House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
1. What steps he is taking to reduce youth unemployment.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to reduce youth unemployment.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
5. What his approach is to tackling youth unemployment.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to reduce youth unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
It is good to see so many people in the Chamber who have discovered an interest in work and pensions.
Work experience and apprenticeships are central to improving the prospects of young unemployed people. We are making up to 100,000 work experience placements available and strengthening the links between the work experience programme and apprenticeships. We are also providing additional Jobcentre Plus help for 16 and 17-year-old jobseeker’s allowance claimants and offering earlier entry into the Work programme. It is worth reminding ourselves that of the 991,000 16 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed under the International Labour Organisation measure, 270,000 are full-time students. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) will be aware that Harlow is one of the Government’s new enterprise zones.
Robert Halfon
I am, of course, delighted that Harlow is an enterprise zone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of cutting youth unemployment is to encourage Government contractors to hire apprentices? Figures from the House of Commons Library show that if just one apprentice was hired for every £1 million of public procurement, it would instantly create 238,000 apprenticeships and cut youth unemployment by a quarter.
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is right. Under the new arrangements, suppliers must provide an apprenticeships and skills report within six months of the contract start date. The idea is that they will periodically show their progress towards meeting a commitment to employ 5% of apprentices in delivering the Department for Work and Pensions contract to which they are entitled. Work programme providers will be paid primarily for the results that they achieve, which means that they will be under pressure to do a similar thing.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend will be aware that under the previous Government, youth unemployment rose by 40%. Will he reassure the House that the measures he has just outlined will ensure that under this Government we do not have a repeat of that shameful record?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is right that youth unemployment rose from about 2004, regardless of a growing economy. One problem was that when the previous Government came to power, there was a guaranteed training place for all 16 to 18-year-olds, which they scrapped. That was one of the worst, most short-sighted decisions that any Government have ever made.
Nick Smith
Youth unemployment in Blaenau Gwent grew by a massive 12.8% last year. The Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion has highlighted the benefits of the future jobs fund, which helped 500 young people in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State look at bringing back the future jobs fund, given the current crisis of youth unemployment?
Mr Duncan Smith
As the hon. Gentleman should know, we made a commitment to complete the placements that had been committed to until March. That meant that there were nearly 64,000 additional places under the future jobs fund, bringing the total to 105,000 places. We believe that the future jobs fund was an expensive way to try to get people into employment. Almost half of those who went in have ended up back on benefits.
Karl MᶜCartney
Is my right hon. Friend aware of research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development which suggests that only 12% of employers planned to recruit school leavers aged 16 in the three months to September 2011, and that just 15% intended to recruit school leavers aged 17 to 18? That issue was raised during my visit to Lincoln college on Friday. I suspect that he is as concerned as I am by those statistics. Will he tell the House what the Government will do to encourage employers to invest further in our youth?
Mr Duncan Smith
We are talking a lot to employers about that problem. My hon. Friend is right about it. I return to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) about ending the training scheme. That really affected 16 to 17-year-olds. I have brought in the £30 million innovation fund to look at ways in which we can give people approaching the age of 16 better skills for the work force. Employers have told us that many people who leave school at that age are simply not ready for work. We have allowed jobcentres to work with many of those people to get them ready for work. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) is absolutely right that this matter is a priority for us.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Youth unemployment is now the highest it has ever been. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chancellor that Britain is now “a safe haven”?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s linkage is in that question. Youth unemployment is high now, which is deeply regrettable, but he needs to take some responsibility for that. We have to remember that when we came into power, after a period of growth before the recession, the level of youth unemployment was higher under the last Government than the level that they inherited back in 1997. Frankly, his lectures on youth unemployment are like crocodile tears in the desert.
Mr Byrne
Since this Government have taken office, they have closed the future jobs fund and shut down the flexible new deal, and replaced them with a youth work scheme that costs less than the Department spends on stationery and guarantees interviews, not jobs, and with a Work programme that turns out on closer inspection to be all programme and no work. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is going through the roof.
I looked for the Department’s flagship youth unemployment policy on its website this morning, and what does it say?
“Page not found. The page you are looking for may have been removed or moved to the National Archives.”
So much for the priority that the Government gave to youth employment.
The last time unemployment was this high, it was not the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) who was trying to bring down the Government over Europe but the Secretary of State himself, the commander-in-chief of the Maastricht rebels. Instead of today’s debate, on which the Prime Minister has wasted so much time, should we not be having a debate about how we put a proper tax on bankers’ bonuses to get 100,000 young people back to work?
Mr Duncan Smith
I must say, the right hon. Gentleman coming up with the wrong page suggests more about his ability to negotiate the website than about the Department.
I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said before: it is time the Opposition took responsibility for the mess that they got us in before we took over. Since we walked through the door we have had in place work clubs, work experience, apprenticeship offers, sector-based work academies, the innovation fund, European social fund support, the skills offer, the access to apprenticeships programme, Work Together, the Work programme, Work Choice, mandatory work activity and Jobcentre Plus. He has to recognise that under Labour’s watch, youth unemployment rose to a level higher than that at which they found it in 1997. It was a disgrace.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to encourage people with multiple sclerosis to return to work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
The Government are committed to ensuring that individuals with conditions such as multiple sclerosis have the support that they need to find, and remain in, work. A comprehensive range of work support for individuals with serious fluctuating conditions is provided through the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work.
David Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I convey the wishes of my constituents in the local MS society for there to be better ways forward than those provided under the previous Government?
Maria Miller
I agree that the work of the Multiple Sclerosis Society is to be applauded, and I am sure that the Lancaster, Morecambe and district branch will join many other organisations in welcoming the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, which is currently in the other place, including universal credit. Those measures will address the unacceptable imbalances inherent in the current welfare system, to ensure that people suffering from fluctuating conditions such as MS cannot be written off to a lifetime of dependency in future.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Department for Work and Pensions research on disability living allowance in work has indicated that those receiving DLA are, on average, more severely impaired than others and have a greater likelihood of multiple disabilities, including mental health conditions. Additionally, they are disadvantaged in the labour market because of the types of their impairment, and carry the greatest employment disadvantage.
The new personal independence payment assessment has been criticised by 23 leading disability organisations as being too medicalised and not taking into account the social and environmental barriers that disadvantage disabled people in the jobs market. Will the Minister share with us just how many disabled people she expects to get back into work as a result of her DLA proposals, given that the only figure that we have on the record is that the Government want to make a 20% cut to the DLA budget?
Maria Miller
I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Lady tries to link disability living allowance to returning to work, given that in the past she has held the position that I hold now. It is absolutely clear that DLA, and indeed the PIP, which will take over from it, are not linked to work. I should think we would want to make that clear to people who are listening to these questions.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
A recent report by the Work Foundation found that up to 44% of people in the UK with MS retire early due to their condition, a higher percentage than the European average of just 35%. What plans does the Minister have to support individuals with MS to stay in the work force once they are in employment?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he does a lot of work in this area, and I welcome his contribution. He will be aware that through the Sayce recommendations, we are specifically considering how we can increase the role of Access to Work. That could have a particularly positive impact on people with MS. We already have a budget of some £105 million supporting about 35,000 people through Access to Work, and the Sayce recommendations indicate that the number could be doubled if there is a reprioritisation of how Government money is used.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
4. If he will publish monthly information on the number of people successfully placed in jobs by Work programme contractors and the cost per job outcome.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
We are working to guidelines set by the UK Statistics Authority to ensure we publish statistics that meet high-quality standards at the earliest opportunity. Statistics on referrals and attachments to the Work programme will be published from spring 2012 and job outcome data from autumn 2012. We will also publish the average cost per job outcome for claimants who have been on the programme for 24 months as part of our transparency indicators.
Dame Anne Begg
I have to say that I am very, very disappointed with that reply. I cannot understand why it will be more than 12 months before the Government produce statistics on job outcomes and the cost per job. After eight months of the future jobs fund, we had the statistics on job outcomes for the first four months of the scheme. I cannot see why the Government should take any longer than that. What do they have to hide?
Chris Grayling
I have the utmost respect for the hon. Lady, but she needs to look again at how the Work programme works. We are not making an outcome payment to providers for six months. That is a really good deal for the taxpayer, because before providers can receive payment, they must ensure not simply that that have got somebody into work for a week to boost statistics, but that they keep them in work for a sustained period. The Government cannot produce robust statistics under the guidance produced by the UK Statistics Authority if we try to do so earlier.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Is not the key point about the Work programme that payment by results and packages tailored to individual needs are likely to make the cost per successful job outcome lower, and the number of jobs achieved higher?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole point of the Work programme is real investment in the long-term unemployed. Providers will take the requisite time to get them into work, but the Government will pay the bill only when people are successfully in long-term employment. That is a much better deal than under previous schemes from the previous Government. He is right that the Work programme is a much better deal for the taxpayer.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General says that openness and transparency on public services data will be a
“core part of every bit of government business”,
so why not this bit of Government business? Why is the Minister not only refusing to publish performance data but banning Work programme providers from publishing their own data, as many did under the new deal and would like to do now? He is threatening to withdraw their contracts if they publish that data. What is he trying to hide, and will he at least lift that ban?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to the answer I gave a moment ago, but he would also do well to remember that his Government set up the current rules on national statistics. He would surely want statistics to be published properly and in an appropriate time frame, under the guidance of the UK Statistics Authority. I do not believe in giving information out haphazardly. Let us do it properly, according to the guidance and process he set up when he was in government.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to support access to lending from credit unions.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
10. What steps his Department is taking to support access to lending from credit unions.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Since 2006, the Department has spent more than £100 million through its growth fund to encourage credit unions. In addition, since March this year, a further £11.8 million has been invested. The Department is now conducting a study into how best we can support credit unions and will report shortly.
Jesse Norman
Only 2% of people in this country are members of credit unions such as the excellent Money Box in my constituency, compared with 44% of people in the United States. What role can Jobcentre Plus play in helping credit unions to reach more people?
Steve Webb
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his involvement with the all-party group on credit unions and his commitment to the cause. Jobcentre Plus is keen to work closely with credit unions, and we are currently piloting a scheme in Manchester and Newcastle in which jobcentres share office space to see whether they can assist credit unions at a local level.
Jeremy Lefroy
I declare an interest as a member of the Staffordshire credit union. For more lending, we need more saving. What steps are the Government taking to encourage payroll saving in credit unions?
Steve Webb
The process of long-term saving through auto-enrolment in workplace pensions is imminent, but there has been a big growth in workplace coverage of occupational workplace individual savings accounts, which is an encouraging development. We are looking to see what more we can do to encourage that trend.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Many who use credit unions also need help to access credit advice. What is the Minister doing to help those who will lose out when he scraps the £27 million financial inclusion fund from next March?
Steve Webb
One of the things we are looking at as part of our feasibility study on the future of credit unions is their crucial role in supporting people who need financial advice and assistance. That work will report back to the Department next month.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I declare an interest as one of the almost 3,000 members of the Bridgend Lifesavers credit union, which has loans of more than £500,000 but savings of £1 million and is keeping people out of the hands of doorstep loan sharks and the sadly growing numbers of pawnbrokers on our high streets. What can we do to ensure that people see credit unions, rather than doorstep loan sharks, as the way to save and borrow?
Steve Webb
I welcome the hon. Lady’s endorsement of credit unions, and I am pleased to say that, last week, the House of Lords approved the legislative reform order that will pave the way for credit unions to expand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) asked about the difference between the USA and the UK. One of those differences is that many of our credit unions are small and have not been able to stand on their own two feet and become viable. We are determined to enable them to become viable so that they can perform the functions that she set out.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
7. When he plans to bring forward new work capability assessment descriptors for mental health and fluctuating conditions.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
We have received suggested descriptors for mental, cognitive and intellectual function from Professor Harrington’s working group. Given that they represent a substantial departure from how the current assessment works, we are considering what impact they will have and will come forward with proposals soon. We have not yet received any recommendations from Professor Harrington’s separate working group on fluctuating conditions.
Mrs Glindon
In July the Minister received recommendations for changes to the mental health descriptors from Mind, the National Autistic Society and Mencap, and although he says that the Government will be bringing forward proposals shortly, will he specify when those changes will be implemented?
Chris Grayling
The challenge facing us is that the recommendations will involve a complete change of the work capability assessment, not simply for mental health issues, but for physical issues, and is therefore a multi-year project. We are considering whether we can incorporate elements of the recommendations into the current approach much more quickly. I am concerned to ensure that we do the right thing by people with mental health conditions, and I want to ensure that we take any sensible steps as quickly as possible.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our approach should focus on what can be done to help people back into the world of work and on helping them with what they can do, rather than on any scintilla of a suggestion of people being punished for what they cannot do?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a crucial point. We are not trying to do people down, but looking to help those with the potential to make more of their lives to do so. The assessment is all about working out who has the potential to get back into the workplace, and through the Work programme, we can deliver the specialist support that they need to do so.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning I met members of Headway East London concerned about the impact of this situation on people who are looking for work but feel that they are being penalised when they find it and then cannot cope with it. They talked about the chaos of the benefits system. When will the Minister be coming forward with these proposals and reassuring my constituents that they will be in a better position?
Chris Grayling
We are taking significant steps to sort out the problems to which the hon. Lady refers. The introduction of the universal credit in 2013 will completely transform how our benefits system works. It will be much easier for people with disabilities to move back into work step by step—initially, perhaps, by doing a few hours’ work and then by entering part-time and then full-time employment. It will transform their prospects.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
Given Atos Healthcare’s past performance, no one has faith in the ability of the current work capability assessment or Atos fairly to assess fluctuating conditions in particular. Will the Minister work with Atos to ensure that the new descriptors are implemented as soon as possible and that Atos staff receive additional training to improve their performance and restore the faith of claimants and the general public in the assessment process?
Chris Grayling
I will have to wait and see what the recommendations are, but as a result of Professor Harrington’s first report, it is now decision makers in Jobcentre Plus who take the decision about an individual. I have told charitable groups representing people with a variety of conditions that the door is open to them to brief, train and discuss with those decision makers the issues facing such people so that they are as well informed as possible.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Last week I met representatives of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, who expressed concerns about the descriptors attached to vision. Will the Minister meet the RNIB and other representatives of blind and partially sighted people to address those concerns so that we have vision descriptors that are fit for purpose?
Chris Grayling
I have regular meetings with groups representing not just blind people, but those with various disabilities, and I will continue to do so. The object of the exercise is to help those who are blind or visually impaired back into work. Surely it is much better to find them a place in the workplace than leave them on benefits for the rest of their lives.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the factors underlying recent trends in the level of unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Although unemployment is up by about 79,000 since the election, employment is slightly higher, at 29.1 million, and International Labour Organisation unemployment slightly lower, at 2.56 million, than the Office for Budget Responsibility thought it would be at this point. The total number claiming one of the main out-of-work benefits fell by about 25,000 over the last year to August. The number claiming incapacity benefit or lone parent benefits fell by nearly 140,000, while the number claiming jobseeker’s allowance rose by 115,000 over the same period. Jobcentre Plus has taken 1 million new vacancies in the last three months and there are 460,000 unfilled vacancies at the moment, up 1,000 this quarter and 5,000 on the year.
Bill Esterson
The question was about unemployment, which is at its highest since the last Tory Government lost power. We have no growth, and we need it to cut unemployment and the deficit. Will the Secretary of State support measures such as a temporary VAT cut on home improvements, which is supported by 49 business organisations, including the Federation of Master Builders and the Federation of Small Businesses, and would create jobs in small businesses in the construction industry?
Mr Duncan Smith
I felt that I answered the question. The hon. Gentleman might not have liked the answer, but I none the less answered it.
We do not agree with the Opposition’s suggestion of a VAT cut. It is also worth gently reminding the hon. Gentleman that he is part of a party that in government saw a huge rise in unemployment and stagnation of the economy, so before we get lessons and lectures from the Opposition, it would be nice for them to say, “We’re sorry for the mess we left things in.”
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to help women who are most affected by the state pension age proposals contained in the Pensions Bill.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to help women who are most affected by the state pension age proposals contained in the Pensions Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
We have amended the Pensions Bill so that women with the largest delay in receiving their state pension will find this delay reduced by six months.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for that reply, but what support is the Department offering to those who will have to work longer as a result of the revised state pension age timetable?
Steve Webb
Now that we will hopefully have certainty about the dates next week—subject to their lordships’ approval—we will want to ensure that people know exactly when their retirement date is. We will write to 750,000 people shortly, so that they know where they stand, and all the services of Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme will be available to those who become long-term unemployed later in life.
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate those on the Front Bench on changing their minds on this issue. A number of female constituents have written to me expressing enormous gratitude for the fact that we have changed the position for the better. Does the Minister agree that this shows that we care about women in particular and, even more so, that Labour left us with such a mess that we are having to sort it out now and do things that we are not necessarily happy with?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The change that we made—a commitment to ensuring that the changes are fair as they affect women—cost £1.1 billion. The difference between us and the Opposition is that their policy cost ten times as much and they had no idea where the money would come from.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The Minister knows how important auto-enrolment is to ensuring that future generations retire on a decent pension, but the Government’s Beecroft report on deregulation looms large on the horizon. Can the Minister reassure the House that whatever Beecroft recommends, no business large or small will be allowed to opt out from auto-enrolment?
Steve Webb
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new role in the House. I much enjoyed his attempt to persuade the House last week that £11 billion was not very much if we divided it by 10 and by the national debt. In answer to his question about auto-enrolment, I can assure him that 2012 goes ahead as planned, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box last week.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What assessment he has made of progress towards implementation of the recommendations of the Harrington review of the work capability assessment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
We took steps earlier this year to ensure that all the recommendations in Professor Harrington’s first report were implemented in time for the start of the national migration from incapacity benefit. I expect to receive Professor Harrington’s second report, telling us how well he thinks we are doing on that front, shortly.
Tom Greatrex
Given the Minister’s earlier comments, I am sure that he is well aware of the progressive and incurable nature of Parkinson’s disease. A constituent of mine with Parkinson’s has been called for his third work capability assessment, despite appealing the previous two incorrect decisions by Atos and the decision makers. Will the Minister undertake to meet me and Parkinson’s UK, so that he can understand better how in practice the work capability assessment, rather than helping people who can work, too often hounds those who will not get better?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman has to understand that one of the great failings of our welfare state over the past decade has been that we have left people on the sidelines year after year without checking to see what their condition is or what the potential alternatives are. I am very happy to meet Parkinson’s UK and the hon. Gentleman. I well understand the challenges that the disease presents for those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from it, but we cannot simply go back to a situation in which we leave people year after year without even checking what their condition is.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on the payment of benefits of the reasoned opinion from the European Commission on the UK’s right to reside test.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
19. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on the payment of benefits of the reasoned opinion from the European Commission on the UK’s right to reside test.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
We accept our responsibility in supporting EU citizens who work here and pay their tax and national insurance, but it is clearly completely unacceptable that we should be asked to open our welfare system to people who have never worked in or contributed to the United Kingdom and who have no intention of doing so. We are considering all the details of the Commission’s reasoned opinion, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK retains control of its welfare policies.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust remarks. What steps is he taking to ensure that the UK is not burdened further by benefit tourism?
Chris Grayling
The best way for us to get the message across to the Commission about the need for change is to demonstrate that this is not a matter for the UK alone. I am therefore forging partnerships with my counterparts in other member states, most of whom have the same concerns. We have to make the Commission recognise that this kind of land grab of an area that should be a national competence is unacceptable. It has all kinds of political connotations, and the Commission must change its view.
Henry Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for his previous answer. Can he tell us what steps his Department will be taking to monitor foreign nationals who are receiving UK benefits?
Chris Grayling
I can indeed. One of the things that surprised me most on taking office was the fact that the previous Administration had made no attempt whatever to identify how many people from overseas were receiving benefits. We are now doing that work. We aim to publish the results in the next few weeks, and we will aim to learn lessons from what we find.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
14. What recent discussions he has had with organisations representing disabled people about the face-to-face assessment process for personal independence payments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
Officials and I have met a broad range of disability organisations in relation to our proposals for the personal independence payment. We have also set up a dedicated group specifically to involve disabled people and their organisations in the design and operation of the new PIP process.
Simon Hughes
Two organisations representing blind people—Action for Blind People and Blind Aid—are based in my borough. One of the concerns that has come to the fore recently is that people who are registered blind, who are clearly blind and have been so for some time, should not have to present themselves to be checked when being assessed for their disability benefits. Can the Minister confirm that, where there is a clear, settled condition, there will be no need for people to be unsettled by having to prove again what is obvious to everyone?
Maria Miller
Although face-to-face consultations will be an important part of the personal independence payment for most people, I have made it clear throughout all the debates that they might not be appropriate for everyone, especially when there is sufficient evidence on which to make an assessment. It is important, however, to treat everyone as an individual, because there is a coincidence of multiple disability for many individuals.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the level of unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics show 2.6 million unemployed, on the International Labour Organisation measure—a rate of 8.1% of the labour force.
Ann Coffey
The latest unemployment figures show that 35% of all jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Stockport are from the most disadvantaged area in my constituency. Unemployed people from disadvantaged areas are likely to remain unemployed for longer, so what steps will the Minister take to ensure that disadvantage does not become further embedded in our community?
Chris Grayling
The structure of the Work programme will mean that, for the first time, we will be paying a higher rate for the help provided to those who come from more challenged backgrounds, in order to encourage providers to make an investment in helping them. That will be an important part of getting them back into the workplace. Under the previous Government’s schemes, there was one flat rate for everyone, but our pricing structure reflects the real need to focus on people who are struggling in life.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to reduce unemployment is to make sure that people set up new businesses? Does he agree that the new enterprise allowance, which we in Hastings and Rye welcome, should also be directed at both disadvantaged people and young people, to make sure that the widest possible number of people are able to set up in business?
Chris Grayling
I agree, and it is very much my hope that the new enterprise allowance will generate a significant boost to new enterprise, small businesses and self-employment in this country. In the way that it is structured, it is aimed at those who have been out of work for more than six months, so I hope it will deliver exactly what my hon. Friend hopes for, which is to support people who have potential but who face the greatest challenges in getting back into the workplace.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Young and disabled people are more likely to rely on public transport to get to work, yet the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s policies are leading to cuts in bus services and unaffordable fare rises. How is that helping to get unemployment down?
Chris Grayling
When I listen to Labour Members bemoan the cutbacks, I am always astonished that they seem to fail to understand that it is down to the mismanagement of the previous Government that we are having to take these difficult decisions—and we are having to take many such decisions. They should be looking in the mirror in the morning and saying, “Whose fault is this really?”
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
17. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the replacement of the social fund.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
In addition to general discussions on welfare reform between Scottish Government Ministers and the Department, both Lord Freud and I have corresponded directly with Scottish Government Ministers about the planned social fund reforms.
Ann McKechin
I am grateful for the lack of information in that response. [Laughter.] The Minister will be aware that there is every possibility that the legislative consent motion relating to the Welfare Reform Bill, which includes the reform of the social fund, will not be granted consent by the Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister tell us what is his plan B to ensure that vulnerable people in communities in Scotland receive the crisis loans that they require?
Steve Webb
Let me point out that the bulk of crisis loans will remain available under a UK-wide scheme. The devolution of the social fund relates principally to community care grants and a small amount of crisis loans. In our view, that money is better handled locally, close to the communities in question, and we hope that the Scottish Parliament will take the opportunity to have the money that is available and to spend it in Scotland, which is what it always tells us it wants.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
18. What recent assessment he has made of the capacity of the Jobcentre Plus network to administer the benefits system during periods of rising unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The Department for Work and Pensions reviews work loads and staffing regularly to ensure that there is capacity to pay benefits and help people find work. On average, the DWP aims to clear jobseeker’s allowance claims within 10 days. It is currently clearing them in 9.6 days, nearly five days faster than five years ago.
Katy Clark
I thank the Minister for that answer. Twenty-two jobcentres and 17 benefit processing centres are due to close. While I understand that the Government are saying that they are going to try to avoid compulsory redundancies, there is no doubt that staff will be forced out of their jobs. Overall, the unemployment figures are reaching 3 million. In my constituency, the claimant count went up by 10% in the year to September. Surely we are going to see a worse service provided to claimants. Will the Minister undertake to provide regular performance statistics to this House?
Chris Grayling
What the hon. Lady does not understand is that we inherited a network of half-empty buildings. I am sure she would agree that it makes no sense to fund, for example, two or three jobcentres within a mile of each other in a city centre. Rather than cutting back—the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned bus services—I would like to protect the services that we can possibly protect, and making our network of jobcentres and benefit delivery centres operate more efficiently and effectively seems a very good way of trying to ensure that we protect front-line services.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
20. What estimate he has made of the potential number of tenants who could accrue rent arrears as a result of implementation of his proposals to restrict housing benefit for social tenants in accordance with household size.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
We have made no estimates of the number of tenants who would get into rent arrears as a direct result of implementing our proposal, as it is not possible to predict exactly how people will respond to the change or what choices they might make in response to a potential shortfall.
Heidi Alexander
The Minister says he has made no such assessment, but the Housing Futures Network estimates that eight out of 10 tenants will struggle to make up the shortfall in lost benefits as a result of these proposed changes, with a third likely to go into rent arrears. That will increase the level of bad debt of housing providers and is likely to mean less investment in new affordable homes. Is the Minister concerned about that?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing our attention to the Housing Futures Network research. What she did not quote was the fact that a quarter of respondents said that they were likely to downsize, which presumably means making better use of the housing stock, while 29% said that they would be either quite likely or very likely to move into work or increase their hours, which is a positive response. There are real issues about rent arrears; we are working closely with social landlords to assist, but there will be positive impacts from these policies, which also need to be borne in mind.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Hard-working families in my constituency often see families on housing benefit receiving more than they themselves receive as a result of going out to work. Can my hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the new measures it will always pay to work?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a range of policies to ensure that it pays to work, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's universal credit being central among them. The caps on housing benefit and the limit to the 30th percentile in the private sector are also designed to level the playing field between those in low-paid work and those on benefit.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
21. What the average length of time was for an appeal in respect of a decision on a claim for employment and support allowance in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
In the current year, the average actual clearance time between the Department’s receiving an appeal and its being lodged with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service was 35.2 days. That, of course, includes the time allowed for individuals to produce new evidence about their circumstances. The average time taken from receipt of an appeal at HMCTS to the date of the first appeal hearing was 23.2 weeks. That information covers 1 April to 31 August 2011, the latest period for which figures are available.
