potentially being blocked, was very expeditious in sorting it out. Quite correctly, it rejected the application.
We have a 10-point programme that would greatly improve the green registration system. It could be done simply by secondary legislation by amending the 2008 regulations. I am not suggesting that that is the whole answer and I am not going to tell your Lordships today what all the 10 points are, but we are happy to discuss this with Ministers. They will be Defra Ministers, though, as this is not a CLG matter. Defra is already looking into the problem; it has commissioned research, it is having discussions and it is considering its responses. I hope that on that basis we can let the department get on with it.
There is an understanding on all sides that this is urgent. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not destroy the system of registration of town and village greens, which is a very useful process, but to stop people abusing it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, for identifying and raising this issue this evening. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must cherish and support the legislation which enables the identification, reclamation and maintenance of town and village greens. However, there is clearly a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asks: is there a problem? Yes. Does it need sorting out? Yes, it does.
I am not sure that we necessarily have the way forward encapsulated within the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made some interesting suggestions and I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, offers the prospect of being able to identify and establish a town or village green only through a neighbourhood plan. That seems potentially too restrictive: if you do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, what happens? They will not necessarily be universal.
I side with those who say that a misuse of this legislation is taking place. I accept that it may not be widespread, but it does need sorting out. I look to the Minister to see what solutions he offers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these amendments and the balanced way in which the arguments have been presented to the Committee. Of course, I speak for Her Majesty’s Government and not one particular department.
I know that the system for registering new town or village greens is a matter of rising significance to those of us interested in development sites, as well as to local authorities in their role as commons registration authorities. As I shall explain, it is also a matter of considerable interest to this Government.
We recognise the value of the town or village green registration system in safeguarding traditional open spaces in local communities. Government surveys show an increasing trend in applications during the past decade, although not all of these applications are granted. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that problems were not widespread, although he agreed that they could be serious. Around 200 applications are made every year to register land in England as greens. The volume of applications, the character of application sites, the controversy which such applications often attract, the cost of the determination process on parties affected and the impact of a successful registration on the landowner are all matters of serious and increasing concern. We are well aware of the difficulties that some registration applications can cause where an application is made in response to advance plans for the development of a site. However, we also appreciate the importance that local communities can place on an open space as well as new development. We understand that there must be confidence that the relevant decision-making processes are working coherently in the interests of the community as a whole and not just in those of a minority.
The natural environment White Paper announced that we will consult on proposals for a new green areas designation that will give local people an opportunity to protect green spaces which have significant importance to their local communities. We are considering what changes to the greens registration system are required in connection with the new designation as a response to the Penfold review, which recommended changes to the registration system to ease non-planning impediments to development.
Amendment 148ZZBB in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford would give the Government powers to achieve a sharper focus in the criteria for registering greens. I have some sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, which could help to address some of the cases where applications have been used as a last resort only to delay development, such as my noble friend has described to us. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked a question about rural housing. We share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the green registration applications can have an unfortunate deterrent effect on the provision of land for rural affordable housing. We are actively looking at whether amendments to the registration criteria are needed. We shall want to hold discussions with those with an interest in our proposals before concluding on the nature of any legislative changes. Legislative changes may be necessary. My noble friend Lord Greaves is right: the registration of a green is indeed a matter of fact. The criteria against which registrations are considered are set in law. There is no discretion. Local communities have no say in whether registering land as a green is desirable or not.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, I think, encouraging and detailed response. There are clearly difficulties. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Greaves accepted that 551 rejected schemes means a great trial for each of those individuals who had to go through the process. They are very costly and a great deterrent to landowners opening up some of their land to future development, particularly for affordable rural housing, as we hope they will. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl and particularly pleased that there will be ongoing discussions. I hope we may have some news later in the summer, perhaps before the Bill is passed. With those few comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“(b) providing that which CIL provided initially under paragraph (a) on an ongoing basis.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other two with which it is grouped. I tabled these amendments before we had the debate last Tuesday in which we discussed the application of the community infrastructure levy. Anxieties had already been aroused with regard to the original purpose of the levy being altered. My noble friend Lord Attlee spelt out that purpose very correctly. It is meant to support infrastructure development and be paid by the developer of a facility such as housing or industry. My noble friend Lord Greaves had moved an amendment which would widen the permitted use of the levy receipts beyond infrastructure matters that support the development of the area. My noble friend Lord Attlee said:
“We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; col. 707.]
He went on to say:
“We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; cols. 709.]