Gemma Doyle
I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Will he take this opportunity to refute press reports that he will cut the ESA of people who appeal against assessment decisions, especially in the light of the information that 40% of cases are being won on appeal?
Chris Grayling
What I expect to see as a result of the changes following Professor Harrington’s review in the summer is a significant reduction in the number of cases that go to appeal when the Department’s initial review and the reconsideration are upheld. In order to ease pressure on individuals, we have tried to ensure that there is a proper reconsideration service in Jobcentre Plus, so that they can produce new evidence at that stage and need not use the Courts Service at all.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister look into the delays and difficulties experienced by visually impaired claimants who are being transferred from incapacity benefit to the ESA? I have no time to go into the details of this case today, but after more than four months a constituent of mine is still unable to submit a claim because of a lack of support and assistance, and she is not the only person in those circumstances. Will the Minister look into the difficulties experienced by this very vulnerable group?
Chris Grayling
It is difficult for me to comment on an individual case, but we certainly do not want to see people in difficulties. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with details of the case, we will look into it for him.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
22. What estimate he has made of the potential effect on the number of women leaving work of his planned reduction in refundable child care costs.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
We are not planning any reductions in support for child care. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman will have noted, we recently committed ourselves to investing £300 million more in child care support under universal credit, on top of the £2 billion already spent on child care support. As a result of that support, some 80,000 more households will be eligible for child care, which must be welcome.
Tony Lloyd
I am not sure that the Secretary of State’s message has been conveyed to the public. Many working families are very concerned both about the high price of child care and about the fact that it is rising, and believe that they will be worse off as a consequence of the changes that are being made. How does the Secretary of State propose to ensure that his message gets across, to Labour Members as well as those on the Government Benches?
Mr Duncan Smith
I know that the hon. Gentleman holds genuine views on these matters. Obviously we must ensure that we listen more to people, and explain to them the changes that universal credit will bring. The end of the 16-hour rule and the provision of child care for those working fewer than 16 hours a week will be of major benefit, particularly to lone parents. Under the present system, some 100,000 people do not take up the child care support element of working tax credit to which they are entitled because they are not aware of it, so this will be a big breakthrough.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
23. What proportion of crisis loans are repaid; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
All crisis loans are repayable, and the vast majority are repaid, albeit sometimes over several years. Of the loans issued in 2003-04, more than 95% have so far been recovered.
Philip Davies
It seems from answers given by the Department that each year only half of what is paid out in crisis loans is repaid. The police have reported to me that they have evidence of fictional crimes that people invent in order to obtain crime numbers enabling them to gain crisis loans. Can the Minister explain what is being done to ensure that the amount of money being repaid increases, and to stop the abuse of the system?
Steve Webb
In order to give my hon. Friend a sense of scale, let me tell him that we lent a little over £200 million in crisis loans last year, and less than £500,000 was written off as unrecoverable. As I have said, the vast majority of loans are recovered, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern that the money should be lent correctly. Localising parts of the crisis loan system will lead to much closer local scrutiny of the purposes for which the money is being lent.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
24. What assessment he has made of the effect on child poverty of benefit changes in (a) 2011-12 and (b) 2012-13.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Treasury projections show that modelled tax and benefit reforms announced since Budget 2010 may result in a small reduction in child poverty in 2011-12 and 2012-13. These include above-indexation increases to the child element of child tax credit by £180 in 2011-12 and £110 in 2012-13.
Kerry McCarthy
I am slightly puzzled by the Secretary of State’s response. I am sure he is aware of the research published last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicting a huge rise in the number of children living in relative poverty—of perhaps 500,000 more—despite the Government’s introduction of the universal credit. Does he accept that child poverty is predicted to rise under his rule?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady should not be so surprised given that I responded to the question she asked. The IFS projection deals with the tax and the benefits systems, but there are wider issues; we are addressing the pupil premium and other areas, which we think will also have an effect. The IFS projections are based on the premise that absolutely nothing changes, and I remind the hon. Lady that the last report showed that the previous Government were going to miss their 2010 targets before they left office.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
From today, and following the written ministerial statement laid in the House on Friday, employment and support allowance claimants who are eligible to volunteer for the Work programme will be referred to Work programme information sessions. Claimants in the support group will be able to opt in to the sessions. That will form part of the work-related activity component for those in the work-related activity group—WRAG. This is an important step in giving claimants a taste of the support available through the Work programme.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the Secretary of State agree with last week’s comments by the Minister for Housing and Local Government that under-occupiers should not be bullied out of their homes, and will he now withdraw his proposals for social tenants which would result in exactly that?
Mr Duncan Smith
The position of the Housing Minister is correct, and I make it a principle to support him.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
T4. Further to the Atos question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), does the Secretary of State agree that the company is not fit for purpose, that it treats many claimants in an unacceptable way, and that, frankly, it is time that its contract was terminated?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
My hon. Friend needs to understand that Atos is simply a subcontractor to the Department for Work and Pensions. It does not take decisions about individuals. It simply operates to a template, which was mostly established under the previous Government. Of course we must be sensitive, but Atos and our other subcontractors are as careful as possible about the job that they do. Ultimately however, it is the Department itself that sets the policy and implements the processes, and that must take responsibility for the outcomes.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s complaints about the free movement of European labour and his leadership of the Maastricht rebels in the ’90s, may I ask why he will not be demonstrating some conviction and consistency this evening? Why is he putting his position and his party before his principles, and his career before his country, in the debate on Europe this evening?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and that is, indeed, a topical question, but it suffers from the notable disadvantage of bearing absolutely no relation whatsoever to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I will give a seminar to the hon. Gentleman later, further and better to explain the point, but there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to respond to that question.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Given the relatively small employment market in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State believe, based on his discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, that enough jobs can be created for those leaving employment for the Work programme financial model to be effective in Northern Ireland?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Lady rightly says, all these issues are devolved to Northern Ireland. We have regular contact with the Northern Ireland Administration, and my colleague, Lord Freud, has regular meetings with them on behalf of the Department. We all, of course, want to see growth and employment in every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and to see all our welfare-to-work policies, both devolved and otherwise, bear fruit.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T7. In the Welfare Reform Bill Committee on 10 May the Minister with responsibility for disabilities, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), assured us that she would not remove mobility benefits from disabled people without additional support being in place. Would she care to update the House on progress in determining the level of support that will be available to disabled people, including care home residents, through personal independence payments?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do that. As he is aware, we have been examining this issue more broadly and our research is well advanced. The independent review chaired by Lord Low has been examining some of the same issues, and it is sensible to reflect on the outcome of his important work in advance of our final decision. Lord Low is due to report on 3 November and I will announce our final decisions shortly after.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
If Harrington does bring forward improvements to the work capability test, will the Minister give a commitment to review all those past cases seen and commissioned under Atos, where bad mistakes may have been made?
Chris Grayling
Of course, every claimant who goes through the work capability assessment has the right of appeal. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that when Professor Harrington carried out his first assessment last year he said to me clearly that although he had recommended improvements, we could and should go ahead with the national incapacity benefit migration. I have accepted his recommendations.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
T10. Ministers will be aware of the difficulties that young people face in finding employment, and the challenges are naturally greater for those with disabilities. Will the Minister provide an update on Government plans to help young disabled people to get back into work, following the recent Sayce review?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she will doubtless be aware from her own constituency, the aspirations of young disabled people are no different from those of any other people. That is why, through the Work programme, the Work Choice programme and the access to work scheme, we will give young disabled people all the opportunities they need to progress into work.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
T3. The Secretary of State seemed surprised that we do not share his love of statistics. I wonder whether it was he who briefed the Prime Minister last week, leading to the Prime Minister claiming at Prime Minister’s questions“that 500,000 people have jobs who did not have one at the time of the election.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 893.] The Prime Minister was not at his most eloquent last week. However, according to official figures, between April to June 2010 and the most recent figures—June to August 2011—employment is up by just 87,000. We do not like the Secretary of State’s statistics when they are wrong. Does this not prove that the Government do not have a plan for tackling unemployment?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady is missing something out. One of the most regular refrains from the Opposition over the past few months has been that, as we have had to make necessary changes in the public sector as a result of the financial mess they left behind, the private sector would not be able to take up the slack. The truth is that although we have had a bad quarter for unemployment, we have seen more than 500,000 extra jobs in the private sector since the election and more jobs created in the private sector over the past year than have been lost in the public sector.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Under new housing benefit rules, foster carers who claim housing benefit will be penalised for having bedrooms occupied by foster children because they will be deemed as “under-occupied”. At a time when we need more foster carers, not fewer, what are the Government doing to address that anomaly?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
My hon. Friend has a good deal of personal knowledge of this issue. I refer him to the comments made by Lord Freud when it was raised during consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill in the Lords. He observed that this is a serious issue and that he is keen to ensure that we respond appropriately to that important point.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
T5. A record number of employment and support allowance claimants are wrongly assessed as fit for work. They cannot claim ESA while they await their appeal hearings, yet appeals are taking anything up to 15 months to be heard. What is the Minister doing to make the system better and, more importantly, quicker?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady needs to remember that the system we inherited from the previous Government caused the problems to which she is referring. We made changes after the Harrington review last year that were all in place earlier this summer for the start of the national incapacity benefit migration. We have yet to see the statistical outcome of that, but I am confident that we will see a fall in the number of successful appeals as a result of our decision to implement the Harrington recommendations in full.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
For auto-enrolment to have the maximum impact, it is important that seasonal short-term employees have an equal opportunity to be part of it. Will the Minister outline what incentives the Government are putting in place to encourage take-up by short-term and seasonal employees?
Steve Webb
We must strike the right balance in respect of those who work for an employer for a very short period, in order to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. Those who are with a firm for more than three months will be within the scope of auto-enrolment, and those who work for a shorter period will still be free to opt in and trigger a contribution from their firm.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
T6. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the assessment for the personal independence payment will be fit for purpose and will not repeat the experiences of the work capability assessment?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will be aware that last May we published the assessment criteria, that we have been testing those through the summer with 900 disabled people, and that we are working with more than 50 disability organisations. I hope that that assures her that we will ensure that it is very much fit for purpose.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s plans to streamline advice and information and advocacy services, with the big possibility of a much enhanced citizens advice service. Will the Minister assure me that benefits advice and advocacy will be very much at the heart of the new service?
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is proving impossible for MPs to make telephone inquiries to Work programme providers, outsource providers and work capability assessment providers?
Chris Grayling
We are extremely keen to see close relationships between local Members of Parliament and Work programme providers. If there is any issue in making that happen, we will happily act as middlemen to make sure the doors are opened.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
T8. As the Minister will be aware, there are approximately 2,000 local government employees in Scotland who administer housing benefit. He said in a recent parliamentary answer to me that those people are in his thinking in relation to the introduction of universal credit. Can he give any reassurance to the House that those people’s jobs will be protected and will be considered as part of the new system?
Mr Duncan Smith
We have said all along that, when it comes to administering universal credit, all those who are responsible for administering various parts of it now will have an equal opportunity to show that they are the most efficient and most effective.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the Government for amending the state pension age for one category of women. May I press the Government and the Minister on the transitional arrangements for those women who will not have a reprieve, because presumably the unemployment benefit will not be as high as the state pension to which they would have been entitled?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is right that there will still be people who face a significant increase in their state pension age. Working-age benefits will be available, including jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance. Some such women will also have access to occupational pensions and other forms of income and we will support those who seek to carry on working up to their new state pension age.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T9. On Saturday, I joined more than 1,000 people in Newcastle for one of the many Hardest Hit campaign rallies across the country, in which people expressed anxiety about cuts to local care and support services, jobs and essential benefits for some of the most vulnerable in society. Given that disabled people are already twice as likely to live in poverty, what does the Minister have to say in response to their concerns?
Maria Miller
I regularly meet all the major organisations that are involved in the march. I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are doing work in the Department for Work and Pensions and through the Department of Health, with an extra £7.2 billion going on social care, an extra £3 million being put into user-led organisations and £180 million going on disabled facilities grants. Those are all additional areas of expenditure that disabled people should welcome.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One in five young people in Hartlepool is without employment, education or training. That is the highest proportion anywhere in the country and is the direct result of Government decisions such as the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance and the cancellation of the future jobs fund. Given the astonishing complacency of the Secretary of State’s earlier answers and given that he has not given a fig about young people throughout this Administration, what practical, tangible steps will he put in place so that young people in Hartlepool are not a neglected, forgotten or lost generation?
Mr Duncan Smith
I must say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to many others, that these problems with youth unemployment are deeply regrettable but, most importantly, while we in government look after the economy and want to see greater levels of growth, he, like all his colleagues, needs to take account of the fact that we are here because of the mess that his party left the economy in and the debts and the deficit—which we have to get rid of.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
A constituent of mine has been taken off disability living allowance and was told in May that his appeal was ready to be heard at a tribunal but that the backlog meant that it could not be heard until April next year. That is an 11-month wait; does the Minister think that is an acceptable length of time?
Maria Miller
I am very happy to discuss an individual case such as that with the hon. Lady if she would like to talk to me at another point.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Has the Minister with responsibility for disabled people received any reports of Remploy factories having to turn away work? If so, does she agree that, at a time when there is criticism of the financial performance of some of those factories, that would be perverse given that we want those factories to be taking on as much work as possible?
Maria Miller
The Government are absolutely committed to Remploy and are continuing to fund the modernisation plan. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at the future of Remploy—not just the factories, but employment services. If he has particular examples of current practice that he is concerned about, I would be delighted to talk to him about that. I am not aware of any such business being turned away.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Does the Minister consider £22.60 enough to live on as a personal allowance to provide clothing, toiletries, travel and socialising? If not, why does the Minister expect my disabled constituents from the Percy Hedley Foundation who took part in the Hardest Hit campaign to—
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady may be referring to disability living allowance. That is available for part of the costs that disabled people incur. There are many other ways that the Government support disabled people.
European Council
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Libya and yesterday’s European Council.
Yesterday in Libya, after 42 years of tyranny and seven months of fighting, the national transitional council declared the formal liberation of their country. Everyone will have been moved by the pictures of joy and relief that we saw on our television screens last night. From Tripoli to Benghazi, from Misrata to Zawiyah, Libyans now dare to look forward, safe in the knowledge that the Gaddafi era is truly behind them.
This was Libya’s revolution, but Britain can be proud of the role that we played. Our aim throughout has been to fulfil the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, to protect civilians, and to give the Libyan people the chance to determine their own political future. With the death of Gaddafi, they now really do have that chance. The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces for the role that they have played—over 3,000 missions flown and some 2,000 strike sorties, one fifth of the total strike sorties flown by NATO. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has written this morning, it has been
“one of the most successful operations NATO has conducted in its 62-year history”.
I believe it is something the whole country can take pride in.
The decision to intervene militarily, to place our brave servicemen and women in the line of fire, is never an easy one. We were determined from the outset to conduct this campaign in the right way, and to learn the lessons of recent interventions, so we made sure the House was provided immediately with a summary of the legal advice authorising the action. We held a debate and a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We made sure that decisions were taken properly throughout the campaign, with the right people present, and in an orderly way. The National Security Council on Libya met 68 times, formulated our policy, and drove forward the military and the diplomatic campaign. We took great care to ensure that targeting decisions minimised the number of civilian casualties. I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for his hard work on this issue.
It is a mark of the skill of RAF, British Army and other coalition pilots that the number of civilian casualties of the air attacks has been so low. The military mission is now coming to an end, and in the next few days, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector will formally be concluded. It will now be for Libyans to chart their own destiny and this country will stand ready to support them as they do so.
Many learned commentators have written about the lessons that can be learned from the past seven months. For our part, the Government are conducting a rapid exercise, while memories are still fresh, and we will publish its key findings. For my part, I am wary of drawing some grand, over-arching lesson—still less to claim that Libya offers some new template that we can apply the world over. I believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits and thinking through carefully any decision to intervene in advance. But I hope it has also shown that this country has learned not only the lessons of Iraq, but the lessons of Bosnia too. When it is necessary, legal and right to act, we should be ready to do so.
Let me turn to yesterday’s European Council. This Council was about three things: sorting out the problems of the eurozone, promoting growth in the European Union, and ensuring that as the eurozone develops new arrangements for governance, the interests of those outside the eurozone are protected. This latter point touches directly on the debate in the House later today, and I will say a word on this later in my statement. Resolving the problems in the eurozone is the urgent and overriding priority facing not only the eurozone members, but the EU as a whole and indeed the rest of the world economy.
Britain is playing a positive role proposing the three vital steps needed to deal with the crisis: the establishment of a financial firewall big enough to contain any contagion; the credible recapitalisation of European banks; and a decisive solution to the problems in Greece. We pushed this in the letter we co-ordinated to the G20 and in the video conference between me, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama last week. We did so again at the European Council this weekend and will continue to do so on Wednesday at an extra European Council meeting.
Ultimately, however, the way to make the whole of the EU, including the eurozone, work better is to promote open markets, flexible economies and enterprise. That is an agenda that Britain has promoted, under successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers, but it is now an agenda that the European Commission is promoting, too. We have many differences with the European Commission, but the presentation made by the Commission at yesterday’s Council about economic growth was exactly what we have been pushing for, driving home the importance of creating a single market in services, opening up our energy markets and scrapping the rules and bureaucracy that make it take so long to start a new business. Both coalition parties are pushing hard for these objectives.
This may sound dry, but if we want to get Europe’s economies moving and to succeed in a competitive world, these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. These are arguments that Margaret Thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place, and which every Prime Minister since has tried to push. If the countries of the EU were as productive as the United States, if we had the same proportion of women participating in our economy, and if we were as fast and flexible at setting up new businesses, we would have the same GDP per capita as the United States. That is an aim we should adopt.
The remainder of the Council was spent on the safeguards needed to protect the interests of all 27 members of the European Union. The Council agreed that all matters relating to the single market must remain decisions for all 27 member states and that the European Commission must
“safeguard a level playing field among all Member States including those not participating in the Euro.”
That leads me directly to the debate we will have in the House later today. Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things: stopping the passage of further powers to the EU; instituting a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for any such transfer of powers from this House; and bringing back powers from Brussels to Westminster. All three remain party policy. All three, in my view, are in the national interest. In 17 months in government, we have already achieved two of the three. No more powers have gone to Brussels. Indeed, the bail-out power has actually been returned and, of course, the referendum lock is in place. I remain firmly committed to achieving the third: bringing back more powers from Brussels.
The question tonight is whether to add to that by passing legislation in the next Session of this Parliament to provide for a referendum that would include a question on whether Britain should leave the EU altogether. Let me say why I continue to believe that this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong and how Britain can now best advance our national interests in Europe.
First, it is not right because our national interest is to be in the EU, helping to determine the rules governing the single market, our biggest export market, which consumes more than 50% of our exports and drives so much investment in the UK. That is not an abstract, theoretical argument; it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and businesses in our country. That is why successive Prime Ministers have advocated our membership of the EU.
Secondly, it is not the right time, at this moment of economic crisis, to launch legislation that includes an in/out referendum. When your neighbour’s house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help put out the flames, not least to stop them reaching your own house. This is not the time to argue about walking away, not just for their sakes, but for ours.
Thirdly, and crucially, there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum, including an in/out option, we will miss the real opportunity to further our national interest. Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the eurozone and, therefore, the shape of the EU itself. Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming apparent. We should focus on how to make the most of this, rather than pursuing a parliamentary process for a multiple-choice referendum. As yesterday’s Council conclusions made clear, changes to the EU treaties need the agreement of all 27 member states. Every country can wield a veto until its needs are met. I share the yearning for fundamental reform and am determined to deliver it.
To those who support today’s motion but do not actually want to leave the EU, I say this: I respect your views. We disagree not about ends, but about means. I support your aims. Like you, I want to see fundamental reform. Like you, I want to re-fashion our membership of the EU so that it better serves our nation’s interests. The time for reform is coming. That is the prize. Let us not be distracted from seizing it. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. On Libya, I join him in expressing deep and abiding gratitude to members of the British armed forces. Over the past seven months, once again, our servicemen and women have been a credit to our nation, exercising our responsibility to the Libyan people and to uphold the will of the United Nations. That is why I have supported the Government in their actions, and I commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played in taking the right and principled decisions on the issue.
There are difficult days ahead, and it is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but I agree with the Prime Minister that, alongside the responsibility to protect, which we exercised, is the responsibility to help rebuild—in particular, to help provide the expertise that the new Libya will require.
Let me now turn to Europe, and here my opening remarks reflect some of the things that the Prime Minister said. We are clear, and have been consistently, that getting out of the European Union is not in our national interest. Cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes no sense for Britain, and the overwhelming majority of British businesses, however unhappy they are with aspects of the EU, know that, too.
What is more, at this moment of all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from Britain turning inwards over the next two years to debate an in/out referendum is something our country cannot afford. The best answer to the concerns of the British people about the European Union is to reform the way it works, not to leave it. We should make the completion of the single market, common agricultural policy reform, budget reform and reform of state aids the issue. That is why we will vote against the motion tonight.
This is the context for the European Council that the Prime Minister went to this weekend: growth stalled in Britain since the autumn; growth now stalling in Europe; unemployment rising; and the threat of a new banking crisis. That is why yesterday’s summit was so important.
I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement, and it sounds like he now believes that Britain should play an active role in solving this crisis, but the truth is that month after month the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have chosen to grandstand on the sidelines, not to help sort out the issue. The Chancellor even refused to go to the initial meetings that he was invited to on the issue. They have shown no will to try to find the solutions.
Let me ask where the Prime Minister now stands. On banking, does he believe that the amount of recapitalisation being discussed is sufficient to ensure financial stability throughout the European banking system, particularly in the light of the International Monetary Fund’s larger estimates of capital required? On Greece, does he believe that the lessons of previously announced Greek bail-outs are being learned and will provide a genuinely sustainable solution? On growth, does he now understand that Europe will not get to grips with its debt problems until it gets to grips with a crisis of growth and the immediate lack of demand in the European economy?
I suppose we should be pleased that the Government have moved from the Chancellor being empty-chaired at the meetings to the Prime Minister at least wanting to get into them, but he will have to do better than yesterday, because he was surprisingly coy about his one real achievement at the summit. In a few short hours, he managed to write the euro version of “How to Lose Friends & Alienate People”. He went into the summit lecturing the Germans; he came out of it being shouted at by the French. Apparently, President Sarkozy, until recently his new best friend, had had enough of the posturing, the hectoring, the know-it-all ways. Mr President, yesterday you spoke not just for France but for Britain as well.
The Prime Minister was in Brussels, but his mind was elsewhere. The Tory party on Europe is suffering another nervous breakdown, with a Prime Minister making frantic phone calls home, Parliamentary Private Secretaries threatening to resign, and it is not just the Stone Roses on a comeback tour, because the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is back among us, touring the television studios.
All the Prime Minister’s present difficulties are of his own making. What did he say in 2006? He said that instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we were banging on about Europe. However, he spent the last five years telling his Back Benchers that he may not be banging on about Europe but that, deep down, he is really one of them. He was warned that he might start by dabbling with Euroscepticism, but that it was a slippery slope. That is exactly what happened.
Does the Prime Minister regret getting out of the European People’s Party in favour of the right-wing fringe—[Interruption.] He says no, but I do not know whether he was aware that there was a dinner for EPP leaders on Saturday night. The German Chancellor was there, the French President was there, and the President of the Commission was there—mainstream centre right Europe—but the Prime Minister was not invited. He is the person who kept telling us that he was a Eurosceptic, who at the election promised renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s membership of the EU. His party is paying the price because it believed what he told them. The country is paying the price because we are losing influence.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was at it again, and we heard it again today. He is locked in a row with his Back Benchers, and what do we see? We see the resurrection of the old classic to get out of the social chapter, and withdraw employment rights. The coalition agreement is clear. That option is off the table. The Deputy Prime Minister is nodding from a sedentary position. That option—the third option in the Prime Minister’s statement—is off the table, and the Foreign Secretary confirmed that again this morning. Let the Prime Minister answer this question. At the December summit, what position will he take? Will he be for renegotiation or against? The coalition agreement says that that option is off the table. He said in his statement that it is on the table. The position is totally unclear.
This goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s ability to fight in Europe on behalf of this country. Like his predecessors, he is caught between the party interest and the national interest. We see a rerun of the old movie—an out-of-touch Tory party tearing itself apart over Europe—and all the time the British people are left to worry about their jobs and livelihoods. The Prime Minister should stop negotiating with his Back Benchers, and start fighting for the national interest.
The Prime Minister
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words on Libya. I agree that, as well as the responsibility to protect, we have a responsibility to help rebuild, and we will certainly do that.
What he said about Europe started well with praise for the importance of completing the single market, something he is in favour of and I am in favour of. He did not tell us about all his views on Europe. Yesterday, he was asked repeatedly whether Labour would join the euro, and the answer was instructive. He said:
“It depends how long I’m prime minister for.”
I am not sure which prospect is more terrifying.
The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not going to meetings in Europe. We have been going to meetings in Europe to get us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour put us into. He asked what we are doing to make sure that bank recapitalisation is credible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spent 10 hours in an ECOFIN meeting on Saturday ensuring that that happened. It would not have done without his intervention.
On Greece, we certainly want decisive action. Let me be clear about that. The right hon. Gentleman then said an extraordinary thing about the French President—that he thought the French President spoke for Britain—[Interruption.] That is what he said. It is difficult from opposition to sell out your country, but he has just done it.
I struggled to look for a question to answer—there were not very many. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of global leadership. Let me just remind him that one of the absolute keys is going to be the role of the IMF. Let us remember that he led his Back Benchers and all his Front Benchers through the Division Lobby to vote against the IMF deal that his own former Prime Minister had negotiated in London. That was a complete absence of leadership, like so much we see from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, but I remind the House that we have a very heavily subscribed debate to take place afterwards. Therefore, brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is of the essence.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s view on the debate this afternoon. However, has he had drawn to his attention the terms of the third option in the motion, which is to
“re-negotiate…membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation”?
Is that not purely the situation of Norway and Switzerland, is that not incompatible with membership of the European Union, and should not anyone who is interested in renegotiation that will enable us to stay within the Union oppose this motion?
The Prime Minister
I think the vital interest for the UK is belonging to the single market—not just being able to trade in that single market but having a seat at the table where you can negotiate the rules of that single market, which of course countries like Norway are not able to do. One of the other problems with the motion—I completely understand the frustrations that many of my colleagues have about Europe—is that if you have a three-way choice, you could find that 34% of the country voting to get out of the European Union would be enough to deliver that or, indeed, that 34% voting for the status quo, which many of think is unacceptable, would be enough. [Interruption.] I think we have tried the alternative vote, and a pretty clear decision was made.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
How would the Prime Minister characterise his relations with President Sarkozy?
The Prime Minister
If you have a good relationship with someone, you can have frank discussions with them. I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened at the European Council yesterday. On the issue of Libya, Britain and France have worked together probably more closely than we have worked together at any time in the last 40 years, and on defence co-operation, we will continue to do that. I do not for one minute resile from the need sometimes to speak clearly and frankly on behalf of Britain and to stand up for the British national interest. It is in our national interest that the eurozone deals with its problems, and it is right that we make that clear.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for the determination and leadership that he showed in relation to Libya. He will understand that his views and mine on Europe are hardly identical, but, at the very least, can we not agree that in opposing President Sarkozy abroad, and in opposing the motion to be discussed here at home, he is clearly acting in the national interest?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful for that compliment. The fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend is right to make the point. This is a coalition. There is not complete agreement on European policy between the parties of the coalition, but the coalition came together in the national interest and is acting in the national interest, and I think it is right to oppose this motion tonight, partly on the grounds that he puts forward.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
It is a shame that the Prime Minister spent only 10 minutes on Libya, the European Council and the motion. On reflection, I hope that he will think that he should have paid more attention to the European Council.
US Secretary Geithner said that even if all Greece’s debts were repaid, we would still have the same problem. Could the Prime Minister tell the House how he thinks that Greece will regain competitiveness?
The Prime Minister
I have probably made more statements on European Councils over the last 16 months than many Prime Ministers, and I have always committed to come back and report to the House.
The point that the hon. Lady makes is absolutely right. Greece is just the most glaring problem that the eurozone has to deal with. As I have said, that has to be dealt with decisively. It needs to be backed by a firewall, and it needs to be backed by the recapitalisation of banks. But the fundamental problem of the eurozone is the issue of competitiveness and the very large current imbalances that are building up in some of the member states, particularly those in the south. As a result, what needs to happen above all, as I said in my statement, is an advance in competitiveness, in trade, and in completing the single market, which will help all those economies in the longer term.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he advocates fiscal union within the eurozone. Can he explain to the House how it is that fiscal union of that kind is not a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union, bearing in mind that it is established that the constitutional position is clear that where there is fundamental change, there must be a referendum? How can he square that circle?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear with my hon. Friend. I think that fundamental changes are coming in Europe; they are clearly coming in the eurozone. That may lead to pressures, as we saw over the weekend, for treaty change. That will present opportunities for Britain and we should respond to those opportunities. The question for the House tonight is whether it is right to go off down the path of having a referendum that includes an in/out option, just when there are big opportunities as the eurozone and the EU are changing.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating the Prime Minister on his stance on Libya, but remind him that there are other countries, such as Yemen, that need to be focused on. The Lisbon agenda set out the benchmarks for economic growth, which were replaced by the 2020 strategy. Is the Prime Minister confident that, despite the eurozone crisis, those targets will be achieved?
The Prime Minister
First, the right hon. Gentleman is right on Yemen. As he knows, the National Security Council is spending an increasing amount of time on examining how we can best help that country not only to achieve a transition to greater democracy and freedom, but to tackle the security concerns that we have about it. He is right that we have had the Lisbon process and the 2020 process. The problem is that although this agenda gets pushed forward, in too many cases the targets and measures are not met. After 16 or 17 months of going to Council meetings, I am seeing a change of heart in the European Commission, not least because everyone recognises that the priority in Europe is now growth. The Commission has to stop adding expensive regulations to business and start deregulating, which is exactly the agenda that we are putting forward.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that not only in Libya, but in Tunisia and Egypt there is an opportunity for reconstruction and a transition to democracy? To what extent will that be dealt with on a bilateral basis or in conjunction with our partners through the European External Action Service?
The Prime Minister
The first thing that we have done is to help to change the European neighbourhood policy to ensure that it is much more engaged with Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and to put in much more conditionality so that there is progress towards rights and democracy in the countries that we are helping. In addition, we have a significant bilateral programme. It is essential to help those countries develop the building blocks of democracy, such as political parties, and understand the importance of civic society. The Department for International Development and others can help with that.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I join others in paying tribute to the bravery of our servicemen and women over Libya and to the work of NATO. I particularly commend the Prime Minister for his leadership on Libya. I am afraid that on Europe, the same cannot be said. The people of Britain will today be asking why he has he decided to firmly set his face not only against his own Back Benchers, but against the settled will of the British people for a referendum on Europe.
The Prime Minister
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Libya. As I have said, the country can be proud of what our armed service personnel have done. On Europe, I am clear about what Parliament should do about a referendum. We do not come to this place to give away powers that belong to the people, not to us. It is wrong that we did not have a referendum on Maastricht, Lisbon and those other treaties. My clear view is that it is when this Parliament proposes to give up powers that there should be a referendum. That is the guarantee that we have written into the law of the land.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As global traders, our future prosperity lies in improved trade with China, India, South America and emerging economies in Africa, and not in being part of the backward-facing, inward-facing protection racket that is the European Union, which is propping up inefficient businesses and French farmers. The Prime Minister’s objection to tonight’s motion seems to be about timing. Will he give us a timetable for getting powers back from the European Union?
The Prime Minister
First, where I have some disagreement with my hon. Friend is that, although we of course want to export more to China, India, Brazil, Russia and Turkey—the fast-growing countries of the future—we have to recognise that today, 50% of our trade is with European Union countries. It is therefore in our interest not only to keep those markets open and have a say about their regulation, but to further open them up. That is what we should be pushing for and are pushing for in the European Union. As I say, there is a case for a referendum if ever this Parliament proposes to give up more powers. Otherwise, it is clear what the country wants us to do: it wants us to stay in the European Union, but to retrieve some powers and ensure that we have a better relationship with Europe. That is the commitment that we have made.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister must recognise that whether we are talking about Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Ireland, only growth will make a real difference to the financial crisis. Why did he not advocate policies of growth at the heart of these debates and, in that way, give a lead to the British people about why Europe is so important?
The Prime Minister
We have been doing exactly that, but one reason some of those countries have got into difficulties is not just the shortage of growth and competitiveness, though that has been key, but the fact that they have built up very large budget deficits. That is the lesson right across Europe—you have to make sure that you cut your cloth according to what you can afford. That is a lesson that we are tragically having to learn in this country, too.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My constituents in Dover were very pleased and heartened to see the Prime Minister standing up to the French.
When it comes to the national interest, is not a key point that we need action on budgets and action on getting us out of the bail-out fund, not action selling us down the river, joining up with the euro or selling down the £7 billion rebate that we used to have?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is about what the British people want us to do specifically with respect to Europe. The biggest danger, they sense, is getting drawn into further bail-outs. That is why, in the treaty change that has already come forward, that was the price that we exacted—to get out of the EU bail-out fund by 2013. We have returned that power to the UK. We should also be taking action on the European budget, and we have secured agreement with some of the large countries in Europe on a real-terms freeze this year. Those priorities, plus the referendum lock, are what this Government have already been able to deliver.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister prayed in aid Margaret Thatcher, but she put her money where her mouth was in the sense that the UK contribution to the European Community went up from £656 million in 1984 to £2.54 billion in 1990—a fourfold increase. Then, it was to help Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Does the Prime Minister plan to emulate her to help Poland, Latvia and our poorer friends in the new Europe?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman reminds us that Margaret Thatcher did indeed put her money where her mouth was. The only trouble was the next Government came along and gave it away when they gave up the rebate for absolutely nothing in return.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend speculate on what the cost would have been to the taxpayer if he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had not negotiated to get Britain out of the bail-out mechanism?
The Prime Minister
The point about the bail-out mechanism is that we were left exposed by the last Government because of the existence of the European financial stabilisation mechanism. Although we are still at risk between now and 2013, what we have secured is that we have ended that from 2013. That is an achievement. We also stayed out of the second Greek bail-out, and that was an achievement. Those things have saved real money, and it is really important for people to understand that the Government have been focused on delivering something really concrete and important for the British people at this time.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
As a Member who voted for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1973, and who as shadow Foreign Secretary refused to meet Gaddafi when he invited me to go to Libya to collect financial compensation—blood money—for the family of WPC Fletcher, may I state my disgust and revulsion at the murder, and the nature of the killing, of Gaddafi? May I ask the Prime Minister to emphasise to the national transitional council that the future for democracy in Libya lies in reconciliation, not revenge?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I can announce to the House that Chairman Jalil, leader of the national transitional council, has announced today that there will be an inquiry into the circumstances of Colonel Gaddafi’s death. Clearly, we wanted him to face justice. That is what should have happened, and it is important that that inquiry goes ahead. However, I do not stand back for one second from what I said in my statement—that because the Gaddafi era is over and he is gone, the Libyan people, who genuinely feared that as long as there was a prospect of his coming back there was a difficulty in building their future, can now get on with that future.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I greatly welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on Libya. Its liberation is a success not only for the Libyan people but for proving that the international community can act together to implement the responsibility to protect. However, does he agree that we must also exercise caution? Intervention under R2P must be used sparingly and only in cases that meet all the relevant criteria, such as there being a serious threat to human rights, the response being proportional and there being clear support for action internationally, regionally and within the country.
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with how my hon. Friend puts her question, but I would add something important to that: we should intervene only if we believe we are capable of doing so and of bringing about the effect that we need. There is a very important issue there. It is about seeing not only what is legal and necessary, but what we can do.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister must know of the growing division between the public and politicians. Does he have no concern at all about what will happen at 10 o’clock tonight, when all three party leaders will whip their Back Benchers in a Division on a motion that is not binding, and that seeks a referendum and future legislation in—probably—2013? Does that mean that once again, the public will say, “Seventy-five per cent. of us would like a referendum at some stage. This Parliament is not listening”?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady asks a very important question, so let me try and answer it. I absolutely believe it is right to have public petitions in the way that we now do, and that it is right to give time to Back-Bench motions—this Government have brought that reform about. However, the issue of Europe is not a side issue, but an important one, and it is important that political parties and Governments make their views on it known. I do not accept the idea that somehow we can have a vote on something as important as this on a Thursday and hope that it will go unnoticed. I believe in the importance of Parliament, but I cannot believe in a sovereign Parliament on the one hand and on the other say that some of its votes and decisions do not matter. I simply do not think that that is consistent.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Prime Minister tells The Daily Telegraph today that we should use any treaty change to shore up the euro to get powers over employment and social policy back, yet on 25 March, he agreed to precisely such a treaty change, but did not ask for anything in return.
The Prime Minister
I have to take issue with my hon. Friend. The very limited treaty change that is about to be debated in, and hopefully passed by, the House of Commons, gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that the previous Government got us into. I thought, and I still think as Prime Minister, that that was the single most important price that we could exact for that treaty change—that was the biggest concern of the British public. The point I made yesterday and that I will make again today is that I believe that huge changes will take place in the EU and the eurozone. That will give us opportunities to maximise the national interest, which is what we should be talking about and debating in the Conservative party, the coalition and the House of Commons as a whole. We will not further that by having a referendum that includes an in/out option. As I have said, that would be like walking away from a burning house. We should deal with that first, then talk about the future.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the consequences of the eurozone crisis on UK regional export-led economic growth?
The Prime Minister
As I said yesterday, the eurozone crisis has clearly had a chilling effect, not only on eurozone economies, but on our economy, the American economy and economies elsewhere in the world. The eurozone is a huge market for the world’s goods, and clearly there has been a slow-down, partly because of the lack of confidence in the eurozone. We must also be clear that a break-up of the eurozone would have severe consequences for neighbouring countries and banks. That is why it is very important that we work with eurozone partners to try to sort this issue out.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I join others in commending my right hon. Friend for his leadership on Libya, for which he deserves considerable credit? May I also thank him for the constructive tone that he is adopting towards those of us who will support today’s motion? So many parties have again and again promised a referendum, and the British people clearly want a say over our future relationship with the European Union. Does he understand our anxiety that it is ironic that the House of Commons is likely to vote heavily against what the British people want?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about Libya and my tone, which I shall try to keep constructive throughout. I completely understand people’s frustrations: they were promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but they did not get it because the treaty was put in place by the previous Government, which meant that it was not then possible to hold the referendum. However, the answer to the frustration in the country over not having a referendum on the last thing is not to offer one simply on the next idea. The most important thing is to deliver what people want, which is to ensure that we get the best out of the EU and that, where there are opportunities as Europe changes, we take those opportunities. That should be the focus in this Parliament and beyond.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly said that the 27 nation states will make any decision on the single market. He has not told the House that the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has been elected president of the 17 nation states within the eurozone, with France on one shoulder and Germany on the other. The President has said that he will inform the British Government prior to any summit meetings and inform them of the results. Does the Prime Minister think that to be “informed” is the same as to be “consulted”?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: as the eurozone comes together and the governance arrangements change, it is important that those countries that are not in the eurozone—and, in our case, do not want to join—have their interests protected. That is why, in the Council conclusions, I secured specific language about ensuring a level playing field and that countries outside the eurozone are protected. This is a journey. The eurozone is going on one journey, where it sees closer collaboration and co-operation, but I believe that countries outside the eurozone will be looking for further protections to ensure that some of our vital national interests—things such as financial services—are properly protected and not put at risk by what is happening in the eurozone.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
History tells us that following military victory, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have just 100 golden days to deliver stabilisation before the joy of victory turns to despair among the local population. The clock is now ticking, so will the Prime Minister say a few words about how we will deliver this stabilisation?
The Prime Minister
We worked closely with others on a stabilisation and reconstruction plan for Libya. A lot of work went into that. I am optimistic because we have seen how the national transitional council is genuinely national and bringing the country together, not wanting a division between Benghazi and Tripoli. It is transitional, and the clock is now ticking for it to set up a genuine transitional Government within 30 days. Everything that I have seen of the Libyan leadership shows that it wants to get on with rebuilding its country, and because of its oil wealth and the size of its sovereign wealth fund, it has the means by which to do it.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In the Prime Minister’s statement, he suggested that the EU economies could be as productive as the US economy if we had the same proportion of women in the work force. However, with unemployment among women in the UK higher than at any point since 1988, will he tell us three things that he has done to increase the proportion of women in the work place?
The Prime Minister
We have increased the hours available for free nursery care for three, four and two-year-olds. That is what we have done.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the President of Switzerland and the Prime Minister of Norway were at the table arguing with the French? I suspect that the answer is no because their relationship is different from ours. [Hon. Members: “They are not in the EU.”] That is absolutely right. They are not in the EU, which is why amendment C to the motion is completely the wrong option for our country to pursue.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to ask clearly, “What is in the UK national interest?” At the heart of our national interest, when it comes to the EU, is not only access to that single market but the need to ensure that we are sitting around the table of the single market determining the rules that our exporters have to follow. That is key to our national interest, and we must not lose that.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Which situation does the Prime Minister hope that we will arrive at first: the eurozone passing a brink without teetering on it, or his Eurosceptics passing a top without going over it?
The Prime Minister
That one obviously took a long time to construct. I believe that the eurozone countries are coming together and seeing the need for a big and bold solution. That needs to happen. It will not solve the problem—because there are still major stresses and strains within the eurozone that need to be dealt with in the long term—but I think that it will happen this week. It is up to the House of Commons how it votes tonight, but I am clear that it is in our interest to be in the EU but seeking our national advantage and national interest at all times.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership on Libya? Returning to fiscal union, may I ask him what part of fiscal union he believes could trigger the European Union Act 2011?
The Prime Minister
The key point about the European Union Act 2011 and the referendum lock that we put in place is that any passage of powers from Britain to Brussels results in a referendum. That is the key thing that we have delivered, which means that never again can we have a situation where, as with Maastricht or Lisbon, a treaty is passed that transfers powers from this House to somewhere else without the British people being asked first. I sometimes think that we have lost the ability to make clear what a significant change that is. That is the key thing that the referendum lock delivers, and I think everyone on this side of the House can be very proud of it.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Following on from the last question, just a few months ago this House spent 42 and a half hours debating the European Union Bill, the purpose of which is to allow for referendums on the EU. Is there any chance of seeing a referendum in the near future on the EU at all?
The Prime Minister
The point is that if a Government propose to pass powers from this House to Brussels, they should ask the British people first. That is the simple principle that we have put into law. It is important that we try to establish clear rules for the use of referendums in a parliamentary democracy, and I absolutely believe that rule 1, line 1 is: “If you’re giving up powers that belong to the British people, you should ask them first.”
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister on his statement, not least because it will reassure the thousands of my constituents who work for companies whose European headquarters are based in Watford. Can he reassure me that the things that my constituents do not like about Europe—for example, bureaucracy, reckless profligacy, gross overspending and too much regulation—will be dealt with to the best of his ability in the course of this Government?
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. If he looks at what we have achieved in a relatively short time—getting out of the bail-outs, getting agreement among the big countries for a freeze in the European budget this year and getting the European Commission to focus on deregulation rather than regulation—he will see that they are all important. I agree with his first point. A lot of companies come and invest in Britain not just because of our economic strengths, our flexible labour markets and all the rest of it, but because of access to the world’s biggest single market, which is important for investment into Britain by American, Japanese and other firms, creating the jobs and wealth that we need.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
With some financial analysts saying that banks holding sovereign debt might have to take a 25% to 60% write-down on that, can the Prime Minister elucidate for the benefit of the House what he means by a “financial firewall big enough to contain any contagion”, and say whether he thinks that the IMF needs to be involved and that the problem cannot be solved in Europe?
The Prime Minister
There are two issues if we are going to see a decisive resolution of the Greek situation. Obviously we need a recapitalisation of Europe’s banks, so that they have sufficient capital to withstand the losses that would otherwise affect them. Credible stress tests are crucial to that: there has been round after round of stress tests in Europe, but they have not been robust and credible enough. I believe that that has now been secured, not least because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s work in the ECOFIN meeting. The second thing we need—the firewall; what I called the “big bazooka”, which the shadow Chancellor referred to the other day—is to ensure that we have a mechanism big enough to help to stop contagion to other countries. There will be discussions in the eurozone and outside it about how big that needs to be, but the answer is: bigger than is currently proposed, and they need to keep working on it.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the possibility that treaty changes will be needed in the next few months. Will the Prime Minister assure me and businesses the length and breadth of this country that he will use that opportunity to get rid of ridiculous regulations and laws that are impeding growth and job creation in our country?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend’s approach. We should use these opportunities as the European Union changes and the eurozone changes to maximise Britain’s national advantage. We have to be clear: we do not yet know how much of a treaty change will be proposed by the Germans and others, or how extensive it will be. We shall have to look carefully at that to see what is right for Britain in response. However, I should say to my hon. Friend that, so far in this Government, one treaty change has been proposed and we exacted an important price, which was to get us out of the bail-out funds from 2013, which was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is not the tragedy about the Prime Minister the fact that, as Leader of the Opposition, he totally underestimated the world crisis? As a result, he has had to grow up very fast in regard to European politics. What is his next alibi going to be in regard to the postponement of a referendum? I am sure that there is going to be one.
The Prime Minister
I have not for one minute underestimated the scale of the crisis that we face in Europe and across the world economy. Sadly, that crisis has been made worse by the vast overspending that took place under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the last general election, the Conservative manifesto committed us to seeking to return powers from Europe on economic and social policy, but that nowhere did it contain a commitment to seek an in/out referendum or to seek to renegotiate our terms of membership of the European Union?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We did have a commitment to seek the return of important powers from the European Union, such as the social and employment legislation. Obviously, we are in a coalition, but as Conservative leader, I remain committed to achieving that, because it is in the British national interest to do so. My hon. Friend makes the important point, however, that it was not part of our manifesto or our policy to seek a referendum that included an in/out option. I completely respect the fact that there are Members, not only on this side of the House but on the Labour side as well, who have long wanted an in/out referendum, not least because some of them would like us to get out of the European Union altogether. But that is not our policy, and that is the reason we having the debate on this on a Monday, on a proper motion, in the proper way. This is not some side issue; it is an important issue. As I said before, I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. To me, all decisions of Parliament matter, and the idea that we could sweep this off into a debate on a Thursday and that no one would notice is wrong. What Parliament decides matters, and that is why the Government are taking the motion seriously.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, I visited the Weir Group in my constituency. Its representatives explained the difficulties that they had had in evacuating British staff from Libya. They also told me of their keen desire to get back to working on vital infrastructure projects there as soon as possible. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he is going to ensure that that can happen?
The Prime Minister
I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. It is important to his constituents and to that business, and, frankly, it is important for British investment in Libya. I can tell him that Stephen Green, Lord Green, has already held a Libyan investment conference and has plans to travel to Libya. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman contacts that Minister, and I will make sure that that happens so that we can help the Weir Group with the important work that it does.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Many of my constituents who have contacted me over the past few days tell me that they lost their trust in politics because the previous Government refused to give them a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. What substantive message can my right hon. Friend give me to take back to those constituents?
The Prime Minister
I completely understand their concerns, but just because the last Government failed to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty does not mean that we should vote tonight for a referendum on an in/out option that was not in any of our manifestos. The reassurance that I would give to my hon. Friend’s constituents is that the Government are doing all the things that people care about most in Europe, such as constraining the European budget, getting out of the bail-out funds and cutting unnecessary regulation. We are doing all those things, and there will be more to come.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Did I hear the Prime Minister correctly when he said earlier that he now believes that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s well-rehearsed opposition to that, will he tell us exactly when he changed his mind?
The Prime Minister
I have always felt that, and our Bill is clear. Under our Bill, Maastricht or any of those treaties would have triggered a referendum. That is the point. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been keeping up. I hope that Labour will commit to that legislation, which will mean that if any Government ever try to give away powers from this House, they will have to ask the British public first.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Has the Prime Minister noticed that, while this Government have ruled out joining the euro, it is the continued policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition, regardless of who is leading them?
The Prime Minister
There was an interesting series of interviews with the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend. As well as saying that if he were Prime Minister for long enough, he would like to get us into the euro, he responded to being asked whether he thought that Brussels had too much power by saying:
“No, I don’t think Brussels has got too much power”.
That is the official position of the Labour party: wrong about the euro, wrong about Brussels, wrong about Britain. Wrong about everything!
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I share the Prime Minister’s optimism at the formal liberation of Libya, and I pay tribute to the role our armed forces have played in that process. Is the Prime Minister as concerned as I am, however, at the allegation of the summary execution of any human being—even of a violent tyrant such as Gaddafi? Does he share my view that there is a need urgently to re-establish the rule of law and proper democracy in that country?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady makes an important point. We all saw those pictures on our televisions and newspapers; they were not pleasant images. I think everyone understands that that is not what should have happened; it should have ended in a trial and in Gaddafi facing justice. As I said earlier, Chairman Jalil has announced that there will be an inquiry, and I think it is important that the Libyans carry it out properly.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
May I respectfully disagree with the Prime Minister’s idea that there are no lessons from Libya? The lesson from Libya, which could be applied to Europe, is that what matters is not what you ought to do, but how you do it, with whom and when.
The Prime Minister
I did not say that there are no lessons to learn; I think there are lessons to learn. The Government are carrying out a lessons learned process and will be announcing the key results from it. The point my hon. Friend makes about what you are able to do and how you build alliances to do what you want to do is absolutely vital—and was vital in this case. What I was trying to say—perhaps I did not put it across properly—is that we have to be careful not to say that because Libya was successful in this way, we can read that across to every single other proposed intervention. We cannot do that. As a liberal Conservative, I believe that a bit of scepticism should be brought to these schemes before we embark on them.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
For the sake of absolute clarity, is it now this Prime Minister’s position that he could accept substantial German-led changes to the Lisbon treaty without it requiring the referendum he promised the British people?
The Prime Minister
The key point is this. If there is a proposal for moving powers from this House of Commons to Brussels, there is a referendum guarantee. It is absolutely vital that people understand that; it is the promise that we make. We do not yet know whether treaty change will definitely be proposed; we do not yet know what it will consist of or how big it will be. The pledge I can make is that we will use that opportunity to further the national interest—something that did not happen under 13 years of a Labour Government.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Closer fiscal policy co-ordination within the eurozone marks two very different degrees of political integration among EU member states. Does the Prime Minister consider that, unlike recent referendums in other EU countries, this development, alongside the passage of the European Union Act 2011, affords the British public a more meaningful veto than before on treaty changes and their impact on our own country?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the assurance that people seek—you should not change the rules of the game and you should not give away powers that are not yours to give away. The British people should have a block on that; that is what we have put into place. No Government should rule out for ever putting questions in a referendum—after all, this Government had a referendum on the alternative vote—but that is not what I am saying; I am saying that the bedrock of our views about a referendum in a parliamentary democracy is that you should not give powers away from Parliament without asking the people first.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Ahead of tonight’s vote, with a rebellion apparently looming, will the Prime Minister tell us what advice he has taken from the former Prime Minister, John Major? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Oh, thank you very much. Well, the hon. Gentleman can have plenty of advice from a former Prime Minister because he used to work for one. I do not know whether it appears on his CV; my advice would probably be to leave it off!