These words have aroused considerable anxiety. I have a copy of a letter written yesterday by the Institution of Civil Engineers to the Secretary of State. The letter was copied to my right honourable friend Greg Clark and my noble friend Lord Attlee. The institution’s chairman wrote:
“I am writing to highlight concerns regarding the Government’s undertaking to reflect on allowing the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy on matters other than infrastructure. The Levy was specifically conceived and justified to provide for new and upgraded infrastructure—a point reinforced by the Government many times”.
Indeed, they did so most recently last Tuesday through my noble friend Lord Attlee.
The purpose of these three amendments is to try to get clarification on three specific issues. First, Amendment 148ZZBBBA seeks to ensure that the application of CIL is confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project which is in an approved charging schedule, on the ground that that fulfils the original purpose of the introduction of the CIL. The institution believes—I accept the case that was made on Tuesday and is in the Bill—that this should include what is called in the Bill “ongoing expenditure”, which I understand to mean the maintenance of an approved infrastructure project financed by CIL. I hope that my noble friend can give me a very clear undertaking that there is no question of this levy being used simply to fill a revenue hole in a local authority’s budget. It has to be confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project.
My second point has been touched on but I would like to be given a much needed assurance. There are plenty of examples of where developers have agreed to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a developer has made such an agreement—sometimes it can last for a number of years—he should not be charged the CIL in addition. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear undertaking on that. It was briefly discussed, and if we had not risen when we did on Tuesday, I would have intervened, because I was expecting to move the amendment on Tuesday night. I said, “Let’s wait until I am speaking”.
My third point concerns the suggestion of compensating communities by allowing CIL receipts to be passed to other persons. I do not quarrel with that—although I know that some object—but it must be spent on infrastructure projects. It must not be allowed to be a financial recompense paid to a community because it has development in its area. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear assurance on that.
My final point is that the area must not be too tightly defined. There is anxiety that that may be the effect of the Bill. For instance, if the money has to be spent in the area, how will that fund a bypass which may be necessary as a result of the development, or flood defences, which may have to happen well outside the area but are clearly for its benefit?
I have asked a number of questions, and I do not think that I need to go on longer. Those are seen as serious issues by those concerned with re-establishing our infrastructure in this country. I took part in the original debate on the CIL when the 2008 Bill was going through the House. Indeed, I tried to ensure that both Houses would be able to approve the delegated legislation under it. I carried that in this House, but it was turned down by the then Leader of the House in another place. I have a considerable interest in making sure that we get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on this group of amendments. He has articulated very well the problems which the CIL could cause developers. It is particularly important for bigger projects, which might be taken through a hybrid Bill process, through the IPC or the Transport and Works Act, where the decisions are effectively made by Ministers. Ministers will approve—or not—a deal which ends up as a Section 106 agreement. The worry is that, completely separately, the local authority might want to put a CIL charge on the project. One must think of the effect on business confidence when considering ports, airports, logistics centres, railways, roads, power stations or anything else of that size, and of the figures involved.
The people who run Gatwick Airport have told us that they are committed under a Section 106 agreement to contribute about £1 million annually to public transport via a levy on their car park revenues. If they had also been required to pay a CIL to the local authority—probably retrospectively, because it may well have happened after the Section 106 agreement was signed—they would not know what liability they would be stung for, frankly. To give two bigger examples, Hutchison Ports had a Section 106 agreement to extend the ports at both Felixstowe and Bathside Bay. It was committed under the agreement to spend about £100 million on upgrading the railway line to Leeds. We can question why it should be Leeds, but that is what was agreed. I think that the London Gateway port project, downstream on the Thames, had to contribute a similar amount for road improvements between there and the M25. If, having signed up to all that, they are suddenly stung for a CIL, it will put off developers from going ahead with these projects. It is after all the Government’s wish to develop new projects—I return again to the Secretary of State for Transport’s plan to build a high-speed railway line to Birmingham and beyond. You can imagine that people in villages along the route who do not like the plan, having had their referendum to vote against it, will then try to sting the promoters, whoever they may be, for a CIL. It could get quite interesting. It will put off business and I hope that when the Minister responds he can strengthen the assurance that was given in another place that a CIL will not be levied on projects for which a Section 106 agreement has been entered into and agreed.