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
With large and significant supply chains stringing across Europe and a market of 500 million people, does the Prime Minister agree that businesses across this country would be really pleased to see us further strengthen the capacity of the single market to deliver more trade?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. All these years after the single market was started, we have still not completed the single market in services. In this country, service is one of our strongest industries, and it is actually countries like Germany that have not yet completed that single market. I know that people are bored of hearing the agenda of completing the single market in services, liberalising energy markets, deregulating in Europe, but if we want to raise our growth rate in Europe and raise our game in Europe, this is squarely in our British national interest.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership in the Libyan situation, when there were many doubters who have been proved unequivocally wrong. Will he assure me that he will continue to work with the President of France and others on the United Nations Security Council to address the situation in Syria?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that, whatever our disagreements on economic policy—and, by and large, we are united on it—the French President and I will work very closely together on foreign affairs and defence issues. I think that there is a real coming together of French and British national interests, but, as I said earlier, when we do sometimes have disagreements we should not be frightened, as good friends, of airing them and discussing these matters.
Point of Order
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Friday I sought to table an amendment to the important motion that is to be discussed—and rightly so—this afternoon. The amendment called for an in/out referendum at the appropriate time, namely following the resolution of the eurozone crisis. However, the Table Office refused to take the amendment from my colleagues and me, although I offered to do it by e-mail or through my researcher, or to have a long conversation on the phone.
As you know, Mr Speaker—
Greg Mulholland
It is possible, Mr Speaker, for someone to introduce to the Public Bill Office, but not the Table Office—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. We have got the gist of his point of order. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of it.
The rules governing the form of authorisation required to authenticate matters tabled on behalf of Members when they are not able to be present in person are designed to protect them. If the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding what I have said, believes that they are no longer relevant to modern circumstances, I suggest that he raise the matter with the Procedure Committee. I hope that that is helpful.
Backbench Business
National Referendum on the European Union
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 111 / Noes: 483 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I should inform the House that I have selected none of the amendments.
In view of the very large number of Members who wish to speak in the debate, I have imposed a limit of five minutes on each Back-Bench speech.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom should
(a) remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
(b) leave the European Union; or
(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.
The motion stands in my name and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
I must start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for today’s debate. It is an historic debate, and the amount of interest generated in advance of it has surely put beyond any doubt the fact that the public are concerned about this matter. It fully vindicates the establishment of the Committee, and its decision to facilitate the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Clacton (Mr Carswell), for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker), along with many others, for their tireless work and support from the very outset. With the leave of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) will briefly wind up the debate.
The motion reflects the wishes of the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions calling for a referendum on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. Opinion polls clearly show that millions of others agree with them: in fact, the vast majority of the British people want a vote in a referendum. The arguments for and against the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union can wait until a future referendum campaign. The motion that is before us today simply paves the way for a referendum to be held on some future, as yet unspecified, date. Therefore, any argument that now is not the right time for a referendum to be held is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Even if the motion is passed today, a referendum is likely to be years away.
One reason for people’s increasing concern about our membership of the European Union is the growing sense that this country, indeed this Parliament, is becoming ever more impotent as more and more decisions are taken in Brussels and then passed down to the United Kingdom to implement, whether we like it or not.
I want to mention one very important example of that from my constituency of Bury North. Before the last general election, the Conservatives pledged that if we won the election we would keep open the children’s department, including the maternity ward and special care baby unit, at Fairfield hospital in Bury, which was scheduled to close under Labour’s plans. Sadly, despite that pledge, and despite massive local opposition to the closure plans, these vital services are still destined to close, and one of the driving forces behind the closure plans is the effect of the European working time directive. Thousands of my constituents feel completely let down, and even at this late stage I urge the Government to keep that pre-election pledge and to ensure these services are retained at Fairfield hospital.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Two weeks ago at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, 23-year-old doctor Lauren Connelly died in a car crash. All her colleagues believe that that was a result of her having worked exhaustingly long hours. We should not mock the working time directive. Although it is sometimes improperly applied in the UK, it is also saving the lives of doctors and patients.
Mr Nuttall
I believe it is for this Parliament to decide what rules and regulations should be taken up.
The voters know that the tentacles of the European Union intrude into ever more areas of our national life. Understandably, they are saddened—and, indeed, disillusioned—at being fobbed off, as they see it, by the political elite, who always seem to find a reason to stop them having their say.
More than a decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary coined the phrase, “We want to be in Europe, but not run by Europe.” The sad fact is that since then we have increasingly become run by Europe. I and millions of others in this country want to be in Britain, and run by Britain.
More than 36 years have passed since anyone had the chance to have their say on this crucial matter, and in that time not a single power has ever been repatriated. I suspect that for some in this House there will never be a right time for a referendum on this issue, but I think that, by anybody’s standards, nearly four decades is quite long enough to wait.
Moreover, almost two thirds of the people of the United Kingdom have never had the opportunity to vote on this issue. Indeed, figures supplied by the House of Commons Library show that approximately 8 million of the people who voted yes to continuing our membership of the Common Market back in 1975 are still alive today. That is just 16% of the current voting age population, leaving a staggering 84% who have never voted in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Economic Community.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Back in 1975, I was engaged in political work but I was also too young to have a vote, so I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this important point so early in the debate. The people of South Derbyshire sent me here so that we can have votes on issues such as the one before us.
Mr Nuttall
I thank my hon. Friend. I will now press on.
A staggering 84% of the current voting age population have never voted in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EEC, never mind the European Union. Furthermore, if I were a betting man, I would wager that some of those who voted yes back in 1975 may well have since changed their minds. The Common Market has fundamentally changed in size and powers as it has been transformed into the European Union, and without the British people ever being consulted, of course.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister has not stayed to listen to his speech?
Mr Nuttall
I am sure that the Prime Minister has many important duties to attend to.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The key point is that what this country joined was, in essence, a free trade area, and that since that time we have seen the continual salami-slicing of our sovereignty and the British people have still not yet been consulted on that change. The Government may talk about referendum locks, but that is tilting at windmills, given that no treaty is on the horizon and that key competences and powers are being transferred in the meantime. It is time to consult the people.
Mr Nuttall
The European Union Act 2011 deals with the future, but this motion deals with where we are today. People already feel that too many powers have been passed on. At a time when people pick up their phones and spend their own money voting week in, week out to keep their favourite contestants on programmes such as “Strictly Come Dancing” and “The X Factor”, many will be baffled as to why the Government and all those who oppose this motion seem keen to prevent them from having their chance to vote on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that people will be even more baffled to understand the position of the Liberal Democrats? They stood on an election manifesto to have an in/out referendum and actually marched out of this House in the previous Parliament because they were denied one, so does he not agree that people will be particularly baffled as to why none of those charlatans over there will be voting for this motion?
Mr Nuttall
I am sure that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would appreciate having the chance to have their say.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will know, as I am sure he read the Liberal Democrat manifesto very carefully, that we committed to an in/out referendum at the time of a fundamental shift. That is why we supported an in/out referendum and proposed one in this Chamber at the time of the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps he can explain why every one of his then Conservative colleagues voted against that motion.
Mr Nuttall
The fact is that all the opinion polls show that approximately two thirds of the people want a referendum now.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Here it is in black and white—it was in orange. This is exactly what the Liberal Democrats wanted to give the people and I am surprised that they are not honouring it today.
Mr Nuttall
The situation we find ourselves in is rather like that of someone who has boarded a slow train going in one direction and finds, just as they are settling in, that the train starts to career off at high speed in a completely different direction, with carriages being added on left, right and centre, and they are locked in and have no way of getting off. Worse still, the longer people are on the train, the more the fare goes up, but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it because any negotiation with the guards or the driver is almost impossible. This motion would simply allow the train to stop for a while so that the passengers can decide whether they want to continue the journey or even disembark.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
A lot of changes are happening throughout Europe. Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to add some junctions to the track in order to identify whether alternative routes are available? Does he agree that we should not wait for a referendum before doing that?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I appeal to the House to settle down? A large number of noisy private conservations are taking place, which add nothing to, but subtract much from, the debate. Let us hear Mr David Nuttall.
Mr Nuttall
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that it is now time to start the process of consulting the British people once more. I say “start” because that is all that this motion seeks to do.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge that not only is he moving this motion, but more than 100,000 people have signed an e-petition to 10 Downing street calling for him to do just this?
Mr Nuttall
If one added together all the petitions, one would find that many hundreds of thousands of people have called for us to debate this issue.
I am conscious that this is one of the most, if not the most, heavily subscribed Back-Bench debates ever. In conclusion, with the three largest parties in the House all apparently instructing their MPs to vote against the motion despite what those MPs might individually believe to be the best course of action for our country, the result tonight may not be in very much doubt. Members can vote either to give their constituents a choice on Britain’s ongoing relationship with the European Union or to deny them that opportunity. It is as simple as that. If my fellow MPs join me in voting to give the British people a choice in a referendum, they can do so with a clear conscience, knowing that they will have a very large majority of the British people on their side.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend had the same experience as I have? In the past week I have had dozens and dozens of e-mails, telephone calls and letters from constituents urging me to support the motion, whereas the only communication I have had urging me to vote against it has been a telephone call from the Whips Office.
Mr Nuttall
We always have to be careful about whether we are listening to the vocal minority or the silent majority. I believe that on this issue we should listen to the majority of the British people, who clearly want a referendum.
Some 40 million people of voting age alive today in this country have not voted in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union, and this motion would start to put that right. Those who oppose it may well be smiling today, but winning votes in the House using strong-arm tactics does nothing to help to rebuild trust in politicians or to persuade the public that the majority inside the House are reflecting their views. Those who oppose the motion may well win this battle, but they most certainly will not win the war. We should remember the saying that he who laughs last laughs longest. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)
I welcome this debate. For new Members in the new Parliament, this will be their first experience of discussing European issues. I have listened to a lot of debates on Europe over the years in this place and they have not changed very much. Of course, I do have some antecedence on European treaties as I was the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and its predecessor for a total of 14 years. I honed my skills in chairmanship by keeping the nine Conservative members of a 16-member Committee from battling with and killing one another. I remember that the split was five pro-Europeans and four who described themselves as sceptics but who we knew were anti. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was on that Committee before I joined it and he and I had many exchanges over the years. I respect his views but do not agree with them, and neither did the majority of the Conservatives in the early part of my European scrutiny days.
I have fond memories of our debates on the Maastricht treaty. Those of us who were here at that time will remember that a lot of Members on both sides of the House wore a badge of honour for the number of times they voted against a three-line Whip. The hon. Member for Stone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that he topped 150-odd occasions of rebelling against the Government. I do not see much difference in the debate today.
I did not read anything over the weekend to pre-empt the debate that is any different from the debate all those years ago on the Maastricht treaty. I listened to the Prime Minister today, who said that he was against the decision not to give the people a vote on the Maastricht treaty. I do not know—the records may say, but I thought he was an adviser in the Treasury in those days, or it may have been just after that—but he was certainly involved in advising the Government of the day.
We should not forget that Mrs Thatcher gave us the single market and there was no referendum on that. It is the single market more than anything else that has impacted on how Europe works. Those who argue against the single market now were in the House supporting Mrs Thatcher when the measure went through without a referendum.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentioned Lady Thatcher. Is she not also the former Prime Minister who described referendums as the devices of demagogues and dictators?
Mr Hood
I may not be the historian that my hon. Friend gives me credit for, but I remember Mrs Thatcher saying a lot of things. Having been a miner on strike for 12 months during the 1984 miners strike, I have long memories of Mrs Thatcher’s contribution to democracy at that time.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), alluded to the fact that Members had been strong-armed into voting against a referendum. Who is likely to be able to strong-arm my hon. Friend?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is telling the House of many of his fond memories. Does he remember a certain Tony Blair saying:
“Of course, Britain could survive outside the EU . . . We could probably get access to the Single Market as Norway and Switzerland do”?
Mr Hood
It may surprise the hon. Gentleman that I am not very good at remembering Tony Blair’s quotes either, but I do remember Tony Blair winning three elections with massive majorities, and I can remember the good that that Labour Government did for the country, so I have fond memories of Tony Blair.
I conclude my brief contribution by saying that there is a false debate going on in the Chamber today. Those on the Government Benches who are arguing about defending democracy and the right of the people are not talking about democracy and they are not talking about defending the rights of the people; they are talking about getting the UK out of the European Union. Some Members on the Government Benches are honourable and argue that, but some do not. It is all about the nuances and the language, but there is a truism in the House and throughout the country.
The tabloid press is supporting the call for a referendum today. Some are doing it as a good and honourable cause, but there is a side of the tabloid press that supports the right wing on the Government Benches which wants to take the UK out of the European Union. I can remember when we joined the European Union. It was trendy on both sides of the House to be against the European Union. We have moved on, our country has moved on, and we need to be not just in Europe but in the heart of Europe. By doing that, we represent the true sovereignty of this Parliament. For that reason, I will vote against the motion tonight.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) and his shocking revelation that there are tabloid newspapers that wish to leave the European Union. This is an important issue at a critical time in European affairs and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing the debate and moving the motion, even though, as I will explain, I disagree with it. As so many Members wish to contribute to the debate, I have given you, Mr Speaker, an undertaking that I will speak from the Front Bench for no more than 25 minutes—less, I hope—including interventions. I apologise for having to leave for Australia before the end of the debate.
Hon. Members who have put their names to the motion have done so for reasons that are honourable and passionately held. I wish to set out briefly six reasons why I believe the proposition to be the wrong one at the wrong time and why it would cut across a European policy that I believe has the best chance of success for this country. The starting point must be the recognition that disillusionment with the European Union in this country is at an unprecedented level, and in this regard there is some common ground between my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and me. Just as I want to say some things that he and others will find difficult to accept, so I put it to those who have always enthused about the prospects for greater European integration that for this country the limits of such integration have been reached—more than reached, in my view.
The Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend that he did not rule out joining the euro in future. He must recognise that he is totally out of touch, not only with the people of Britain, but with economic reality. That is why the coalition Government—this is the first part of my argument—have already brought about a major change in European policy, which is absolutely in the interests of this country but which the motion would cut across. That change has three aspects, which I will set out briefly. First, following the previous Government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, we passed the European Union Act 2011, which sets out that, in the event of a Government proposing any further transfer by treaty of powers or competence to the EU, there must by law be a referendum of the British people.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Opposition’s view. Does he not share my bewilderment that the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Prime Minister’s statement earlier today, appeared to say that the Prime Minister should not go into EU meetings and be robust in the British self-interest in case he upsets the French?
Mr Hague
Well, I never cease to be bewildered by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, so we will leave him to worry about that himself.
Any or all of the treaties of the past 20 years would have been caught by the 2011 Act, and under the same Act parliamentary scrutiny of any treaty changes was vastly enhanced. The narrow treaty change that has been agreed to set up the European stability mechanism will now require primary legislation to be passed through both Houses of Parliament, rather than the cursory consideration it would have received under the previous Government.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary not see that very substantial transfers of power are going on at the moment under this Government by directive, by regulation and by opt-in? Why can we not have some lock or vote on that?
Mr Hague
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are also improving the scrutiny of opt-in decisions by this House and made some important commitments on that during the passage of the 2011 Act. On financial regulation, as he may know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had a series of negotiating triumphs that have turned around the situation regarding directives that threaten this country’s financial services industry.
Mr MacShane
Is it now the Foreign Secretary’s view, and that of the Prime Minister, as he seemed to indicate in his statement, that we should have had a referendum in 1985 on Mrs Thatcher’s Single European Act?
Mr Hague
I have just stated my view, which is that all the treaties of the past 20 years would have been caught by the 2011 Act and that there would have been a referendum.
Secondly, we have negotiated far harder and far more effectively on the European budget, in which the increases proposed have been totally unacceptable to this country. Working with France and Germany, the Prime Minister has achieved a sharp reduction in the EU’s budget increase and a united demand for a real-terms freeze in the seven years from 2014 without making any concessions of our own.
Thirdly, we have used and will use any treaty change asked for by others to protect and advance our own national interest. The Prime Minister has secured agreement that, in return for accepting a legal basis for the European stability mechanism, Britain will no longer be liable for future eurozone bail-outs through article 122—a liability that the previous Government agreed to in their dying days.
Mr Hague
I am going to proceed for a while, given the time constraints. I will give way again a little later.
We have, therefore, already saved the British taxpayer potentially billions of pounds. None of those three major advances for British interests would have happened under the previous Government, because they actually did the opposite: refusing to hold a referendum; giving up £7 billion of rebate in budget negotiations for nothing in return; and signing us into a eurozone bail-out.
We propose to approach further treaty changes in the same firm and clear manner. We have agreed in the coalition that our first priority in responding to treaty changes aimed at stabilising the eurozone will be to protect the rights of those countries in the EU but outside the eurozone over decisions affecting them, and to prevent damage to the financial services industry that is so important to this country’s economy.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a moment.
It is my view and the Prime Minister’s view, and the position of the Conservative party, that we will use future opportunities to bring further powers back to the United Kingdom—to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom in those areas where we believe European integration has gone too far.
The final part of our approach to the EU is to make the case at every opportunity for it to do effectively what we joined it for: to expand the opportunities for trade both within Europe and beyond. Britain is the leading champion of expanding the single market and concluding more free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Last year’s agreement with South Korea is worth up to £500 million to the British economy—a reminder to all of us, when we discuss these matters, that we are talking about not just politics, but people’s jobs and businesses, which we must never forget.
Ian Paisley
The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly tried to outline the savings that the Government are making on European costs, but he must know that by 2018 this nation will have spent £356 billion on enforcing EU regulations. Does he not agree that this Parliament could spend it better—on farming, on health care and on social policy—than the European Community?
Mr Hague
I have explained what we are doing to keep the European budget down, and how I believe the European Union has too much power. The hon. Gentleman must be a little careful, because European Union spending has gone disproportionately to Northern Ireland, and he ought to bear that in mind.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
On trade, may I take the Foreign Secretary from the general to the specific? A number of my constituents work at the Luton van factory, which very nearly closed before it secured a major contract with Renault to keep it going for the next decade. Does he share my concern that my constituents’ jobs would have been at risk had there been any danger of Britain being outside the European Union and the single market?
Mr Hague
I will have to proceed again. We are under this time constraint.
That is the Government’s policy towards the EU, and that is why we cannot treat this motion, as some have suggested, in a casual way. To do so would not do justice either to the importance of the issues or to the significance of motions presented in this House.
The Prime Minister and I, as he said earlier, want many of the same things as some of the motion’s supporters, but we clearly do not advocate leaving the European Union, and I say as someone who has called for referendums on European matters—on Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and the euro—and consumed vast acres of newsprint over the years, criticising the euro and setting out a different vision of Europe’s future, that the proposition for a referendum before the House today is the wrong proposition at the wrong time. Building on what the Prime Minister said earlier, I want in the 15 minutes remaining to me to give the House six reasons—[Interruption]—some of them are very brief, do not worry—why that is the case.
Mr Baron
No one doubts my right hon. Friend’s Euroscepticism, but, despite all the talk of reclaiming powers, week in, week out competences and powers are being transferred to Brussels under the very noses of the British people. That is why there is growing frustration in the country, and that is why people want a say on whether they become part of this ever-closer political union.
Mr Hague
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that that is what is happening day by day, or week by week. In foreign affairs, for example, we are absolutely clear, and all our embassies and posts throughout the world are clear, that we will not permit any competence creep following on from the Lisbon treaty.
My first reason is the same as the first one given earlier by the Prime Minister. The deficits of recent years, and the slowness of growth in all western economies, make this a difficult and uncertain time for many individuals and firms. The eurozone is clearly in crisis, and to pile on that uncertainty the further uncertainty of a referendum on leaving the European Union, when half the foreign direct investment into Britain comes from the rest of the European Union, and half our exports go out to the rest of the European Union, would not be a responsible action for Her Majesty’s Government to take. It would not help anyone looking for a job. It would not help any business trying to expand. It would mean that for a time, we, the leading advocates of removing barriers to trade in Europe and the rest of the world, would lack the authority to do so. It would mean that as we advocate closer trading links between the EU and the countries of north Africa as they emerge from their revolutions, helping to solidify tremendous potential advances in human freedom and prosperity, we would stand back from that. That is not the right way to respond to this dramatic year of uncertainty and change.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In light of what my right hon. Friend said in advocacy of the single market as it now operates, will he explain why, between 2009 and 2010, our trade deficit with the 26 member states jumped from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion, and with the eurozone from minus £4 billion to minus £38 billion in one year—last year alone? Why did that happen, and what is his remedy?
Mr Hague
The remedy is to restore the health of the British economy, to have a tax system, such as the Chancellor is creating, that attracts businesses to this country, and to create export growth from this country to the whole world, not just to the European Union. We cannot do that if we are not taking part in the free trade agreements that Europe is making with the rest of the world.
The second and third reasons—
Mr Hague
I will give two more reasons, and then I will give way again. The second and third reasons why I do not support the motion can be stated quickly. The second is that the election manifesto on which we stood as Conservative Members was very clear about the referendum legislation that we would introduce and that, in a coalition, we have now passed into law. We were also clear, having been asked about this many times during the election, that that did not include the option of an in/out referendum.
The third reason is that this Parliament has only recently, just weeks ago, passed with a large majority in this House comprehensive legislation setting out in minute detail the circumstances in which a referendum will be held.
Mr Field
Given that the Foreign Secretary said that if there is further substantial transference of power to Europe, we will have a referendum in this country, and as the Government are advocating closer fiscal and monetary union in Europe, which will obviously lead to major changes, why do they not adopt this motion and fix their own time scale for the referendum that he is promising?
Mr Hague
The only treaty change agreed so far—I am coming to this point—is the one that puts the European stability mechanism on a legal basis, and for that we secured in return, as the Prime Minister explained, that this country will no longer be forced to be part of eurozone bail-outs. We will respond to every proposal by putting forward what we need in return.
Any treaty that transfers power to the European Union, and that is interpreted not just by Ministers but by the courts of this country as doing so, will result in a referendum for the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr Hague
Let me give my fourth reason before giving way to a Liberal Democrat Member.
As the Prime Minister said, there is a serious danger that while holding a referendum such as the one advocated —it is predicated on a Bill in the next session of Parliament, which runs from 2012 to 2013 and means that a referendum would be in 2013 or later—we would lose important opportunities to protect or to further our national interest in the meantime. On all those areas where we need the agreement of others—from the shape of the EU budget up to 2020, to agreement on our requirements for any treaty change—it could be harder, not easier, to get our way.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Although of course the Foreign Secretary and his party, and I and mine, come from different positions on Europe, we both made commitments to referendums, but both were conditional on there being a shift of power from this country to Brussels. It therefore must be right that, at the moment, we concentrate on helping our colleagues to sort out the European crisis, which is what businesses want us to do, and on getting our economy to grow again, which is what our constituents, in and out of work, want us to do. The referendum would be an absolute and immediate distraction from that.
Mr Hague
That is one of the reasons I am giving.
My fifth reason is that the concept of holding a three-way referendum as set out in the motion is innovative but seriously flawed. Leaving aside for a moment all the uncertainty and difficulty which would occur in the run-up to a referendum, which is my final point, if we are serious about this we have to think carefully about what would actually happen in a three-way vote. It is highly unlikely that any one of the three options would receive more than 50% of the votes. If, for the sake of argument, 40% of people voted to stay in, 30% voted to leave, and 30% voted to renegotiate, would that mean that we stayed in without any renegotiation at all? Is this to be a first-past-the-post referendum or a preferential voting referendum? If it is to be a preferential voting referendum, we have just rejected that system—in a referendum. Perhaps we would have to have a referendum on the voting system for the referendum itself.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a moment.
If we voted to leave the European Union, would that mean that, like Norway, we were in the European Free Trade Association and in the European Economic Area but still paying towards the EU budget, or, like Switzerland, not in the European Economic Area? If we voted to renegotiate
“based on trade and co-operation”,
as the motion says, does that mean that we would be in the single market, or not; still subject to its rules, or not? Does “co-operation” mean that we still work together on a united position on Iran, Syria and other foreign policy positions, or not? When we had renegotiated, would we, given the wide range of possible outcomes, need another referendum on the outcome of the negotiation?
I point these things out because there is a reason why a referendum is normally held on a specific proposition with a yes or no answer, and I believe that any future referendum must be held on that basis, not as a multiple choice among vaguely defined propositions.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Surely my right hon. Friend must know as well as I do that preferential systems are used in this House for certain votes. Is it not equally the case that for some elections, first past the post is appropriate, and for others, a preferential system is appropriate? Why not have this three-way referendum on the basis of the single transferable vote, as we do in this House for other elections?
Mr Hague
I will give way another couple of times in a moment, but I am trying to help the House to make progress.
My sixth and final problem with the motion is that it does not do justice to the reality that the European Union is not a matter of everything or nothing. We are in the European Union, but not, thankfully, in the euro. We are not in the Schengen border control area. We opt out of many justice and home affairs provisions. I do not believe that most people in Britain want to say yes to everything in the EU or no to everything in the EU; I believe that they want to know that no more powers will be handed over to Brussels without their explicit consent, which is what we have provided for in our Act.
Ms Stuart
I am sure that we still have sufficient time before the Foreign Secretary catches the plane to get him a DVD of his 2008 speech on the Second Reading of the legislation on the Lisbon treaty. He can then blush in the privacy of the aeroplane and probably answer the question as to why he was for referendums then and is against them now, the difference being that now he is in government.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I happened to bump into the chairman of the Electoral Commission today and he did not rule out a three-option referendum as impractical. Did my right hon. Friend consult the Electoral Commission on this matter before giving his opinion?
Will my right hon. Friend also bear it in mind that the treaties are now so comprehensive that at the conclusion of the summit he has just attended, the European Union is setting up a new institution that does not even require the British signature on a new treaty: the so-called euro summit of the 17. He and his colleagues are having difficulty keeping track of things because that is how the European Union now works. The veto was the foundation of our membership and it is being eroded before our eyes.
Mr Hague
There is certainly no proposal at the moment to set up such an EU institution. That is an intergovernmental arrangement. Our first priority, as I and the Prime Minister have explained, is to ensure that matters that should be decided at the level of 27 countries are decided by the 27, not by the 17. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s information about the Electoral Commission—another unelected body that is trying to decide what we might do. I am giving my opinion on the consequences of a three-way referendum.
I will give way one more time.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whether in business or in politics, the best strategies end up failing if they are badly timed?
Mr Hague
I absolutely agree with that. I reinforce the point that this is the wrong proposition at the wrong time.
The British people want to know that no more powers will be given away without their consent; that at a time of budgetary restraint, EU institutions will be faced with the financial reality, which is what our Prime Minister is doing; that we will address the crisis in the eurozone with clarity about what should be done, while minimising the exposure of the British taxpayer, which is what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are engaged in; that we will make a passionate case for Europe to take measures that help growth and free up businesses to trade and expand, which is what we are doing; that we will do nothing to add to economic uncertainty at a difficult and dangerous time; and that we will seek to repatriate powers as the opportunity arises, which is my position and that of the Prime Minister. That is the right policy for the United Kingdom.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to speak after the Foreign Secretary. This debate takes place at a time of great peril and uncertainty for the British and European economies. I am sorry that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, for whatever reason, have felt unable to join us in the Chamber for the debate, which has already revealed, no matter what the result in the Division Lobbies this evening, the scale of division on the Government Benches.
I urge opposition to the motion because I do not believe that Britain’s national interest would be served by spending the coming months and years debating the case for Britain leaving the world’s largest single market. Recent figures have revealed that there has been zero growth in the economy since last autumn. Unemployment is rising again and has reached a 17-year high. Almost 1 million young people are unable to find work. Amid all the passion generated by this debate, no one can dispute the enduring significance of European markets to Britain’s economic prospects.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Alexander
I will make a little progress, then I will be happy to give way.
Let me share with the House the description of Europe’s economic importance to Britain given to me in a recent parliamentary answer by none other than the Foreign Secretary:
“European markets account for half of the UK’s overall trade and foreign investments and as a result, around 3.5 million jobs in the UK are linked to the export of goods and services to the EU.”
He states that those markets provide
“the world’s most important trading zone, generating total GDP close to £10 billion in 2010”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 256W.]
In what I hope was a drafting error rather than an economic forecast, he of course got the size of Europe’s GDP wrong by a factor of 1,000. It actually had a GDP close to £10 trillion in 2010. The importance of the European economy to the British economy is none the less clear.
Mr Redwood
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if Britain seeks a better deal, Germany will not turn around and say that it will not sell us any more cars and France will not say that it will sell us no more wine? That is an absurd scare.
Mr Alexander
Talking of absurd scares, it is now 12 years since the right hon. Gentleman pronounced the death of Britain in his book, so I am a little cautious of taking his advice on the matter.
All of us are aware that growth is stalling in Europe. Indeed, growth forecasts were downgraded in Germany just last week. We need to consider the economic effects at home and in our largest export markets abroad if the motion were to be passed. Businesses deciding whether to invest in Britain at this crucial time would have to make that decision not knowing whether it would still be in the European Union by the time that investment came to fruition.
Mr Cash
I would be most grateful if the shadow Foreign Secretary would answer the question that I put to the Foreign Secretary about the tremendous advantages that they claim for this economic miracle of Europe. How do you explain that under your watch, when you were in government—[Interruption.] Not yours, Mr Speaker. Can he explain why, under Labour’s watch, the trade deficit with the other 26 member states went up from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion in one year between 2009 and 2010?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that I have never been in government, and fortunately never will be?
Mr Alexander
The global financial crisis that was suffered in 2007 is hardly news to anybody in the House. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a broadening consensus that international economic circumstances affect the performance of the British economy. We are increasingly hearing that line from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The House has only recently debated the circumstances in which it judged it appropriate for a referendum to take place, and tried to formalise the process by which to decide what is significant and what is not. The current Government legislated for that in the European Union Act 2011.
Mr Graham Stuart
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept his role in the corrosive state of public mistrust in politics, after promising a referendum on the European constitution, aka Lisbon, and then breaking that promise, and of course after agreeing to the bail-out in the dying days of the last Government? Have the billions of pounds of public money that have been spent on that helped jobs in this country? I suggest to him that they have not.
Mr Alexander
First, the inconvenient truth for the hon. Gentleman is that there is no EU constitution. It was rejected by the Dutch and French voters. Secondly, if I recall properly, the newest member of the Cabinet, the Transport Secretary, is on record as having written a letter confirming the cross-party nature of support for the steps that were taken. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman might be better directing his question to the newest member of the Cabinet.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little progress, then I will give way again.
What is proposed on the Order Paper is something entirely different from the recent debates. The motion suggests that the priority should be to debate, campaign on and decide on the question whether Britain should exit the European Union. That is the question of substance that sits beneath the motion—whether it is in Britain’s national interest to leave the EU.
I do not wish to intrude too much on the private grief of Conservative Back Benchers, but their disappointment in their Front Benchers is so great because their hopes were so high. The Foreign Secretary has journeyed a long way, because it was he who said:
“If you believe in an independent Britain then come with me and I will give you back your country.”
Yet if he was not rather conveniently getting on a plane to Australia this evening, the self-same Foreign Secretary would be coming with me into the No Lobby to support membership of the European Union. Along with the rest of the Conservative Front Benchers, he is today marooned between past pandering and his present position; between the rhetoric of opposition and the realities of government.
Nadhim Zahawi
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy still to take this country into the euro?
Mr Alexander
Just let me answer the question. The economics were not right to enter the euro; the economics are not right to enter the euro; and we do not envisage circumstances in which the economics will be right to enter the euro in the foreseeable future.
Let me offer Government Members a further argument about how they should vote this evening:
“What most people want in this country, I believe, is not actually to leave the European Union, but to reform the European Union”.
Those were not my words but the words of their own Prime Minister. And what of the Prime Minister’s real influence in Europe, about which we have heard something this afternoon? It is true that European leaders have been arguing for months, but President Sarkozy’s comments last night, which seem to have engendered pride among Conservative Members, confirmed that about the only thing that European leaders can agree upon is how unconvincing they find the stance of the British Prime Minister. Let me share with the House the President’s words. He said:
“We’re sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do. You say you hate the euro…and now you want to interfere in our meetings”.
When I read that, I thought for a moment that the President had joined the 1922 committee. The President, European leaders and even 1922 committee members are unconvinced by the position that the Prime Minister has adopted.
The Prime Minister boasts to the House that he will have a leading role when European leaders gather at lunch on Wednesday, but on last night’s performance, he will be lucky to get a bread roll from them. The Prime Minister’s isolation results directly from the sad truth that in recent weeks, the Government have spent more time negotiating with their Back Benchers than they have spent negotiating with European partners.
Mr Baron
May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is creating an Aunt Sally by talking about the economics of the EU? This debate is about whether we give a say to the British people by having a referendum on the future direction of the EU. Why will he not accept that there is disillusionment about ever-closer political union, and that this debate is not about free trade and access to EU markets?
Mr Alexander
First, the hon. Gentleman could have directed that question at the Foreign Secretary. Secondly, it is in the character of the EU that it is not open to the UK to say, “We will involve ourselves exclusively in economic and trade matters,” because we need to secure the support of other European partners for such changes. I accept that there is a concern among the British public in relation to Europe. My answer to that concern is not to leave Europe, but to reform it. In that way at least, I agree with Conservative Front Benchers.
Mr Alexander
We waited in vain for answers to the Leader of the Opposition’s questions on the British Government’s position on what should happen on Wednesday in relation to the scale and significance of the bail-out fund for Greece, and even if the issue of Greek debt is addressed, profound questions remain on economic growth and productivity.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the previous Labour Government gave away a huge amount of our annual rebate in return for the reform of the common agricultural policy? How successful has that reform been?
Mr Alexander
I am glad that at least a degree of truth is entering our discussions—it was suggested earlier that the rebate had not been continued—but I recollect well the circumstances in which those negotiations took place back in 2005. If I recall correctly, there was broad cross-party agreement that we had a responsibility to welcome the A10—the new members of the EU—and that it was inevitable that the European budget would be adjusted to reflect their entry. I am unyielding in my continued commitment to the need for reform of the CAP—I hope that that is another matter on which there is genuine cross-party agreement.
Michael Connarty
There is a lot of talk about being honest with the British people. My right hon. Friend has exposed the false prospectus of the main Government party, but he has been light in tackling the Liberal Democrats, who committed themselves to a referendum, and who are now jumping into bed with the Tories just to keep—so it seems to me—their ministerial cars.
Mr Alexander
I want to deal with business before pleasure. That the Liberal Democrats take strong, principled stands in their manifesto and choose to break them only a matter of months later might simply be habitual, but I await with interest a speech from a Liberal Democrat that tries to make sense of the contortions that they have got themselves into.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government Members seriously underestimated the economic situation worldwide and thought that they could confine it to Britain, and that as a result the Prime Minister will have less credibility in Europe when he tries to renegotiate some of the powers that have been given to Europe?
Mr Alexander
I have great sympathy with that point. For many months before and after the election, the Conservative party suggested that Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Greek economy was in difficulty because the Labour Government built too many schools and hospitals and employed too many doctors and nurses. The Government are now attempting suddenly to change their story and attribute their having, this year alone, to reduce the growth forecast four times—if I recollect correctly—to the fact that the Greek and European economies are not performing appropriately. That they are having so much difficulty explaining the inadequacy of their own policy is diminishing their credibility not only in the halls of the European Council, but among the British public.
Martin Horwood
The right hon. Gentleman is making an unfortunately partisan speech and misrepresenting the clear Liberal Democrat pledge to support a referendum at the time of a fundamental shift in the relationship between Britain and Europe—I am sure that that will be pointed out many times today. Should we not instead be uniting to counter the threat to the £351 billion of direct investment from other EU states posed by discussion of a referendum at this vital time?
Mr Alexander
I think that the person who started with a partisan speech was the Foreign Secretary, who was at pains continually to assert the position of the Conservative party—a very different approach from that of speaking on behalf of the Government, which is the conventional approach from Government members. However, if the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) wants to continue to defend and account for the position of the Liberal Democrats, I wish him the best of luck.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in treating the electorate as fools by describing the Lisbon treaty as not a European constitution, when everybody else knows that it is? Is this not one reason why there is so much mistrust in Europe?
Mr Alexander
Some of the frustration and disappointment I hear from the Government Benches would be better directed towards the Treasury Bench, rather than the Opposition. On Lisbon, one need only recollect the cast-iron guarantee that the now Prime Minister offered to his own Back Benchers. The position on Lisbon has been well-rehearsed. What was new, frankly, was the Prime Minister’s statement today that he supported a referendum on Maastricht. That must have been news to the Foreign Secretary, who entered the Division Lobby to oppose such a referendum—if I recollect correctly.
Mr Jenkin
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should concentrate on reforming the EU from within, but what happened during 13 years of Labour Government? They failed to reform the CAP and the budget, while the accounts have not been signed off for more than 14 years. What happened to the Lisbon competitiveness agenda, signed up to in 2010, to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world? Where were we by 2010? Has he not demonstrated that he tested that policy to destruction and that there must be change?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman takes an honourable position with which I disagree: that Britain’s best interests are served by leaving the EU. On the EU’s changing character, I would pray in aid the accession of 10 new members of what was previously the eastern bloc and the change that that has effected to the balance within the EU. Of course, however, there are continuing challenges, which is why I regard it as such a disappointment that the Government seem to glory in the isolation that the Prime Minister has secured for himself, when we should be arguing for continued reform not just of the European budget—
Mr Alexander
It was the hon. Gentleman’s own Prime Minister who went to Brussels last year asserting that there was going to be no rise in the European budget but left having voted in favour of a rise.
Mr MacShane
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under Margaret Thatcher the CAP took 70% of the EEC-EU budgets, but that that figure is now less than 40%, and that under John Major the EU budget was 1.23% of European gross domestic product, but that it is now 1%? It is not perfect, but reform goes on all the time, and I wish the Foreign Secretary well as he continues those reforms. But do not live with these myths.
Mr Alexander
I concur with the bipartisan character of that intervention. The Prime Minister’s isolation results directly from the sad truth that in recent weeks the Government seem to have spent more time negotiating with the people from whom we have just heard.
Mr Alexander
No, I shall make some progress.
By default or design, the Government’s habit of sitting on the sidelines, only criticising and carping, has proved to be genuinely bad for Britain and the prospects for reform within Europe. All parties support the single market. We want to see reforms on the digital economy, services and energy that could make a real, practical difference to the lives and opportunities of British companies and consumers. All parties support European-level co-ordination on issues where we can work together internationally, such as—I agree with the Foreign Secretary on this—cutting off the oil that helps to prop up the Syrian regime of President Assad.
The way to address the present concerns is reform of Europe, not exit from Europe. Britain’s economy is flatlining and Europe’s economy is in crisis. Putting off investment and undermining confidence at such a critical time would be the wrong choice for this House and the country. The right course for British growth, British jobs and British interests is to reject the motion before the House.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I understand that I have only five minutes, so I will take only two interventions—if people want to intervene—if colleagues do not mind.
I would like to address first the process and principle of the motion and then present-day Europe, if colleagues will forgive the alliteration. The origins of today’s debate lie in the Government’s democratic outreach, through e-petitions. More than 100,000 people signed an e-petition calling for a debate in Parliament on this issue. The Backbench Business Committee then decided that to be the right debate to bring before Parliament and, as Members will know, that Committee is elected by the House. This debate has not been brought about by a small or large number of Conservative Back Benchers, therefore; it is a response to the will and the voice of the British people.
Also, it is wrong to try to frame this debate as calling for an immediate referendum or, indeed, for an in-or-out referendum. That is clearly not the case, as is self-evident from the motion, which is mainstream and inclusive. The motion calls for a Bill and has a timetable referring to this Session. As colleagues will know, that Bill might not come forward for another 18 months and would be subject to the same drafting, the same consultation and the same amendments and new clauses as any other Bill. Therefore, to suggest that the motion necessarily reflects what would be in the Bill is disingenuous at best. Any subsequent referendum would also be consulted on with the Electoral Commission in the normal way and would not necessarily reflect the motion before the House today. This is not about an immediate referendum—I would not support an immediate referendum—nor is it about an in-or-out referendum, which I would not support at this stage. I support a trade-plus relationship with Europe; let us see how Europe responds. If it does not respond, perhaps the British people in future will demand that this Parliament move to an in-or-out referendum.
Andrew Percy
Is not the point that as far as pro-Europeans are concerned there will never be a right time for a referendum? Indeed, we could see constituents in Scotland voting on their relationship with the Union with England, while our constituents in England will be denied any say about our relationship with Europe.
Mark Pritchard
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as always. We have had referendums on a range of issues, whether in Northern Ireland, London, Wales or Scotland—indeed, referendums on anything but the European issue. I hope that that will change.
Some have accused some Government Members—and even some Opposition Members—of making Europe an issue. I would remind the House that Europe is an issue today because Europe is making itself an issue, not those on our Back Benches. On the principle, millions of people have never had a say on the European question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, because they either had not been born or were not old enough to vote in 1975. Even among those who were old enough to vote, many thought that they were signing up for a common market, not a political union.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was old enough to vote in 1975, and I voted for joining the European Union for economic reasons and nothing else. It has changed hugely in my lifetime, and I would now like a vote on whether we continue with the slide into a political union. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mark Pritchard
My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. He and others signed up to a common market, but that has not turned out to be the case. The millions of people in the group that I call the “great disenfranchised” need to be enfranchised. They are the lost generation of voters that the political establishment in this country has left behind.
Mark Pritchard
Forgive me; I will not have any more time if I give way.
No politician should have anything to fear from the ballot box. This is not just about the narrow renegotiation of powers, or the question of in or out, or remaining in the European Union on the present terms, although that is the text of the motion. This is fundamentally about freedom and democracy, and about ensuring that the European project has ongoing democratic legitimacy, which it currently lacks. I believe that the 1975 referendum result has now passed its sell-by date.
Europe is going to become more of an issue, not less of one. That is self-evident, given the possibility of a financial transaction tax—I welcome the Government’s opposition to that—or of more bail-outs up to 2013. There might not be any beyond that point, but there is always the possibility of back-door bail-outs through low-cost International Monetary Fund loans. There are also the questions of fiscal union, of the loss of Britain’s veto that President Barroso hinted at the other day, and of a single Treasury. Most of my predictions are wrong, so I give the House a big health warning here, but I predict that we might move more rapidly along a fast track to the first elected EU President under a universal franchise. All those things must be resisted. There are those who argue that the renegotiation of powers should come after a referendum. I disagree. I believe that a referendum would empower the Prime Minister to go to Brussels to negotiate. It would also put Brussels on notice that it needed to listen to the British people.
My parliamentary colleagues have come under some pressure, and I say to all of them who are supporting the motion today that they are not rebels; they are patriots. They are people of their country. There are those who say that members of my party are obsessed by Europe, but there is only one obsession on these Benches today, and that is an obsession with growing the economy and tackling the deficit left by Labour. That should not be replaced by the obsession of those who obsess about not giving the people a voice.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have a huge respect, that the domestic politics of this country can no longer be disaggregated from the economics of the eurozone or the European Union. Europe will therefore have to be dealt with at some point, whether this evening or at some other time in the near future. We as a party, as a country, as a democracy and as a Parliament should listen to the people and be ahead of the political curve, rather than behind it. There are those who are calling for a fresh start. What better fresh start than a fresh vote? Let us do the right thing by allowing all the British people their birthright: a vote on the destiny of their own country. I say to all those who want to support the motion: history is on our side. I say to the Government: we may have a referendum lock, but please don’t start to unpick it.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I will not be voting for the motion this evening, not because I do not believe that the British electorate are entitled to a referendum on European membership; I do. I shall not vote for the motion because the third option makes complete nonsense of the proposal. It establishes the motion as belonging to the far right of the Conservative party, which wants nostalgically to return to the 1970s when the common market was a big businessmen’s club with no workers rights that contained only nine member states. If that were not the case, the motion would include further left-wing options to improve workers rights, for example, but then it would start to look like an even more ridiculous referendum.
The matter should be clear. The question should be whether we should be in or out of Europe. The present three-way proposal would result in a complete dog’s breakfast, leaving the British people as frustrated as ever. What is clear to me, however, is that public dissatisfaction with our Euro-relationship will not go away because Britain has never really had a fair and democratic say.
We were taken into the Common Market in the first place by a Conservative Government without a referendum because Ted Heath knew full well that the public would not have voted for entry. He was well rewarded by defeat at the next election. When Harold Wilson delivered his promised referendum on the so-called negotiated terms, it was a complete farce. To be fair, his Government were rewarded by defeat at the next election.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I was active in the Labour party at that time and I voted no. My hon. Friend might remember that the great majority of Labour MPs at that time voted no in the referendum and that a special Labour party conference had a big no vote on the referendum as well. It was the leadership who supported our continued membership of Europe.
Mr Crausby
Things have certainly changed. The 1975 referendum yes campaign was all about arguing that leaving Europe would take us into isolation. There were even claims from the yes campaign that if we left we would be starved of food. My own employer at the time wrote to every employee, urging them to vote yes, claiming that leaving the Common Market would cost jobs. They employed more than 3,000 people at that time; now they employ just 100—so I suppose matters could have been worse.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I was on the same side as my hon. Friend in 1975 and I voted to come out of the EEC as it then was, but does he agree that the biggest lie told then about the referendum on entry to the EEC was by Ted Heath when he said that there would be no loss of sovereignty?
Mr Crausby
I will come to that. Voters were deceived by promises of huge increases in national prosperity and soothed by the leadership of the three political parties into voting yes. On one side of the argument sat the three party leaders—Harold Wilson, Ted Heath and Jeremy Thorpe—and on the other sat Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. The British media almost universally portrayed the issue as established common sense against the extreme fringes. The Government produced a document entitled “Britain’s New Deal in Europe”—I kept it because I knew I would be able to hold it against them one day—in red, white and blue. It recommended a yes vote; it was delivered by the Post Office to every home and it made clear promises. The most important promise was that Britain had a veto on all important new policies and developments. It said:
“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”
Just 10 years later, another Conservative Government completely reneged on that vital promise without a referendum. This time, it was Margaret Thatcher who gave up Britain’s veto when she signed the Single European Act, which actually makes Maastricht and Lisbon look like a sideshow. To talk now about “no new powers to Europe” is, quite frankly, shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted. It may well be that this is not the time to resolve the British people’s dissatisfaction with our membership of the European Union, but the time must come.
Michael Connarty
I often find that people list all the things that they are against when they make an argument, but given my hon. Friend’s background in the trade union movement, surely he must welcome the fact that the social chapter and social Europe have been massively important for improving the lives of our people?
Mr Crausby
I do, but my point is that we will not resolve this issue until we have sought the consent of the British people, which we have never done.
The leaders of our major political parties must face the facts. If they wish constructively to maintain our relationship with Europe, with public support, they should have the collective courage to take the argument to our people, instead of huddling together against a referendum every time it arises.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I had no real background in politics when I was elected in 2005. I had been a soldier and a television reporter. In fact, I had never even been into the House of Commons Chamber.
A couple of days before the House sat for the first time after the election, I wandered into the Members’ Lobby and chatted to one of the security guards, who let me into the Chamber. It was dark, and I started to think about the historic things that had happened here. I thought of Winston Churchill leading Members out of the House to St Margaret’s church to give thanks for the end of the second world war. And then I asked myself, “Why are you thinking about yourself and how clever you are to have got here?” Actually, this was about the thousands of voters in Gravesend, Northfleet and the villages who had allowed me to overturn quite a healthy Labour majority and replace it with a pretty tiny Conservative one.
Did any of us imagine when we made our acceptance speeches at the counts that Members of Parliament would be slagged off to quite the degree that they are now? My mother does not like to tell people that I am a Member of Parliament, because of the response that she receives when she does.
Mr MacShane
Surely what the hon. Gentleman’s mother does not want to admit is that he is a Conservative Member of Parliament. That is the problem.
Mr Holloway
It may have something to do with the fact that she lives in the north of Scotland.
This country developed and exported the simple idea that laws ought not to be made unless they were made by the people’s elected representatives, but it seems from some of the e-mails that I have been receiving over the last three days that some of our constituents are quite close to giving up on that notion. Why is that? We hear the reason every time we meet our constituents. “You are all the same,” they tell us. “You will say anything to get elected.” One of the things on which I have agreed with them over the past seven years is that we should have a referendum at some point, and, in my view, we need to completely rewire our relationship with Europe. We need to be in Europe, not run by Europe.
What we are taking about today is not just Britain’s relationship with the European Union, but the authority and legitimacy of this Chamber. During the last Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was one of the leaders of all three parties who expressed the view that we should have a referendum on Europe.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Holloway
I will not, actually.
The Deputy Prime Minister was even louder in his protestations. He said:
“The Liberal Democrats believe we should have a real vote on Europe—whether we should be in Europe or out… the public back our position by a margin of 2:1”.
I should say that the margin is about the same today. Those statements, and many more from the Front Benches, render irrelevant the arguments that we have heard today about whether this is the right moment for a referendum.
I am sure that if the Government had not liked today’s motion, they could have come up with something. What would it say about the relationship between Parliament and the people if we were to deny not only what we have recently promised, but what people out there, at our invitation, have asked us to do through the petition?
I should have much preferred a Conservative Government, but I support this Government sincerely and spiritedly. I was one of only about 50 Back Benchers who supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) in the leadership election, and now I really do think—I am not just sucking up—that he is a brilliant Prime Minister. I have never voted against the party line, even when I have known enough about what we were discussing to be aware that I should vote against it. I have loved doing my minuscule job as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the foreign affairs team, whose Ministers I respect—and believe me, they are doing a very good job. Trust me, and again I am not sucking up, they do not come better than the Minister for Europe—“Hear, hear” at this point. [Laughter.]
I am mostly enthusiastic about the coalition in private. If you are part of a team, you support it. But if you cannot support a particular policy, the honest course of action is of course to stand down. I want decisions to be closer to the people whom they affect—to be made by local communities, not sent upwards towards Brussels. I am not prepared to go back on my word to my constituents, and I am really staggered that loyal people like me have been put in this position. If Britain’s future as an independent country is not a proper matter for a referendum, I have absolutely no idea what is.
Mr Cash
Many people in the country, knowing of the integrity and the honesty that is reflected in my hon. Friend’s speech and knowing that this honourable gentleman—this honourable friend—has decided that he will resign his position as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign Office on a matter of such importance, will commend him for it.
Mr Holloway
Obviously, I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
We do not have the right to give away powers entrusted to us by our constituents. To anyone who is still wondering which way to vote, I say: “Do not try to guess what the result of a referendum would be, and do not worry about wording or timing. You need only ask yourself two questions. First, is this the right thing to do in principle? Secondly, what do your constituents want you to do?” Here is our opportunity to show people that the system can work, that representative government continues to function in the land where it was nurtured and developed, and that patriotism—putting one’s country rather than one’s own interests first—is not foreign to the House.
Mr Holloway
No, I really cannot give way now.
Members can repay the confidence placed in them by their constituents on that first evening when they stood on the platform and heard the returning officer mention their name. They should not rebel against the people who sent them here. For me, the bottom line is really quite straightforward. For seven years I have been wandering around telling the good people of Gravesham that we should have a referendum, and that we should renegotiate our position. Let me end by saying this: “If you have done the same, you must support the motion.”
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway). I salute him and commend what he has done in putting the country and his constituents before his party. I think that Members here, and his constituents, will praise him loudly for his actions today.
The Foreign Secretary described this as a symbolic debate, and I suppose that there is something symbolic in the fact that tonight, despite his words, he will be heading as far from the European Union as he possibly can—although, if I may paraphrase him slightly, he should think about the rest of us who must stay here until long after he has gone.
The people who deserve to be given credit first tonight are those who signed the petition to secure the debate. I was pleased to be able to go to No. 10, along with others from the House and outside, to deliver that petition. I also commend the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place. I think that it is very timely indeed.
We meet in the context of reports that are swirling around of threats against Members of Parliament and their ministerial careers, and all sorts of indications of Members’ inability to find new seats should they vote the wrong way tonight. It was said, I think again by the Foreign Secretary, that Members were not adopting a casual approach to the debate. That is certainly true of the Whips, who have very evidently been far from casual in the lines that they have taken. I think it deeply regrettable that the Whips in all parties should be so vociferous on such an issue. This is a Back-Bench debate, and people should be allowed to have their say and vote freely.