Lord Greaves
There is a great deal of sense in that. Some of the difficulty is the muddle between Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, but it is the clear intention—it was the clear intention of the previous Government and I assume that that has not changed—to phase out Section 106 and replace it with CIL. The difficulty with that is that it brings levies and what they might be used for down to a quite small-scale local level. Large infrastructure projects are one thing, and I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about that, but there are big projects, small projects and projects in-between. The amount of CIL that would be levied on many local development projects is quite small. Unless it can be seen as a replacement for Section 106 for the kind of things that Section 106 is spent on, and perhaps some further flexibility, a great deal will be lost. It is difficult to find ways of spending those relatively small amounts of money on things that might be classified as infrastructure.
One large-scale thing that Section 106 has been important in subsidising and helping to develop is affordable housing. We have had a debate about that and the Government have said that they are looking seriously at allowing CIL to be used for affordable housing. Affordable housing is not really infrastructure, apart from for the people living in a particular house. It is development that needs infrastructure around it. Classic cases of Section 106 funding include subsidising local bus services, whether it is a service to a new supermarket or a new estate. It is not infrastructure. Lots of local amenity areas, playgrounds, and so on, have been paid for out of Section 106. Are they infrastructure? A common-sense use of the word would suggest that they are not. Unless the levies can be used from local developments on this kind of thing, local authorities will find it much more difficult to provide them. Often new housing is developed by converting a mill into flats and then improving some of the areas around, which are pretty run down, by turning them into nice amenity areas and playgrounds, which is very important and linked to the development.
We have a new supermarket, which released £390,000 under Section 106 to spend on the local town centre. A lot of the spending on that town centre could not be described as infrastructure. It is about improving the appearance, relaying flags and grassed areas, improving shop fronts, and so on, which is all very important in helping the town centre compete with the new supermarket and hold its own, but is it infrastructure? My right honourable friend Simon Hughes suggested that double glazing might be an appropriate use of CIL from local projects. That is not infrastructure, but it is the kind of area in which we hope for some flexibility. I am not sure that we are that far apart. Clearly if a project is big enough to pay for a bypass, that is certainly infrastructure. However, we need flexibility.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we support the thrust of these amendments. Certainly I agree that CIL must not be used to fill revenue holes in the budgets of local authorities. A specific assurance on that from the Minister would be entirely appropriate.
When we debated this last week, our concern was about the interaction of CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the Minister indicated possible flexibility in future after consultation. We welcome that. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if part of CIL is to be paid to a neighbourhood forum, for example, it must be linked to infrastructure. We would prefer the decision to be made by the local authority rather than dictated according to an arrangement of the Secretary of State.
The definition of infrastructure for these purposes in paragraph 12 of the CLG book, Community Infrastructure Levy: an Overview, published in May this year, states, surprisingly:
“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan”.
There is already quite wide discretion in the rules.
I particularly support the point about potential double charging when a development has already entered into Section 106 obligations, some of which may be very long-term. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we had discussions with Gatwick. However, this is not just an airport or a Gatwick issue.
I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. Part of the solution may relate to how and at what point CIL is charged. I understand that what triggers it is the commencement of development that has been the subject of some form of planning permission. Therefore, in a situation in which Section 106 obligations are already in place from prior development, I do not see how under the rules that could trigger a new CIL charge. However, any new development might, so Section 106 and CIL could still be paid at the same time. The potential for double charging is an issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. However, the thrust of this is exactly right and we support it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 148ZZBBBA, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to limit spending on the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure to those items that were originally funded by the levy. New developments may create additional demands on existing infrastructure as well as demands for new infrastructure. The amendment would prevent local authorities from using levy receipts to address the intensification of demand on existing infrastructure, despite the fact that this could be exactly what is needed to support a new development.
My noble friend’s Amendment 148ZZC seeks an exemption from the levy for any development that makes a contribution to existing infrastructure through Section 106 planning obligations. This is not appropriate as the two instruments are concerned with different aspects of development. Through the levy, most new development would contribute towards the cost of meeting the cumulative demands that development of an area places on infrastructure. Conversely, planning obligations are concerned only with the site-specific matters necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms.