One of the problems most evident in political discourse in society today, throughout the United Kingdom, is the disconnection between Parliament—and political leaders—and the people. There is no better illustration of that than the spectacle tonight, in the House, of three party leaders and leaderships telling Members of Parliament, many of whom—in all parties—want a referendum and want to let the people have their say, that they must vote against that. I believe that although the vote may be won today by the party leaderships and the Whips, ultimately the people will have their say, because we have seen throughout the rest of the world that the people cannot be denied their democratic will.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, in the words of Gandhi:
“Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side”?
Mr Dodds
I entirely agree, and I think that people in all parts of the United Kingdom who are listening to the debate will be mystified by some of the arguments being put forward, which are completely contrary to their wish simply to have a choice. Regardless of whether people are for or against the EU, they are entitled to have their say.
We have witnessed a breach of trust by the Labour party. It denied the people of this country a vote on the Lisbon treaty, which was, in effect, a European constitution. The Conservative party has done the same thing, because before the last election the Prime Minister gave a cast-iron guarantee that there would be a vote; and the Lib Dems said, “We must have an in/out referendum,” yet we are now told they will vote against tonight’s motion.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
As the majority of the United Kingdom electorate have never voted on our relationship with the rest of Europe, why does my right hon. Friend believe this Government seek to deny them that right through a referendum? Are they afraid of what answer the people might give?
Mr Dodds
I will address the arguments advanced by the Foreign Secretary shortly.
The Democratic Unionist party is the only party in this House that is united in favour of a referendum for the people of the United Kingdom. We have been consistent on that point; we called for a vote on the Lisbon treaty, the Single European Act and Maastricht. We have also been consistent on the euro.
Mr Dodds
I cannot give way again, as I do not want to lose any time. The right hon. Gentleman may well have a chance to speak later on.
Many Members on both sides of the House—including some representing Northern Ireland constituencies—are hiding their views on the euro now. They are shy about letting the people know what they truly believe about it. I am glad that our party has been entirely consistent and principled on that, and that our position has been vindicated.
There are clear reasons for calling a referendum. It is clear that the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom want a referendum; that is their settled will. Moreover, 36 years have passed since the people have had a chance to deliver a verdict. This is also clearly not a party political issue; rather, it is a constitutional one. Members on both sides of the House hold different views, too, as this is a matter that transcends party allegiance. The people must therefore have their say.
It is nonsense to talk about a referendum being a distraction. The EU and all its works go to the heart of decision making on all aspects of policy in this House and in Government. We must therefore have a chance to deliver our verdict on how the relationship between Europe and the United Kingdom should evolve. Moreover, the crisis in the eurozone and the consequent move to create a tighter fiscal union among its 17 members will have a direct and profound impact on the United Kingdom. That is going to happen, and the Prime Minister has indicated that there is likely to be a treaty change. Therefore, despite the argument advanced by the Foreign Secretary that now is not the right time, it is clear that we are going to have a referendum.
The Foreign Secretary listed the occasions on which he advanced the argument for a referendum. I am glad he did so on those occasions, but I am sorry that he is not advancing that argument now, and that when he did so in the past, there was no talk about a referendum being a distraction and about uncertainty for business. The Conservative party was saying very clearly that it was right to have a referendum. Why, therefore, is now suddenly not the right time?
The crisis in the eurozone offers an opportunity for the British people to be given their say, and we must grasp it. It will be scandalous if the people are denied that chance. We are told that that was not in the manifesto, but that argument does not wash, because a referendum on the alternative vote was not in the manifesto either, yet a referendum on that was inflicted on the people of the United Kingdom.
The Foreign Secretary also claimed that there was a danger that opportunities would be lost if we were distracted by having a referendum, but why should that be the case? Why would we not have the opportunity to continue to advance our case in Europe at the same time as laying the groundwork for a referendum, which he and the Prime Minister admit is likely to be on the cards fairly soon anyway? It is better that we take that into our own hands by making the preparations now, so that we give the people of this country what they want: a referendum.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who made an impassioned speech. I am pleased that we are both named signatories to the motion, as that shows that there is cross-party support for this debate. I was, however, disappointed to hear my Prime Minister say in his statement before the debate that tonight’s vote will show the will of Parliament, as it clearly will not do so. It will show the will of the Whips; it will show the will of enforcement. It will certainly not show the will of the people, who have voted for us to be elected to Parliament to speak on their behalf. I am therefore saddened, as I would like Parliament to express the will of the people tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) gave a fine speech, in which he pointed out that some people will say anything to get elected. If Members have been going around their constituencies and the country saying, “I’d like to have a referendum,” when they have the chance to have one they should be principled. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having taken the principled stance of resigning from his post over this. As he said, he spent seven years telling his constituents, “Given a chance, I would give you the opportunity of a referendum.”
It was with a degree of sadness that I dug out the Liberal Democrat leaflet— printed, boldly, in orange. It calls for a real referendum on Europe, and many Members have referred to it. It was printed only a very few months ago, and just before a general election, and I am sure people were giving them out in their thousands. Many people ask what the defining difference is between us and the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps this leaflet helps to answer that. It carries the name of the current Deputy Prime Minister, and a photograph of his face is printed on it, and this is what it says:
“It’s been over THIRTY YEARS since the British people last had a vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union. That’s why the Liberal Democrats want a real referendum on Europe. Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide our country’s future. But Labour don’t want the people to have their say…The Conservatives only support a limited referendum, on the Lisbon Treaty. Why won’t they give the people a say in a real referendum? Not everything is perfect in Europe, but we”—
the Liberal Democrats—
“believe our membership has been good for the country. In Europe we can get real action to tackle climate change…That’s why the Liberal Democrats will campaign to stay in Europe in the referendum. But whether you agree with Europe or not, it is vital that you and the British people have a say in a real EU referendum.”
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) takes a principled position in arguing exactly the same point. He is in favour of the EU, and he could make that argument in a referendum campaign. Moreover, we are not debating nuances tonight.
Mr Redwood
As my hon. Friend noted, when the Liberal Democrats were in opposition they read opinion polls to choose popular policies, but now that they are in government they read opinion polls to choose the most unpopular policies possible. Some 80% of the public do not want a three-line Whip, so they impose one; 67% of the public want a referendum, so they are now against that.
Mrs Main
I shall not give way to Liberal Democrat Members, as they can speak for themselves when they make their speeches. They can explain why, throughout a general election period, they gave out thousands of leaflets promising a real in/out referendum in which they would be prepared to defend their principled stand of wanting to stay in Europe.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) lost the plot by getting hung up on the wording. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who proposed the motion, has got it absolutely right, and I hope the hon. Gentleman reconsiders his position.
The argument tonight is not about the wording; it is about whether or not we give the hundreds of thousands of people who want an opportunity to discuss this issue the chance to do so. Whichever side of the argument people fall on, and whatever the answer may be, we should not be frightened of simply giving them the chance to have that debate. That is what we are voting on. We are not voting on the wording. We are not voting on whether we should be in or out. We are voting on whether we want to give the British people a chance to hear the arguments in a reasoned way, rather than hear them as a result of a knee-jerk referendum called because Europe suddenly decides to do something we do not like. I would much rather that we have the chance, whichever side of the argument we fall on, to go out to make the case in a reasoned way. I would rather the wording be carefully crafted in a Public Bill Committee, not cobbled together because Europe suddenly does something we do not like and we say, “Oops, it’s a treaty change. Oops, we need to have a quick referendum.”
Let us do this at our pace. Let us not be frightened of the answer. I do not know what the answer will be. It might be one that I do not like, but I am prepared to live with it. I, too, have never voted on whether or not we should have joined the Common Market, as my mother would have called it, but I know from talking to people that they feel strongly that it is now time to talk about this matter, because we are dealing with something completely different. I am sick of hearing the word “referendum” touted around when it is popular with the voters and then seeing it kicked into the long grass when it falls into the “too difficult” box. This is not the “too difficult” box.
Mrs Main
I am not going to give way to my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, because their speakers can defend themselves tonight. This motion is not in the “too difficult” box, and I am sure that there will be Liberal Democrats who search their conscience and decide to walk through the Lobby with us on a principled motion to give the people the right to have their say.
Martin Horwood
I have explained our position, but I want to ask the hon. Lady about hers. When the Liberal Democrats, at the time of a fundamental shift in the relationship during the course of the Lisbon treaty, actually proposed an in/out referendum, she voted against it. Why was that?
Mrs Main
I ask the hon. Gentleman to join us tonight to say, “This is now what we should be doing.” He may just throw brickbats and not consider what the Liberal Democrats promised the people, but he has a chance to renew that promise tonight. We have a chance tonight to engage with what the people are asking us to engage in. Our leader promised us that we would have a chance to vote on the Lisbon treaty and we voted accordingly, but we did not have it. We have a new chance now.
This motion is not about reliving history, but it is about looking at how we have engaged with the voters over the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has got it absolutely right: we have to be principled. For those who have maintained a principled plea to be given the chance, tonight is that chance. If the wording is not quite as some people would like, they should not worry because there will be a chance to craft it in Committee. Hon. Members should not feel that unless they can agree with every little word in the motion they cannot go through the Lobby with us. The wording is only suggested; the principal thing we are voting on tonight is whether we are going to listen to the people and say, “Let’s engage in this argument.” Let us not just park it in the “too difficult” grass, with promises of referendums tomorrow, because they may never come; and if they do come, they may come at a very inappropriate time to make the argument with the British people.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is good to see the Foreign Secretary still in his place before he dashes off to this urgent, massively crucial and completely unavoidable meeting in Australia that he has to attend. I am sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding tonight’s vote, and any suggestion that it has is scurrilous. He rightly spoke about scrutiny, but he may recall that when he was an MP under John Major’s premiership the then Government removed European questions and the debates on European orders from the Floor of the House, thus reducing the scrutiny, because things were getting a bit lively at that point. If he will not agree to a referendum, perhaps he will agree to bring European questions and European orders back to the Floor of the House.
Having got that small point over with, may I say that I have never been a great supporter of referendums? They can be divisive, they have to be treated with extreme caution and they have been used by dictatorial Governments in the past. The criterion for having a referendum is that a Government pass measures that seek to change the power of the ballot box—that is the time to seek a referendum and seek the consent of the British people. This should not be done at any time other than when a Government seek to change the power of the ballot box.
Since the last referendum in 1975 which, as has been pointed out, was caused by the Wilson Government, we have had the Single European Act, the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, the growth and stability pact, and the Lisbon and Nice treaties. All those changed the power of the ballot box, most of them—not all—involving huge shifts of power from the democratically elected Governments of western Europe to Brussels and Strasbourg. The Single European Act gave up the veto, which we had been told at the time of the referendum in 1975 would remain permanently. Since then, many of the treaties have shifted perhaps 30 or 40 areas of responsibility from the veto to quality majority voting. For that reason alone, we need a referendum on future membership of the European Union.
This is not an issue among the political elite of western Europe. There is a justifiable perception among a lot of voters, not only in this country but in other western European countries, that there is a tiny political elite at the apex of the European Union which says, “This doesn’t matter. We don’t want people having their views on Europe tested. We don’t want to have to go out to seek people’s opinions.” That was demonstrated when the Irish people voted against the Nice treaty, as within a day or two the western European Foreign Secretaries issued a communiqué saying, “It’s very nice of you to have made a decision; now go away and make another one. Keep trying until you get it right.” The legislative process in Ireland was actually changed, by a Bill that took a day to get through all the stages in the Dail, in order to gut the process that led to that referendum. They were then able to rig the following referendum and change the view of the Irish people on the Nice treaty.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those antics by our neighbours have increased the cynicism towards Europe and all things European?
John Cryer
Yes, I would agree with that. As I believe we all recognise, there is generally a profound cynicism about the political process, not just in Britain but across western Europe. In this country, there are specific reasons for it, but tonight we have the opportunity to restore a bit of trust in the political process. I disagree completely with the three-line Whip being imposed by all the parties. When the leadership of all three parties acts in that way, it tends to foment that cynicism.
One of the great truisms of British politics is that when people move from this side of the House to that side of the House they tend to change their views on Europe pretty rapidly. That has fomented cynicism about the political process. Conservative Members have a chance tonight to restore a bit of face by being consistent in their views on Europe. I was not unanimously loyal during my previous eight years in this place when the Labour party was in government—I voted against my party about 84 times. When I went into the Government Lobby, my then Whip, whom I shall not name, greeted me by saying, “Voting Labour again tonight then, John?” I therefore speak as someone who has rebelled in the past and paid the price for it.
Many Conservatives—I am not talking about the Liberal Democrats because we expect them to be inconsistent—said things about Europe when they went before their selection committees and their electorates and people now expect these things to be upheld tonight. People expect us to be consistent. I suspect that an awful lot of Conservative associations and an awful lot of Conservative voters in those constituencies will applaud Conservative MPs who vote for this motion in the Lobby tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
You have to keep an eye on the hon. Gentleman. He has very succinct speeches.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
That is a fabulous speech to follow, so I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish, not as succinctly, to say that this debate is about one thing only: our democratic deficit. It is not a debate about what is good or bad about the EU. We are debating whether we think that people should have a say on EU membership. In the 36 years since people first voted on our continued membership of the then European Economic Community, they have not been given a say, yet the EEC of 1975—an economic and trading bloc—is not the EU of today, which is a political union underpinned by a part-common currency in crisis.
Natascha Engel
I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way.
The architects of the European Union have created something of such size and complexity that they themselves have admitted that it has become too big to fail. At the same time, for most normal people the EU becomes ever more remote and unaccountable. It is a political project that people feel has gone too far, too fast, with many things that affect their daily lives being determined by Brussels and not Westminster. That makes this a matter of sovereignty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) has said, we have referendums very rarely in this country and only on matters that concern how we govern ourselves. As elected politicians who govern, we have a vested interest in this matter, and because we have a vested interest it is a matter that we should not decide just for ourselves. Over the weekend and in the earlier statement the Government argued that now is not the right time to hold a referendum because of the crisis in the eurozone, but it is precisely that crisis that has demonstrated to us how bound up in Europe we have become politically and economically and how little influence we have over the decisions that are taken.
The truth is that the “not the right time” argument has nothing to do with markets and everything to do with what people might say. The Government are worried that people might say no, and, as every experienced politician knows, you do not ask the question unless you are sure that you will get the answer you want. No is not the answer that the Government want.
Last summer, the Government introduced e-petitions to engage and better connect with people and to give them a chance to have their say. The Government promised that any e-petition that gained more than 100,000 signatures would be taken very seriously by the House. We have welcomed the debates on the riots and on Hillsborough, but when it comes to something that is inconvenient and that the Government do not want to have debated, suddenly now is not the right time. If we pick and choose, we are telling people that politicians will decide what people are and, more importantly, what they are not allowed to have a say on. That is not democracy.
Yesterday, we celebrated free and democratic elections in Tunisia. Next week we celebrate Parliament week and this year’s theme is stories of democracy. What a terrible shame it would be if today we took one of the most anti-democratic decisions of our generation and denied people a say on something as fundamental as who governs them.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
May I reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I shall be voting tonight not in response to a three-line Whip but in what I believe is the national interest?
I am saddened by some of the comments I have heard in the Chamber today. Since 1960, the Conservative party and Conservative Governments, whether it was Harold Macmillan, Alexander Douglas-Home, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher or John Major, have always believed that our future was in Europe, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister follows in that tradition.
It was from the embers of the second world war—a Europe torn apart by Germany and Italy—which for many was the second terrible war in a generation after the great war, or the war to end all wars, that the idea of the European Community and European union was born. I believe that European unity was a cause to end all wars—on this continent at least. I campaigned hard in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote and I remember endless arguments with my late father-in-law who told me not to trust the Germans and certainly never to trust the Italians. He rang me up after the vote and said, “I thought I’d better tell you I voted in the referendum yesterday,” and I said, “Oh, yes,” expecting him to tell me that he had voted no. He said, “I voted yes—not for me and probably not for you but for my grandchildren.” His grandchildren are my children and they are grown up now; indeed, they are the same age as many of my colleagues in the House today.
Mark Lazarowicz
The hon. Gentleman reminds us that the debate about joining the European Economic Community back in 1974 or 1976 was never just an economic argument. It was precisely the argument about securing peace in Europe that was behind European union, and that was also one of the factors that was put forward in the debate at that time, although I accept that economic motives were the prime issue in that debate.
Mr Walter
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it was a political argument. What I am sad about is that there are those who want to destroy that legacy and the legacy of those who fought and voted for that lasting peace—a Europe in harmony, comfortable with itself and respecting differences of culture, language, history and nationality, but confident in its ability to work together.
Mr Cash
I just want to mention to my hon. Friend that my father was killed in the war in Normandy and I am sure that he, together with all the others, also appreciated that what they were doing was fighting for freedom and for the democracy that is being put at risk by opposition to this motion.
Mr Walter
I shall not give way any more.
The world has shrunk. More than ever, we travel, we trade and we live in each other’s countries. In 1972, this House voted not only to be part of that common European future but to be an architect of its destiny as a full member of the European Community. The European Union is not a perfect form of government, but neither are the British Government, any Department of State or any local government. If that were the case, we would not be here; we would all be wasting our time.
Mr Walter
I will not give way any more; I really need to get on.
The European Commission and the European Parliament have ideas and aspirations that sit more than awkwardly with the concept that we all have of a sovereign state. There are those in Brussels who see national Governments and national Parliaments as a nuisance and who think that life would be much simpler if we decided everything at a European level, but thank God we live in a democracy. Thank God we have Members of the European Parliament who are prepared to stand up for the British interest and, more particularly, that we have Ministers and a Prime Minister who can go to Brussels, argue our case and succeed.
What is it that my colleagues and friends want from any new treaty? Have we not had enough of treaties? Can we not at least make the one that we have work? What would a new treaty do? Would it relegate us to the European Free Trade Association or the European economic area? Would it get us the Norwegian deal? They argue that the EU would have to give us access to the single market—yes, but at what price? Norway does not have a free ride in its access to the single market. It does not contribute to the common agricultural policy but it jolly well pays its share to other areas of the EU budget and it gets absolutely nothing back. What is more, its price for access means that it too implements all EU directives—in fact, it has a better record than us, with 99.6% of EU directives having been implemented by the Norwegian Parliament—but the difference is that it has no Ministers at the table when they are discussed. It has no commissioner, no parliamentary representation in co-decision and it has to accept whatever Brussels sends. It is not even a case of, “Take it or leave it;” it is, “Take it, or else.”
We cannot blame Brussels and the wicked foreigners for all our woes. To quote the Prime Minister,
“We are all in this together”.
Europe needs Britain and Britain needs Europe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary struck the right note earlier. We are in Europe, our history is European and our destiny is European. As far as I am concerned, we are here to stay and I beg my colleagues to reject the motion.
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I regret the fact that the Government’s business managers managed to turn inconvenience into a full-scale crisis vote this evening. I regret even more the fact that there is not a free vote across the House tonight. There should have been, and I rather suspect that those on both Front Benches will come to regret the fact that they did not allow a free vote.
I voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, together with some of my hon. Friends. I will vote tonight in support of a referendum. Some of the suggestions that I have heard, that this debate is a distraction or, as somebody said, an irresponsible distraction, are both arrogant and insulting to the vast majority of the people of this country who feel that their views on Europe are not being heard.
Ever since the treaty of Rome was signed, its architects have had a clear objective of moving towards a united states of Europe and in doing so they have followed three steps. The first was ever-closer union, political and economic. The Single European Act, which Mrs Thatcher signed, was a massive step in that direction, as was the creation of a single currency. The second aim has been to move relentlessly forward—take two steps forward, a massive great row, go into denial, label objectors mad or worse, take one step back, wait for the fury to subside, then move two steps forward again.
The third and most important objective has been to avoid whenever possible giving the electorates of Europe a direct say in decision making. If some member states are legally obliged to have referendums, as happened in France and Holland, then the approach has been to play down the importance of the issues, say they are purely technical, just a tidying-up exercise, not something to bother the electorates of Europe. The reason is obvious. We all know that if we ask the people a question, we might get the answer that we do not want.
The creation of the eurozone is just another attempt to move forward the project of a federal united states of Europe. The creation of the euro was always economic nonsense. There has never in the history of the world been a successful monetary union without a fiscal union as well. It was a house built on quicksand, not a house that caught fire. It does not matter how much money is thrown at it to try to underpin it. It does not matter how much financial scaffolding is put around it. It will fail. It is not me saying this: the markets have already made their decision. They know that the euro is unsustainable. They know that it is built on quicksand. They know it is going to fail, and if the politicians are not on the same wavelength, that is their problem.
The only way out is full fiscal union. I agree with the Chancellor when he urged the members of the eurozone to move towards that. At least that is logical. But in doing so, members of the eurozone will have to cede all their tax-raising and all their spending powers to the Commission in Brussels. That will be a massive step towards the creation of a united states of Europe. Whether the member countries of the eurozone wish that to happen is a matter for them.
The reason why so many people are angry in this country and why the opinion polls seem to show that they are anti-Europe is that they feel that nobody is listening to them. That is bad for democracy. Today the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have set out their stalls and said where they stand. They should put that to the electorate and have it debated in the country. That is what democracy is about. At the end, they should allow the people to decide.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
I am against the motion, in part because I think the timing, given the financial chaos in Europe, is highly inappropriate. But that is not the main reason that I would give to the House as to why the motion is unwise. It purports to give three choices to the House and to the country as a whole—in the European Union, out of the European Union, or renegotiation, but as has been pointed out earlier in the debate, that is not really a third option because it is renegotiation with a view to purely a trade relationship in Europe. That is, in effect, leaving the European Union because it involves no sharing of sovereignty. I fully concede that any membership of the European Union at the end of the day must involve, as it always has done, some willingness to acknowledge that sovereignty has to be shared.
Mr Redwood
Has not my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that the motion refers to trade and co-operation to encompass the current Conservative policy?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
No, I am sorry, that is not the case because present Conservative policy is about sharing sovereignty in certain areas where it is overwhelmingly in our national interest. When we consider what the real options are, the real debate is not whether we should be in Europe or out of Europe, but what kind of European Union we are prepared to be members of.
The assumption of this debate and many other debates is that one side or the other will win. We will either have an even closer union or the European Union will ultimately implode. That might be what will happen if the European Union does not use its own common sense and look to see whether there is a third route.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Not at this moment, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
There is a third route and we are already partly along that way—that is, an à la carte Europe, where each member state decides what degree of integration it is prepared to accept in view of its own national history, rather like France being a semi-detached member of NATO for 30 years because it believed it to be in the French interest, and NATO did not collapse as a consequence.
I say that we are already part of the way there, because at present, of the 27 member states, only 17 are members of the eurozone. Ten states are not, some because they do not want to be, and some because they could not join even if they wanted to. We are not part of Schengen, nor are the Irish. The neutral countries such as Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Finland have never been fully involved in defence co-operation because of their neutrality.
The problem at present is not that there is not an element of à la carte, but that there is a fiction in the European Union that that is purely temporary—that it is a transition and that we are all going to the same destination and the debate is merely about how long it will take us to get there. No, that is not the case. What we need is a European Union that respects the rights both of those who have a legitimate desire, in terms of their own national interest, for closer integration, and of those of us who do not choose to go that way. That has to be argued and negotiated, sometimes on the basis of considerable acrimony.
Mark Pritchard
My right hon. and learned Friend talks about renegotiating and repatriating powers. What powers and what timetable does he envisage?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
As I said, the idea of an à la carte Europe is already partly there, but it should not just be a privilege; it should be a right. What we need, not just for the United Kingdom, but for all the member states, is a European Union where we will not stop France and Germany if they wish to move to closer integration and fiscal union—that ultimately is their business—but nor must they seek to impose a veto on the level of integration that we should have.
There is an irreducible minimum because, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, a member state cannot simply not participate in the single market, but that does involve substantial sharing of sovereignty in a way that a free trade zone does not. That point does not seem to have been acknowledged by many of the critics. If there is, as we have at present, free movement of labour, that is not consistent with a purist view of national sovereignty, but it is crucially in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I have already given way twice. I am sorry, I cannot give way again without losing my own time.
Those are the points of the real debate that we must take forward. It so happens that this is not just a theoretical option. There is a strong possibility that because of the chaos in the eurozone, there will be a need for some treaty change. That will require to be agreed unanimously, and that provides my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary with what is likely to be an excellent opportunity to take that debate forward and to argue that if other countries wish to go further, we wish to consider the question of the kind of European Union we and perhaps other countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Poland would be content with.
On that basis, I say to the House that we cannot constrain the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in the incredibly difficult negotiations that will take place. To have a debate that might lead to a referendum on whether Britain will remain in the European Union or leave it entirely is such a massive distraction from the real concerns that this country and the rest of Europe have to address. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am entitled to my view, just as all my hon. Friends are entitled to theirs.
I am conscious that many Members wish to speak and so will conclude my remarks. There have been other occasions of this kind when people have had fundamental differences of principle. I recently read a quote that struck me as highly relevant to our debate. It was from a politician who belonged not to the Conservative party, but to the Labour party. In 1957, Aneurin Bevan, a great believer in unilateral disarmament, spoke to a Labour party conference that was likely to carry a resolution in favour of unilateral disarmament. He told his own party:
“if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications… you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber...And you call that statesmanship?”
It was good advice then and remains good advice now.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I can think of no other issue where the gap between the political elites and ordinary people in this country is so great. It is not the most important matter the House will ever discuss, but it is the one where that divergence is greatest. This divergence, and the feeling among the population of the country that their views are ignored, breeds and feeds cynicism about politics in general. The most cynical attempt to avoid that popular opinion was used in relation to the constitution that was not a constitution, because if it had been a constitution, it would have to have been put to a referendum. That was a breathtaking piece of cynicism and manipulation. No Member really believes that it was anything other than a means of overcoming the possibility of popular rejection.
It is therefore beholden on us to take seriously the fact that 100,000 voters have signed an e-petition. It was mentioned earlier that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would reject the proposal in a referendum, but I think that such a view is seriously mistaken, because there are probably no more than 100,000 people prepared to own up to being Liberal Democrat voters, so the number of people who signed the petition is greater than the number of Liberal Democrats in this country.
I think that disillusionment on this question has also been spread by the false prospectus the Conservatives gave to the country as they ran into the general election. There was a feeling in this country that a Conservative Government would stand up for Britain much more and take a more robust view on European matters, but the fact is that they have sold the jerseys. The overwhelming majority of people who voted for the Conservatives, believing that they would stand up to Europe, are now disillusioned, which is why every registration of public opinion indicates that there is a substantial drift of voters from the Conservatives to UKIP on this matter. I give the Conservatives the following advice for their own good: if they want to stop that drift to UKIP, they must stand up for what they said they would do during the general election. If they wish to say that they would like to do those things, but the Liberals are holding them back, they should come forward and say it honestly, rather than saying, “It’s actually much more difficult than we thought and we’re up to all sorts of sophisticated things that you are too thick to understand.” That is effectively what they are saying.
I am glad that this is not an in/out referendum, because I must confess that I would not have favoured either option. I am not in favour of voting in the referendum to remain in the EU, because that would be seen as a green light to ever-closer union, and I am not willing to be put in a position where the only alternative is to leave the EU, because I do not support that. I believe, as many of my colleagues on the Labour Benches once believed, that there is a third way—the way of reform. I believe that many of those who oppose the motion are doing so under the banner of reform, but are not actually all that serious about reform. They are committed to ever-closer union, but with a little tinkering.
Therefore, I support the motion because I think that the size of the vote tonight matters as a signal to the country that a substantial number of people are strongly committed to strong renegotiation when compared with those who take the view that it should be business as usual. As for those who say that the time is not yet right, I think that that is a disgraceful argument unless they tell us when the time will be right.
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend was so opposed to the Lisbon treaty that I assumed that he had read it. Can he tell me where there is anything other than one clause that would allow an in/out referendum? There is nothing else in the Lisbon treaty on that?
Mr Davidson
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an extra minute.
I also think that those who argue that this is simply a distraction would never want to discuss it anyway. They argue that it is not the right time or that this is only a distraction, but would they have said otherwise if the motion had been brought forward two weeks ago, or at some other time? I do not think so. They are in fact more interested in being part of the cosy club. This is an important debate, but as I said before, it is not the most important debate the House will ever have, and the EU is not the most important thing we will ever discuss.
Nadine Dorries
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why British people are so engaged on this matter is that, in these difficult economic times, when we are giving £25 million a day to Europe, they want to see not only the repatriation of powers, but the repatriation of some of the money?
Mr Davidson
I agree with that. They would like to see that because what we need to do is move on from the debate we are having today. Whenever I see the three party leaderships lining up together, I think that they must be wrong, and I think that the vast majority of the public take that view as well. At least there is no conspiracy involving the nationalist parties, because they have not bothered to turn up. We do not know what their view is on whether Scotland would be part of an EU that Britain had already left, because that is one of the things they want to fudge and sweep under the carpet.
However, if we want out of the CAP, we ought to be discussing how we can do that? If we want to stop paying so much money to Sicilian gangsters and a variety of other crooks across Europe, how do we manage to do that? If we want to provide genuine bilateral support to those who are much poorer than us in eastern Europe, how do we do it without the middle men cutting chunks out of it? The same concern applies to the third world. How do we ensure that other European countries, individuals and gangs are not siphoning off some of that money? If we want to scrap the common fisheries policy and introduce something better, how do we do that? Those are the sorts of debates we need to have. In my constituency, how can we ensure that local people get local jobs without the EU telling us that they must be advertised Europe-wide? That is what we need to discuss.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
A few months ago the Prime Minister asked me after a debate to write to him about my views on the European Union, so I wrote him a pamphlet called “It’s the EU, stupid.” That was a reference not to him, but to Bill Clinton’s recognition that the economy is at the heart of the issue. In just the same way, I believe fundamentally, as I have set out in the pamphlet—I will quickly encapsulate some of the thoughts it contains—that this is first of all a matter of principle. The referendum issue has been going around since before the Maastricht referendum campaign. I voted yes, as it happens, in 1975, but since then we have seen the accumulation of powers and the broken promises, betrayals and prevarication. The argument is that it is never the right time to deal with these issues, but that is the problem, and the British people feel that they have been betrayed by a failure to deliver on those promises.
Steve Baker
I would have voted yes in 1975, but does my hon. Friend agree that the EU has gone far beyond that which is necessary to guarantee peace and prosperity?
Mr Cash
Yes, indeed, and I will go further: the EU has created a situation in which it actually damages our economy. That is the problem, and that is the reversal of the situation, with massive over-regulation—£8 billion a year, according to the British Chambers of Commerce—over the past 20 years in this country alone.
As I said earlier in my interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, we are running the single market on a deficit that has gone up in the last year alone by as much as £40 billion, so it would be inconceivable for us not to take a rain-check and say, “We cannot just continue with this and pretend that nothing is going on.”
If ever there was a time to tackle the issue in principle, it is now, and that is what the motion is about: whether there is a case for renegotiation or for leaving the European Union. On renegotiation, we must establish the fact in line with the wishes of the people of this country—not because the Whips have said, “You’ve got to do this, that and the other” or, with great respect, because the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary have said so, but because we have a sacred trust, as elected Members of this House, to do what is right, in the interests of the British people as we see it for our constituents, and in the national interest. This is exactly that issue tonight.
The Prime Minister has given two speeches over the past year or so—one was about rebuilding trust in politics, and the other was about a European policy that we can believe in. I strongly recommend that people tonight, tomorrow or at some point read those speeches again and ask themselves, “What is going on in this debate today?” We know that the Whips have been strongly at work, but I had all that over Maastricht, we have had it over the years and it becomes something that we have to get used to. The reality is that we are doing the right thing for the right reason. That is the point.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he not think that, because the debate has been generated by an e-petition, because it has been made possible by the Backbench Business Committee and because it is an issue that does not divide Members along party lines, it is totally wrong for both party leaders to apply the three-line Whip?
Mr Cash
I absolutely agree. In fact, I think that three parties are involved, and the point applies to all of them.
I should like to return to the Prime Minister’s statement today and to test it against what has been going on. He said to us: “Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things,” including, “stopping the passage of further powers to the EU.” The Foreign Secretary, in his article in The Daily Telegraph the day before yesterday, said that he objected to the Lisbon treaty, and he will remember that he, I and many Conservative Members fought, united together, against it line by line—every aspect of it—and fought for a referendum. Yet, we have been watching the implementation of further powers—I do not want to get into the semantics or legal niceties of the word “powers”, because I know them as well as anybody else in the House—and every aspect of that Lisbon treaty day in, day out, and many of the problems that we are now experiencing are a result of its implementation.
The Prime Minister went on to say that we have instituted “a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for…such transfer of powers”, and I have a ten-minute rule Bill on that tomorrow. It would reverse section 4 of the European Union Act 2011, which I opposed on the Floor of the House. I see the Foreign Secretary smiling, because he knows what I am going to say. The real test, as I said to the Prime Minister during his statement, is about fundamental change—constitutional, political and economic. That is the test that needs to be applied, and it was endorsed—by the way—by the Lords Constitution Committee only last year.
Fiscal union, of which I shall explain more tomorrow, is such a fundamental change, but the Government quite deliberately ensured through section 4(4)(b) of the 2011 Act that there would be no referendum when the provision in question applied, in their terms, only to the eurozone and not to us directly. At the very time when we were being told that, however, I and others objected because we felt that such a provision would affect us enormously. We were told that it would not, but now we are told day in, day out how much it does affect us, and that therefore we must not do what we are doing tonight, for the very simple reason that, somehow or other, it will undermine our economic activity with the European Union. That is absolute rubbish. The reason why we are in such difficulties with deficit reduction is that there is no growth, and there is no growth because 50% of all our economic laws come from Europe. It also accounts for 40% of our trade, a point that the Foreign Secretary made, but the fact is that we have a massive trade deficit, as I have already described.
The EU is a failed project. It is an undemocratic project. This vote—this motion—is in the national interest, because it is for democracy, for trust in politics and for the integrity of this House.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I am not sure when the Foreign Secretary has to leave, but he is going to a very important conference, the Commonwealth conference in Australia. Many people in this country believe that the Commonwealth was sold out when we joined the Common Market, and I hope he remembers that by 2050 the 55 members of the Commonwealth will have 38% of the global labour force, while the European Union, with its 27 members, will have only 5%. I hope he goes with that figure in his head to the Commonwealth conference, because then we might actually see much more attention paid to the Commonwealth.
This could have been a wonderful day for Parliament, for democracy and for the new regime—on which the coalition have to be congratulated—of the Backbench Business Committee, with its many keen members. This debate was brought about by a process involving people outside, in the United Kingdom—and let us stop talking about “Britain”, please, because when we do we ignore Northern Ireland, which when it comes to a referendum is going to be very important.
Let us not forget, as many Members have said, that this issue has reached us today not only because of the 100,000 e-petition signatories, but because of the many organisations that have brought together different types of petition and written to people. It is not just about e-petitions.
Millions of people out there are watching what we are doing today, but the three party leaders, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) referred, have it seems almost—I am not sure whether I am allowed to use the word—colluded to ensure that Members do not have a free vote. I am therefore so pleased to hear tonight not just from my own side, but from people on the opposing Benches how many Members are prepared to say, “Party Whips are fine, because of course we are elected from our party, but sometimes the issue is more important than the party.” This issue is more important than the party, and that is why we have so much cross-party involvement in and support for the motion.
Kate Hoey
No, I will not, at this point—and not to you.
A number of points have been made, and I want to make just a few short ones. On the idea that the issue is a distraction, I have to say that the European Union is the thread that runs though every part of every law that we make in this country, and we must recognise that and ask people whether we have gone too far.
The Foreign Secretary talked about repatriation of powers, which I want to see, but, on the threat of a referendum hanging over the Foreign Secretary, we know that the Commission hates referendums, and I remember him arguing—I was on his side—for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, when he stated how much more strength it would give to the elbow of the then Foreign Secretary. We want to repatriate powers, and, if the rest of the European Union knew that the British public were sick, sore and tired of the money being spent on Europe, of the bureaucracy, of the corruption and of all that, they would be much more likely to negotiate the repatriation of them.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the one industry in this country that has suffered for the past 30 years under the European Union is the fishing industry? A referendum would right the wrong that has been done to that industry, and the destruction that it has suffered over the past 30 years.
Kate Hoey
I do not understand why my party, which wants a change in the fishery policy, are not allowing a free vote tonight at the very least, never mind supporting a referendum.
I get a bit fed up on this side of the House—I have said this before—about the way the media paint the matter as always being about Tory splits, attacks on Cameron, Tory diversions, and so on when a huge number of Labour supporters in this country want a referendum. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was rather ill advised to impose a three-line Whip. We need to have this debate out in the open.
What is everyone afraid of? It is ridiculous of those who are not in favour of a referendum to say that this is not the right time, because we all know that we would not have the legislation in place until the end of 2012, or probably 2013. We could not possibly have the necessary White Paper, or the details of what would go into the referendum until 2014, so no one should accept the reason that this is not the right time.
What causes the lack of confidence felt by the leaders of the main parties who are afraid of a referendum? We must choose whether to integrate fully into a pan-European system of government based in Brussels, or to seek a more international future based on trade and co-operation, not just with the EU, but with the rest of the world. It is time to stop being little Europeans; we must be internationalists. We have all had the Whips on our backs over the years. We have all survived, and many of us are still here. Despite what they have said, it is important that right hon. and hon. Members do what they think is right, what is right for their constituents, and what is right for the country.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, and particularly my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who is not in his place, on securing this debate. It is important, and the strength of support behind the online petition shows that people in this country care about it. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Backbench Business Committee.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Some hon. Members have cited the feeling of people in this country. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ipsos MORI conducts regular polling on the most important issues to people and that this month, as in several months, this issue is the 22nd most important, with only 3% of the population believing that it is?
Jake Berry
I am aware of that polling, and that is why I do not support today’s motion.
John Hemming
I understand that the e-petition has only 36,000 signatures, but a paper petition has more than 100,000 signatures.
Jake Berry
In my home town of Liverpool people would be burned for witchcraft for signing anything on the internet. The general petition had 100,000 signatures.
I am constantly told that the EU is not a doorstep issue, but when one scrapes the surface and goes out and talks to people, as I did in my constituency last weekend, one finds immense anger. People in my area regard the EU as remote, undemocratic and, more often than not, working against our national interest, instead of in favour of the UK. There is a perception among the people I speak to out there that Brussels is elite and is ramming through a federalist agenda while mere voters, such as people in this country, are onlookers. On the rare occasions that we have within the EU been given a chance to make our views heard, if we have voted the wrong way, Europe has simply dismissed our views.
Five of the last eight referendums in the EU have been against a proposition. When countries and people—for example, Ireland—vote against a proposition, they are told to vote again until the right result is achieved or, as with the EU constitution, we are told that it has only been fiddled around the edges with a change in only a few words or a couple of paragraphs, or that it has been changed and is only a treaty so there is no right to a referendum. That is why there is so much interest in today’s debate. The hon. Member for Vauxhall made a good point when she said the issue is not party political, or a matter of left or right, or not even Eurosceptics versus Europhiles. There is a huge appetite in this country for a genuine conversation about where our relationship with the EU should go.
That brings me to my views on the motion, which I will not support. It is absolutely right and proper to have this debate, and I am delighted that we are having it. I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that we must have a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with Europe, but we do not live in a bubble, and we must pay attention to the crisis in the eurozone and to politics in our own country. The crisis in the eurozone is like a spark in Pudding lane. If we do not continue to support member states in supporting the euro and in sorting out the Greek problem, the fire will rip through the City of London and our entire economy. A vote today to put in doubt our membership of the EU for up to 18 months would fuel market speculation, fatally wound the eurozone and its economies, and have exactly the same effect here in the UK.
My second reason for opposing the motion is that the mainstream policy, which is supported by my party, to repatriate powers is the right way forward. Now is not the time to tell people that we are taking our bat and ball home. We must fight from within the EU to repatriate powers. There is a coalition behind that point of view beyond this Chamber. The UK Independence party fought the last general election on a policy of withdrawing from the European Union, but it did not win the election. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together won with a mainstream policy of repatriation.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Did UKIP not win more votes in more constituencies than the number by which we did not achieve a majority? My hon. Friend spoke about repatriating powers, but that is not Government policy. We heard the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary refer to their policy, but it is still to be agreed with our coalition partners.
Jake Berry
It is the Government’s policy. We heard the Prime Minister give commitments today on the referendum lock and future treaty negotiations. I and, I hope, my constituents take comfort from the words from the Front Bench. I will not support the motion today, but I am relying on those commitments, and I and my constituents want them to be honoured.
Jake Berry
I am sorry, I do not have time to give way.
Failure to honour commitments on the repatriation of powers and the referendum lock will lead to further erosion of trust in this Government and this Chamber. I hope that the Government will continue to look at repatriating those powers.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Let me be clear: I do not support today’s motion because I believe that it is in Britain’s national interest for us to be involved in the European Union. As has been widely acknowledged by many in this debate and elsewhere, half of Britain’s exports go to the rest of the European Union, and 3.5 million jobs in this country are dependent on our trade with our partners in the European Union. My own constituency is a former mining constituency where manufacturing is now very important. If Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, or even substantially to renegotiate its terms of membership, it would be bad economic news for the people I represent.
Andrew Percy
I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the argument is not about whether we are in or out of Europe but whether we have a referendum. If he is so convinced of his argument, why is he frightened to allow the British people to express their view?
Mr David
I believe that our place is firmly inside the European Union. We had a vote in this country to join the European Union, and I see this as a natural progression.
Several Members have referred to those huge countries, Norway and Switzerland, and said that Britain could have a similar relationship with the European Union. I would make two points about that. First, neither of those countries is a major trading nation, whereas the United Kingdom is.
Mr Redwood
A very large number of jobs in China depend on exporting goods to the European Union. China is not a member of the European Union, so how do those jobs survive?
Mr David
The crucial thing is what happens to the jobs of people in this country. Many of the inward investors who come to this country from the United States of America do so because we are an integral part of the single market. If one puts in question our membership of the single market, one puts in question the economic viability of this country.
Secondly, with regard to Norway and Switzerland, let us not forget that although those countries have a good trading relationship with the European Union, the rules that it applies to them are imposed on them, whereas we are in the single market—an integral part of that market—and have a full say on the rules that apply to everyone.
The real question is not whether we support the European Union but what kind of Europe we want in future. The European Union that I want to see—as, I believe, do most people in this country—is not about uniformity and centralisation but is based on the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are made as close to the people as possible. We want a European Union in which the single market—a single market that works to Britain’s national advantage—is completed. If that is to happen, it is no good our being on the sidelines moaning and groaning; we have to be there, ensuring that the European Union always works to our national benefit.
The European Union should not just be about a single market for business—it should also be a social Europe for people. The social Europe agenda is very important. Unlike the right-wing Eurosceptics, I believe that the European Union should offer something tangible for ordinary working people. Similarly, it is important for us to be concerned about the environment. Who in their right mind, these days, can believe for one moment that individual countries—medium-sized nation states—can successfully tackle the environmental problems that we face? We have to work together with other people, with other countries throughout the world, and, yes, inside the European Union.
It is also important that we address such issues as industrial policy. We must realise that we need to ensure that our small and medium-sized businesses develop over the whole of the European Union and that we need joint policies to ensure that there is maximum benefit.
Sheryll Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he will not let the British people have a say so that they can decide that they want to support the kind of European Union that he seems to support?
Mr David
I respectfully point out that there are such things as election manifestos. The Labour party, for example, has made it clear that this is the kind of Europe we want, and the kind of Europe which, if we are in power before too long, as I think we will be, we want to help to create.
We have heard a lot about money going from the United Kingdom to the European Union. Yes, there is a relatively small membership fee, but we do not hear about the fact that £1 billion of European regional development fund money that has been allocated to the hard-pressed regions of England is not being spent because of Government public expenditure cuts. Hard-pressed regions such as Rotherham, Doncaster, Sheffield, Preston, Scarborough, Barnsley and many others are losing out on European money because of the Government’s ideology. We want to make sure that that money is put to good use. We want to make sure that we have a pragmatic approach to the European Union and do not put blinkered ideology above all else. I am afraid that many people in this debate do precisely that.
Above all, if there is to be economic rehabilitation of this country, it is absolutely imperative that we have a growth strategy not only here in the United Kingdom but in the European Union. Forty per cent. of our trade is with our eurozone partners. One of the great ironies is that our Prime Minister believes in a very strict austerity-based economic policy, so his greatest economic soulmate is Chancellor Merkel. The European Union as a whole, and the eurozone in particular, needs a growth strategy. It is no good having austerity, austerity, austerity; we also need a growth strategy that will create the kind of demand that we need for prosperity for the future.
The real debate that we face in this country is not about whether we are in the European Union or out of the European Union; it is about what kind of Europe we want to see.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The big mistake that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has made is to believe that Euroscepticism is a right-wing phenomenon. I have news for him: Euroscepticism is a growing movement, with people of all persuasions—right, left and middle—getting increasingly fed up with how this country is treated by the European Union. The proof of that is some of the petitions that came to the Backbench Business Committee and that stimulated today’s debate. He is going down a blind alley if he thinks that this is just a right-wing cause.
I have the privilege to represent the residents of the borough of Kettering.
Mark Lazarowicz
The hon. Gentleman says that people are concerned about how they are being treated by the European Union, and that may or may not be so. Does he accept, however, that the European Union is not some distant organisation over which we have no say? We are a powerful member state in the European Union, and we send MEPs, Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers there on our behalf. If we are not getting what we ought to out of the European Union, is not that due as much to how we are represented in Brussels as to anything else?
Mr Hollobone
Many of us would like the European Union to be even more distant than it is. The problem is that its tentacles creep into all aspects of the British way of life. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there are people in this country, from right, left and middle, who think it is outrageous that over the next five years, in this current Parliament, our membership fee will be £41 billion.
Mr Hollobone
I will give way when I have told my hon. Friend that in the previous Parliament the membership fee was £19 billion; it has more than doubled.
Nadine Dorries
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) touched on this point. If the House voted yes tonight, then when our Foreign Secretary, Prime Minister and Chancellor went to negotiate with our European partners, they would take with them the threat of the loss of £45 billion and would perhaps be treated slightly differently in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr Hollobone
I do agree. They could not really treat us much worse.
From my perspective and that of my constituents, whom I have the privilege to represent, the EU is getting its hands on more and more aspects of the British way of life. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) spoke about the effect on this country’s fishing industry, which has been destroyed by our membership of the European Union. Our membership fee has more than doubled. Nine out of every 10 jobs in this country go to foreign migrants, most of whom come from the European Union. These issues are not of concern only to right-wing people; they are of concern to every person in this land.
This debate is exposing an increasing disconnect between our constituents—the residents we struggle to represent—and the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, who have tried to deny debate on this issue. One of the qualities of the Backbench Business Committee is that it chooses subjects for debate in this House that the Government would not otherwise allow. That is why the Backbench Business Committee chose this subject. We would not be having this debate if we had left it up to Her Majesty’s Government.
I have a confession for the House: I do not believe in ever closer union. I think it is wrong in principle and I think the British people do as well. I have another confession for the House: I believe that Britain would be better off out of the European Union altogether. I do not expect a majority in this House to agree with that, but I am privileged to put that on the record on behalf of my constituents in Kettering. I believe that if we were to have a referendum on in or out, most of my constituents would vote to leave because they have had enough.
Martin Horwood
Does the hon. Gentleman think we would be better off without the European arrest warrant, which brought home 145 suspects last year to face criminal charges in this country, and without Europol, which cracked the world’s largest online pornography ring last year?
Mr Hollobone
As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues are forcing this country not to have the right policy on Europe. If he wants to talk to me and other Members about justice issues, why does his party not do the decent thing and let us come out of the European convention on human rights? There are prisoners in this country whom we cannot repatriate to their country of origin because they claim spurious family life issues, which keep them here.
Michael Connarty
I hate to continue the process of lecturing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) did not like, but it is the Council of Europe, not the EU, that set the convention. In 1949, 49 countries came together to bring about human rights for all in Europe.
Mr Hollobone
With the increasing ratchet of the terms and conditions of European Union membership, that is now a condition of membership for new entrants to the club.
John Hemming
I do not agree with ever closer union, but I do believe in remaining in the EU and will oppose the motion.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to do that. Thanks in part to his good offices, we are having this debate about the future of Britain and Europe, which we would not be having without the Backbench Business Committee.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
If so many people in our country want to leave the European Union, why did the only party to advocate such a thing, the UK Independence party, get only 3% of the vote in the last general election?
Mr Hollobone
In my election literature in Kettering and in my campaign speeches and hustings, I made it quite clear that I am in favour of Britain leaving the European Union, and that if there were a referendum I would vote to leave. The majority over Labour in Kettering went up quite substantially as a result. The problem with the European issue at general elections is that there are a lot of other issues to discuss and it gets lost in the noise, in part because of the establishment view on the European Union, which often suppresses public opinion on this issue.
What has most worried me in the course of the past week is the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government. I know that we cannot talk about the amendments that never happened, but one of those amendments called for a White Paper on how this country would repatriate powers from the European Union. Her Majesty’s Government were not even able to support that. Is it any wonder that, on the ConservativeHome website today, a poll suggests that two thirds of Conservative party members do not believe that the Government have any intention of repatriating powers from Europe? I have to say to those on Her Majesty’s Government’s Front Bench tonight, “Shame on you.”
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). He made a point about the European convention on human rights and was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The convention has nothing to do with the European Union and we should not confuse our concepts. The hon. Gentleman also talked about a membership fee. I do not know why he considers our contribution to the European Union to be a fee. The European Union is a political, geographical and economic area, and we play a part in all three aspects. The Foreign Secretary was quite right to say that because of our involvement in the European Union, we have influence with Syria, are able to negotiate with Iran and have greater power.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) has stayed in the Chamber, because he was perfectly right in his short history lesson. He used the eloquent phrase that the European Union, starting with the Common Market, began from “the embers of the second world war”. He was perfectly right about that. He also talked of sovereignty, which keeps popping up in this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) referred to sovereignty shared. When Ted Heath took us into the European Community, he talked of a “pooled sovereignty”. That is as true today as when he said it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also talked about various aspects of the European Union, such as Ireland and Austria being neutral states. The essence of the European Union is unity in diversity. We may have different views and perspectives, but we are united in that economic, political and geographical space.
We have talked about trade and the single market. The Conservative party is a party of trade and of the single market. The Prime Minister mentioned saying in his discussions on Sunday that the single market would always stay with the 27 member states. He was perfectly right to say that.
I have to take issue with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is no longer in his place—that is not his fault because he sat here for long enough. When I heard his arguments about the deficit and Europe, I wondered what he was talking about. Does he want a McKinley tariff wall? Does he want to stop people buying Volkswagens, Audis, Fords made in Germany, or iPads, which are made not in America but in China? What does he want in a free-trade area, where there is the free movement of goods and people? How can we go back to the era of tariff walls?
Sir Stuart Bell
The hon. Gentleman can sit down because I am not giving way to him.
Teesside is the third largest port in our country. We face out to Europe and we export to Europe. The point has been made many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), that 50% of our exports go to Europe. Why did Nissan come to Sunderland? It is because it has the Tees and so can export to Europe. Many years ago, I heard Hilary Marquand say that in Europe we take in each others’ washing. That is perfectly true. We trade among ourselves and that trade is a rising tide that, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, “lifts all boats”.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) touched on a significant point, which I put to the Prime Minister. He mentioned that the 17 eurozone members at the weekend elected their own president, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The 17 members of the European Union that are in the eurozone will have their own meetings, outwith the 27 countries of which we are a member. Mr Van Rompuy said:
“Rest assured that we will narrowly and closely inform all the preparation of the summits we shall have in the eurozone, and we shall advise of the results.”
As I said carefully in my question to the Prime Minister, Mr Van Rompuy will have Germany on one side and France on the other, so where will we be? We have opted for a two-tier Europe and we have opted out. I am sure that the Prime Minister will do all that he can—
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
This is an important debate. In a sense, I commend the 100,000 people who brought it about for bringing these issues into the open, not least because it has allowed Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) to find their eloquent, pro-European voices. Many of us are perhaps guilty of having let the Eurosceptics dominate this area for far too long.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I think that the 100,000 people who signed the e-petition would like an answer to a very simple question: the Liberal Democrats promised an in or out referendum, so why are they not supporting one tonight?