Local infrastructure may or may not be part of the planning obligation. Where it is any part of a planning obligation, it must satisfy the statutory tests that ensure that they are necessary to make the development acceptable, are directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. We do not believe that it is appropriate to exempt development that is subject to a planning obligation from making a contribution to the more general infrastructure demands that it places on the area. In addition, the existing legislation already prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure through both instruments. That answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will check to make sure that it also answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not absolutely certain that it does, but I will check, and I am sure we will return to this at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The port down the Thames—London Gateway—committed probably £100 million to upgrade the junctions on the roads and the motorway leading to the M25 to cope with additional traffic reported to be coming from its development. I understood the Minister to say that that is exactly what the CIL might be required to do. I see that as double taxation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I will come to a point later in my speech that should deal with the noble Lord’s concerns.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also proposes Amendment 148ZZD, the effect of which would be that where regulations require the charging authority to pass funds to another body, it would retain ultimate control over how those resources are used by confining spending to matters it determines appropriate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
It is a question not of control but of what the funds can be spent on. That is what I am asking. If it is going to pass the resources to somebody else, it is with the purpose of giving the somebody else the opportunity to spend them. What I have argued is that it must be infrastructure, whether initial or ongoing. Will my noble friend not accept that?
Earl Attlee
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that when I have finished my speech, he will be a little bit more satisfied.
We intend to use the powers of Clause 100 to require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of any revenue generated from development in an area to the parish or community council for that area. The local council will be free to determine how those funds are used to address the demands that the new development will place on its infrastructure. This amendment seeks to take control away from those local councils and the communities that are being asked to accept the new development and will significantly reduce the incentive effect of these changes.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether CIL can be passed to others on condition that it is spent on infrastructure. Where CIL is passed to another body, it must be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. I think I have repeated that answer.
Lord Greaves
Will my noble friend confirm that passing those resources to other bodies will occur only in the case of parish and town councils, and community councils in Wales, and that they will not be passed to neighbourhood forums or any other organisations?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is a slightly technical question for me, but I will write to the noble Lord on it, unless inspiration comes quickly.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether such resource will be used to meet local government shortfalls. We have clearly set out that the purpose of the levy is, and must continue to be, to support development. I can assure noble Lords that the money cannot be substituted for general local government spending.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked the Government to consider greater flexibility in the use of CIL. We will consider whether allowing spending on infrastructure and other matters could improve the levy’s ability to support development. We agree that infrastructure is vital to supporting new growth and development but we do not accept that it is necessarily all that is needed. We will reflect on that and return to it at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that Section 106 might be being phased out. Is that correct?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend with great care. I shall clearly want to read very carefully what he has said. I realise that we asked him a number of questions for which he perhaps did not have the original briefing. I do not think that what he has said today will provide any comfort to the bodies that have been very concerned about the provisions in the Bill.
The provision in Section 216 of the original 2008 Act uses the word “includes”, but this has always been taken to mean, “This is what it is”. The purpose of the clause of the Bill is to extend it: that is, the regulation is taken and the powers are there for ongoing expenditure—we have accepted that. However, the question is: can it be extended to something that is not infrastructure? I contend that the original intention of the Act was perfectly clear and that the answer to that has to be no. My noble friend Lord Greaves thinks that it ought to be spent on things like double glazing. I totally disagree. This is not infrastructure in any conceivable sense of the word, and therefore he put forward an amendment to say that it should be used for other forms of development. My noble friend replied to that on Monday by saying that he was going to look at it and reflect on it.
The people who are really concerned with getting on with building infrastructure, and I quoted from the Institute of Civil Engineers, are really very concerned about this, because this is not what was said when the Bill was introduced in 2008. We have to be very careful. We are talking about very large sums of money. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He made the point that some of these projects are very large. The ICE estimates that the CIL income by 2016 will be around £1 billion a year, so we are not talking about peanuts, we are talking about very large sums indeed. We have to get it right. My noble friends have said that they will consider this and, I hope, be able to meet with some of those who are genuinely concerned before we have to deal with it on Report. What is perfectly clear is that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs at the moment. I will certainly want to return to it, but in the mean time I hope that we can have a meeting to which I can bring along some of the advisers who have been helping me with this, and that we can talk to the departmental officials. It really has to be dealt with so that the position is clear. As I say, we are talking about large sums of investment money. If you are going to have investment, there has to be certainty so that people know where they stand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, it may be helpful if I make the point that it is very much the Government’s hope and expectation to publish the forthcoming business early tomorrow. It will set out the programme for next week and, indeed, for the two weeks in September. It has not been possible to be absolutely certain about this because at least one of the participants, particularly as far as September is concerned, has been taking part in the debate, and a little more consultation has to take place. However, it is expected that the forthcoming business can be produced by tomorrow.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Does that mean that we will be taking the Localism Bill next Tuesday?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I believe that that is exactly what will be in the document on our forthcoming business, but there will be other features too. However, as noble Lords heard earlier, it is the hope and expectation that the Localism Bill will be the major business next Tuesday and, indeed, on Wednesday.