Martin Horwood
The hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated my next sentence. There has been a lot of talk about manifestos in this debate, so I will tell the House exactly what the Liberal Democrat manifesto said. It stated:
“Liberal Democrats…remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”
We support that now, we supported it at the general election and we supported it at the time of the Lisbon treaty, when such a fundamental change was actually being discussed. What is more, we put the matter to a vote of the House at that time, and many hon. Members who are now rising in criticism voted against it, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and, actually, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who succinctly asked earlier, “If not now, when?” Well, the answer was then, and I am afraid he missed the chance.
Mr Jenkin
I recall that debate about referendums at the time of the Lisbon treaty. One got the impression that the Liberal Democrats wanted to say they were in favour of a referendum but not vote for the amendment that might actually create one. It was a cynical manoeuvre and just the kind of thing that has brought the House into disrepute with the British people.
Martin Horwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I have with me the list of how Members voted on our proposal for an in/out referendum at the time when we said it was appropriate, and I do not think his name is on the list of the Ayes. A few Labour Members did break ranks, however.
Martin Horwood
I am sorry, I will not give way again, otherwise I will be out of time.
May I also remind some Conservative Members of what was promised in their own manifesto? It promised that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power or competences would be subject to a referendum lock. Of course, they actually got that in the European Union Act 2011, which we all voted for only a matter of weeks ago.
Martin Horwood
No, I will not, I am sorry.
Let us look at some of the options on offer in the motion. We have the renegotiation option, which, frankly, is a fiction. What kind of negotiation would take place if we actually tried to do that? What price would Monsieur Sarkozy or Frau Merkel extract in those negotiations for the disruption and risk that would be posed to the working of the Union? Why would the renegotiation succeed if the other 26 member states did not support it, and why would they support it if the only issue of debate was Britain’s terms of membership? That is why it is such a nonsense to extract renegotiation from any other fundamental shift in relationships that would be happening at the time.
Martin Horwood
I am sorry, I have taken my two interventions.
What I believe all factions of Eurosceptics are really calling for in this debate is withdrawal. That is what they really believe in, let us be honest about it. They perhaps want membership of the European economic area, maybe without the complexities of European Councils or the political complexities of the European Parliament, and I assume without complexities such as the border controls of the Schengen agreement. Let me tell them that there is good news for them. There is one very beautiful country that has achieved that exalted status. One country is a beacon for the Eurosceptics. One country is a member of the European economic area but not of the European Union or Schengen. It is Liechtenstein. That is the level of influence that the Eurosceptics are demanding for this country. They would give up our influence on the European market and our influence as a member of the EU on negotiations from climate change to world trade. They would condemn us to the sidelines of Europe and do profound damage to the interests of this country.
I am old enough to remember a Europe where military, communist and fascist dictatorships outnumbered democracies. One of the greatest achievements of the European Union is that we have between us—27 sovereign states and 500 million people—created a peaceful, democratic federation of which we, as Britons and as Europeans, should be profoundly proud. I am very proud of that. I believe that this is the wrong motion at the wrong time, calling for a referendum that would not work and that would do profound damage to Britain’s national interests, and I think we should throw it out tonight.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please resume your seats. We have had 23 speakers so far, and considerably more Members than that still wish to come into the debate. To accommodate as many as we possibly can, the time limit is being reduced to four minutes, still with injury time for two interventions.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I want to address the politics of this question, and in doing so pose the question why this issue, above all issues, has a sulphurous effect on our politics. I also wish to thank Ministers for getting us off the hook tonight by imposing a three-line Whip, which disguises the changing politics in the House since I have been a Member and signals that we need to rethink our position.
Why does Europe have such an evil, sulphurous influence on our politics? I am not nearly as hopeful as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who thinks that we are all sailing into the sunshine. Given the stresses caused by the stupidity of a single currency, I worry about what will happen to democracies in mainland Europe as countries’ living standards are forced down in an attempt to make their budgets balance.
The real reason why Europe has such a sulphurous impact on our politics is that, as we now know from the records, there has been an exercise in deceit from the word go. We know that Ted Heath, in presenting it to the British people as merely a common market, was signing up to the political project that we see now. We need not just dwell on the origins of the problem, because in the previous Parliament my party’s Government said that they would offer a referendum on the constitution. Of course, what we did not notice was that they were going to decide whether it was a constitution, and they decided that it was not. They said that they would have a referendum on it, but then said, “Oh, it’s rather too late now for the people to have such a vote.” Over the years, there has been a growth in cynicism among the electorate about whether we as parliamentarians are ever going to deal seriously with the issue, and that is what we ought to address tonight.
Mr Graham Stuart
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very fair-minded, so I put it to him that there is a massive difference between the Labour Government’s promise on the constitution/Lisbon treaty and the Conservative party’s leadership saying, once the cheque had been cashed and the treaty ratified, that holding a referendum on it was pointless. It was not a betrayal, it was recognition of the betrayal carried out by the Labour party.
Mr Field
I disagree with that. Part of the reason for rearranging our procedures in the House and giving the Backbench Business Committee more power was to try to strike a new relationship with the electorate. What has happened? We are now having a debate that the Government presumably did not want us to have, and they are railroading their Members into supporting them with a three-line Whip. The same is happening on our side of the House.
The truth is that the Government have scored an own goal. The second big change in the House in the years I have been here, along with the cancerous effect of Europe on our democracy in this country, is that the Conservative party has changed radically. People watching the debate tonight need only look at the number of Conservative Members who wish to participate and the number of Labour Members who wish to participate. When I first came here, if someone raised the issue of Europe regularly they were cast as being slightly bonkers or very bonkers. Now we see that the Conservative party has genuinely changed on the issue. Thanks to the Government’s ham-fisted approach in imposing a three-line Whip, the country will not see how significant that change has been and how in tune the Conservative party now is with both Conservative and Labour voters in the country.
I make a plea to Members on my own side of the House. We are getting it wrong on the issue of the representation of England and appear to be a party controlled by our Scottish colleagues. Increasingly, the question will be how England is represented in this Parliament, and so far we are on the wrong side of that debate. Again tonight, by trying to force Members into the Lobby in support of the Government stance, we are in danger of alienating many Labour voters.
When I first stood for election, the turnout was 85%. Last time, it was 60%. How have we managed to turn off 25% of the electorate? It comes down to our conduct as politicians. We were going to make a small move by having debates that we, Back Benchers, could control, but the Government decided it would be better to clobber us with—
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who has long made measured contributions to such debates, but I want to draw attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway), who is not in the Chamber. He made the speech of the night so far by bringing his integrity and judgment to the fore at the expense of his political office in the Government. The House should respect him especially for that.
The fact is that this debate is beginning to show a pattern. Members who reflect the widely held public sentiment that our relationship with the European Union is not quite right and that something needs to change are all in favour of a referendum, whether that means a modest renegotiation or, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) says, leaving the EU altogether. Members who have spoken against the motion are determined to keep the relationship the same, at least for the time being.
I fully respect my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who says that he wants to repatriate powers, but as with St Augustine and chastity, he wants repatriation, but not yet. We know that public opinion overwhelmingly shows a strong sentiment for a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU. Unfortunately and sadly for the House, on an occasion when we could reflect our voters’ genuine concerns on this vexed subject, which has riven politics and both parties over many years, we will vote perhaps 4:1 against what we know most of our constituents would prefer.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that although the country is undoubtedly interested in all matters EU, it is probably more interested in issues such as growth and jobs? Does he also accept that a referendum at this time would simply create uncertainty, which would hardly be conducive to attracting the foreign investors that we need to help with growth and jobs?
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, but this issue has come to the fore because it is about not only democracy and consent, but growth and jobs. If the coalition came into being for anything, it was for the deficit reduction programme. That is its raison d’être. It might not have escaped her notice that that programme is in trouble, because the economy is not growing. There are many reasons for that—the US, the crisis in the eurozone, and our country’s indebtedness and excessive taxation—but one fundamental reason is that we are overburdened with European regulation. That is why a majority of businessmen in this country now say that the advantages of the single market are outweighed by the disadvantages.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament and watched powers transferred from Westminster to Brussels, making business more expensive and introducing more regulation. If we want to free up our economy and move forward, we need substantially to renegotiate. The motion gives us a chance to send that message to the Government and to strengthen Ministers’ hands when they go to Europe to do so.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.
We know from experience that we cannot rely even on the assurances given to us by our European partners. In 1992, we thought we had opted out of what was then called the social chapter. We thought that would protect us from the working time directive, but by the end of that Parliament the EU had circumvented the opt-out in typical fashion: it used a different treaty base to force the directive on to our statute book, against the wishes of our Parliament, by making it a health and safety programme.
The same thing is happening with the agency workers directive, which the Government have bitterly opposed because they know that it will price more young people out of the labour market. We now have above-average youth unemployment in this country when it used to be below-average.
Mr Jenkin
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way twice.
The same thing is happening in the regulation of the City of London. If there is one thing that we should never have agreed to in principle, it is that the European Union and Michel Barnier should take over the regulation of the City—our biggest single tax generator. That was driven by a misplaced notion that Bonn, Frankfurt, Paris and the City should be given equal status as global financial centres. That would be disastrous for the City.
We should oppose the Tobin tax on principle, because at the end of the day, it is another tax that takes money out of the pockets of ordinary people, but you wait, Mr Deputy Speaker, the financial transactions tax proposed by the EU will be forced through on some spurious treaty basis.
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) agrees that that will be forced through on a spurious basis to cover the City. To coin a phrase, we can’t go on like this. Now that the EU is moving into a phase in which huge decisions, such as the decisions of the 17 on fiscal union, are being taken without the requirement of a British signatory on any treaty, we are losing the veto, which was the foundation of our EU membership and which made it acceptable.
Therefore, it is now time to renegotiate. It is urgent for our economy. If we need a referendum to force the Government’s hand, that is what I will vote for.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
About halfway through this evening’s debate, it might be helpful to remind the House that the motion states:
“That this House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum”.
Do hon. Members remember national referendums? All three parties promised one in their 2005 election manifestos, and each came up with its unique way of reneging. The motion states that the referendum should be
“on whether the United Kingdom should
(a) remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
(b) leave the European Union; or
(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.”
I must confess that when I first read that, I thought it would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to disagree with a single word of it, whether they were for or against the EU.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On the subject of reneging on promises, is not the crux of the matter this: if we live in a democracy, the people should have a voice?
Ms Stuart
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, whatever people think about referendums—whether they think they are good or bad—the political parties on both sides of the House have started to promise them, but once in government, they come up with incredibly ingenious ways of changing their minds.
I recommend that the one third of hon. Members who were not here in 2008 watch the Foreign Secretary’s speech on Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—the Foreign Secretary mentioned that it is on YouTube. It was a brilliant speech. It was so funny I even bought a copy. It is quite interesting to see why he has changed his mind. For an illustration of a 180° turn, watch that speech.
European Union debates become kitchen sink debates. Rather than put arguments on the substance of the debate, hon. Members put arguments for or against. For the Lib Dems, returning one criminal to the UK becomes the reason why we need an EU-wide arrest warrant and criminal justice system; on the other hand, the EU is bad because one old lady is run over in a constituency in the north-east because of the working time directive.
Let us for a moment forget about that and talk about the nature of democracy and the nature of democracy in the House. For better or worse, the House has decided that it should become a far more participatory democracy. We have said that we will ask the people much more and have such things as e-petitions. If we are to have e-petitions, we had better start taking them seriously. We cannot say, “Some are more frivolous than others. If they suit us, we’ll take them on board; and if they don’t, we’ll knock them on the head,” because they are all serious.
The introduction of the Backbench Business Committee was good for democracy in the House, but there are things that we cannot do—the Prime Minister’s statement, which was one of the weakest I have ever heard from a Prime Minister returning from a European Council, showed the weakness of the changes made. We no longer have pre-European Council debates, whereas previously we would have had a day to discuss it; the Foreign Affairs Committee, as I understand it, no longer visits one of the troika countries during the six-month period of a presidency; and we have no specific debates on the EU, and whenever anybody wants to discuss it, we write them off as narrow-minded little Englanders who just want to get out, but it might be that they do not like the current arrangements or that they want someone to make the case for them.
It is presumptuous of the House to think that it knows what the people would say. We should not take for granted what the people would say. Even if I were to accept the Government’s argument that now is not the time, what is the case against having a referendum at the same time as the EU elections in 2014? I assume that for once—it has not happened since I have been around—we would have a European election during which we actually talked about Europe. We could have a referendum on such an occasion. In the name of democracy and having trust in the people, which we all say that we do, we should vote for the motion tonight, because if politicians do not trust the people, why on earth should the people trust the politicians?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
There have been many powerful speeches already rightly saying that this debate is about democracy. Democracy is fundamental to the House—the mother of Parliaments, an example to the world—which has been through a bad time. It has been humbled by its failure to listen carefully enough to the people and because too many powers of self-government have been needlessly given away to Brussels. The people not only want us to listen, to have this great debate and to have a free vote to express their opinions and views, but would like to feel that the people in this House, charged with the duty of governing, have the power to govern. They believe that the Government should come here and answer to us and that we, from both sides of the House, should hold them to account. If they do a good job, the public reward them in a general election, and if they do a bad job, they sack them. However, what we now see happening, because there is too much unaccountable European power, is the breakdown of the fabric of consent that is fundamental to a democracy.
If hon. Members were to go to Greece today, they would see what happens when that consent starts to break down. Rich Greeks now think that their Government have no right to tax them because they are on autopilot from Europe and they do not like what it is doing, and poor Greeks think that the Government have no right to remove some of their benefits because they think, again, that they are on autopilot from Brussels. In Portugal, Ireland or Slovakia, we see that the European mess can change Governments—regardless, almost, of what the people think—but that when the people put in a new Government, it makes absolutely no difference to the policy that the country is following, because it is all on autopilot and has been preordained by the IMF, the bankers and, above all, the EU bureaucrats and assembled member states.
We need to ensure that we—those of us with a heart and a conscience—send a loud message to our constituents tonight that we are democrats, that we think that the public were right to demand this debate, that we admire the Prime Minister for making it possible through the petition system and that we would like the Whips to withdraw so that a proper expression of opinion can be given. We want our Government to understand that if too many powers are taken away, we will no longer have the authority or opportunity to govern. Already, we have to say too often to our constituents, “I cannot help you with that because it is a European directive. I cannot assist you with this because it is an unaccountable European programme.” We can no longer change the law in the way that we wish because it is preordained by some Brussels decision.
This House was great when every law that applied to the British people was fought over in this Chamber and in Committee and satisfied the needs of the majority. This House was great when the public knew that when they had had enough of rotten Government, they could change not just the people, but the policies they were following. This House was great when it had full control of all our money and did not have to give away tariffs and taxes to foreign powers to spend in ways of which we do not approve. We need to wake up. We need to do what the British people want us to do. We need to take responsibility for governing this country. We need to enact the laws. We need to debate and argue about it in here. Brussels has too much power. The British people need a say. Let us have a vote.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I shall be voting for the motion tonight because I do not want to be part of what has become a three-party conspiracy against the people. It is an abomination of democracy that the three parties, all of which have promised referendums and then denied the people those referendums and which are now forcing us to vote against a referendum, decided to impose three-line Whips on their followers to vote for Europe. It is behaving like Europeans. The EU is the construction of an EU elite that does not listen to the people: it knows where it wants to go, and it is not bothered what the people think. We cannot have that attitude in this country.
We have to show the people that they can have a referendum. When we had a referendum 36 years ago, people voted for a very different institution—for a trading relationship—but it has now become a European monolith with ever-increasing powers. It is moving towards ever closer union and is claiming to control economic policy as well. It is a very different institution and far more expensive. Budget contributions are £7 billion net a year, rising to £10 billion fairly soon. The CAP costs us £16.7 billion while the common fisheries policy costs us £4.7 billion. The British people must have a say on whether they want to make those excessive contributions. Why should the three parties be denying them?
It would have been sensible for all three parties to agree to give us a free vote so that we could hear the sensible, clear, un-Whipped decision of Parliament. That might well have been in favour of a referendum, but I do not know. It would also have been sensible for the Government to have had a referendum in reserve because it would have strengthened their position in the negotiations with Europe that the Foreign Secretary told us were to come, but they avoided that. I cannot tell how this euro crisis, which is bedevilling us all, will work out—nor can the Prime Minister for that matter—but I question whether it is in our interest to keep the euro going. It would be more sensible for Greece to devalue and come out, and perhaps for some of the other Club Med states to do the same, because it would allow them to expand and grow, whereas at present they face 10 years of deflation. That would also put up the exchange rate of the German—or northern—euro, so that it would become less competitive and take a smaller share of our markets. That would be a logical outcome.
We are going to struggle to use the big bazooka, as the Prime Minister put it, to keep Humpty Dumpty together—I am not sure how we would do that—but we have to bear it in mind that the people of Europe also want referendums. There are a series of policy studies based on the 2009 referendum showing that in Europe, 63% of people—from a sample of 27,000—wanted any future decisions to be taken by a referendum. This has been an interesting debate. It has been interesting how little praise for Europe there has been. It was interesting, too, that the Foreign Secretary defended Europe by praising with faint damns and turned down the weapon that the House was offering. I hope that we have tonight a big vote in favour of the motion. It would send a signal to Europe of what the people of this country think—not the elite, but the people—and would send a signal to the people that they can trust us and that we have their interests at heart.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I, for one, shall be supporting tonight’s motion for one simple but important reason: the very nature of our relationship with the EU has fundamentally changed since we joined it in 1975, yet the British people have not been consulted on that change. Instead, they have consistently been denied a say. Perhaps tonight, we have an opportunity to put that right.
It is a great shame that all three political leaders are whipping this vote in the way that they are. Some of the arguments that have been used to try to defeat the motion are illustrative. There has been no shortage of red herrings and Aunt Sallies as to why we cannot have a referendum on our future relationship with the EU. The first is about economics. A long line of speakers have talked about how important Europe is to us economically and how things would get so much worse if we left the EU. However, the debate on the motion is not about that; it is about whether we give the British people a say about the nature of our relationship with the EU. That argument is therefore a red herring. Indeed, the fact that our balance of trade with Europe is negative weakens it even further.
We have had the red herring about timings: “This is not the right time.” However, I cannot remember when, in the last 36 years, it has been the right time. We have consistently been told, “This is not the right time.” I would turn that on its head and say that, with Europe in a state of flux, this might be a good time to renegotiate our relationship. I find it strange that, once again, the line is: “This is not a very good time.”
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the right time to have a referendum was on the Lisbon treaty, which was in all three parties’ 2005 manifestos? Frankly, I would have enjoyed campaigning for a no vote to that treaty, rather than watching the previous Prime Minister surreptitiously go down to Lisbon and sign it virtually in secret.
Mr Baron
I am sure that the majority in the House can agree with that view.
Let us look at some of the other red herrings that have been discussed this evening. There is the argument that if the motion was passed and we had a referendum, that would somehow weaken the Foreign Secretary’s hand. I completely disagree with that. A Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister going to negotiate would be emboldened by knowing that the voice of the British people had indicated the direction of travel and how they wanted the relationship to progress.
Then we have had the argument that says, “Why bother with the motion? We’ve already got an à la carte Europe”—that is, people are already opting in and out of this and that, and so on. However, that argument does not stand up either, for the simple reason that what is happening, under the very noses of the British people, is that our sovereignty is being salami-sliced, week in, week out. We may talk about a referendum lock on future treaty changes, but to a certain extent that is tilting at windmills, for the simple reason that there is no treaty on the horizon; rather, what is happening, week in, week out, is that key competences and powers are being transferred over to Brussels. One example is in criminal justice, with the European investigation order.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
That is a valuable point. Is it not the case that legislation regularly comes forward within the extensive competences that the European Union already enjoys? The European Union is occupying ground and legislating in matters that should be the preserve of this House.
Mr Baron
Absolutely, and my hon. Friend is well placed to see that for himself, sitting as he does on the European Scrutiny Committee. Key competences and powers are transferred across to Brussels almost daily, yet the political leaders in this place seem not to recognise that fact.
The political elites across Europe—not just here—should understand the growing frustration with the current situation. We joined what was essentially a free trade area; it has turned more and more into political union. People do not like that. They want to be consulted, but they will be denied that freedom of choice if Members in this Chamber defeat the motion this evening. That, in my view, has to be wrong.
The time to put it right is now. This is the motion that some of us have long believed is right and that was going to happen, but because of U-turns and deliberations by party leaders we have been denied this say. The political elite need to understand that at the end of the day they must answer to their electorate. They cannot justify ignoring the electorate when there has been so much fundamental change in our relationship with the EU. I would urge hon. Members—particularly those who may still be undecided—to support the motion this evening, if only in the name of democracy.
Mr MacShane
In the spirit of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), tonight I shall vote for parliamentary democracy and against plebiscites, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the same.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is amazing how united the Conservative party has been so far today. We had a Eurosceptic statement from the Prime Minister and then a Eurosceptic speech from the Foreign Secretary, so it can only be the Liberal Democrats who are inveigling us down the path of unrighteousness and taking us away from supporting the motion. The Foreign Secretary made six points that must have been written for him by the Liberal Democrats, because he is far too clever a man to have thought of them for himself, because they do not really add up. I shall go through them.
The Foreign Secretary made two points that were essentially trivial—too trivial for a man of his standing. They were, first, that there was no manifesto commitment for a referendum. However, manifestos can deal only with what is known at the time; they cannot deal with things that have not yet arisen. The crisis in the eurozone and the changes that could come from it were not known with clarity at that point, so it is now right to think beyond the manifesto to what the next steps are. That point can therefore be discarded.
The Foreign Secretary then said that we had passed an Act of Parliament to deal with when we could have referendums, and so we did; but again, this House knows many things, but it is not omniscient. It cannot take care of every occasion that may arise when a referendum may be a good idea or every occasion when the British people—whom we should trust—may want one. So, those two points go.
The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable.
Martin Horwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and we always enjoy his speeches, but will he clear up some confusion about the proposed three-way referendum? Will it use the alternative vote system or first past the post? The motion is not entirely clear.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an extra minute—it is kind of Gloucestershire to give something to Somerset for once. That issue can be dealt with in the legislation. Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.
The fourth point that did not work was that the EU was all or nothing. However, it is already not all or nothing: we already have opt-outs and so forth. There are therefore two remaining points—as those who are good mathematicians will have worked out—that we need to look at. One was that we are dealing with this issue in a crisis and this is therefore the wrong time: “When a man’s house is burning down, you send in the fire brigade.” Quite right. But then, when he wants to hire someone else’s house nearby to find fresh accommodation, they can set the terms of the tenancy. That is the position that we are in with the European Union—a very strong negotiating position, which we should maximise.
We should also note that we cannot solve our financial crisis until we have freed ourselves from the yoke of European regulation. Only this weekend, we have seen that Tesco is going to take on fewer part-time people because of a directive from Brussels. Are we really going to deny our citizens growth because Brussels wants to put a further yoke on them?
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Is my hon. Friend aware that one of Tesco’s most profitable areas is the part of eastern Europe that is in the European Union?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Tesco, great company that it is, is also very popular in Thailand, whose application for membership of the European Union I am currently unaware of.
The Foreign Secretary made a final point that we would lose opportunities by going for a referendum now. Well, of course we would not; we would gain them. We are negotiating on the budget for the next few years on the basis of an absolute majority and a one-vote veto. This is not the intermediate budget. Our position is quite strong.
As I see it, we have a wonderfully united Conservative party, upset by the Liberal Democrats. I admire the Liberal Democrats. They are good, honest people, but, when push comes to shove, getting a proper relationship with the European Union is more important than the coalition. If the Liberal Democrats want to go into a general election saying, “Let’s have more rules from Brussels and from Mr Barroso”, let them try it. We shall see how many seats they win on that basis. It is for us Back Benchers to say to Her Majesty’s Government: “Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.”
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
When I made my maiden speech, Ann Widdecombe had spoken just before me and she got a cheer. At the time, I said to myself, under my breath, “Follow that!” I am afraid that I shall have to do the same thing now.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned red herrings several times. I am afraid that there are rather too few herrings around our shores on account of the common fisheries policy. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the motion tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), and I congratulate him on bringing it forward. I shall certainly be voting for it this evening.
It is abundantly clear that the call for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union now has mass support across the country. A recent YouGov poll showed that 61% were in favour, with only 24% against. Among Labour supporters, 53% are in favour of a referendum, with 33% against. I hope that, together with other comrades, I speak for that 53% majority of Labour voters.
There is no mystery as to why our political leaders are so opposed to holding a referendum. It is clear that they fear doing so because our electorate might vote for Britain to withdraw from the EU. If that happened, I suspect that there might be a domino effect across the whole European Union. I am, however, mystified as to why our leaders are so frightened of such an outcome.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
No one can really know what will happen in a referendum. In 1975, the public seemed to be against the EU, but they voted by 2:1 to join. None of us really knows how public opinion will fall in a referendum.
Kelvin Hopkins
I entirely accept that point, but I believe that the British people have become wiser about this matter since 1975. At that time, every single organ of the media was in favour of a yes vote; a no vote had no support in the media at all.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was the agent for the no vote in Bedfordshire in 1975, so I have a track record.
Is our political class frightened that, if the British people voted to leave the European Union, we would no longer be a member of the common fisheries policy? Are they frightened that we might regain control of our fishing waters, stop the fishing free-for-all and see our fish stocks recover? Is it frightened that we would no longer have to subscribe to the common agricultural policy, and that we could instead choose to subsidise our farming, as and when, and where, we considered it appropriate and necessary? Is it frightened that we would no longer have to contribute to the European Union budget, at a cost of many billions a year, and rising? I cannot for the life of me see why such developments are so frightening.
There is also the old chestnut about Britain’s economic dependence on the EU, and the number of jobs that people say could be lost. We have heard a great deal about that tonight. The reality is that we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. In 2010, we bought £53.5 billion more from the rest of the EU than they bought from us. It is laughable that the EU could start a trade war with the UK, when it needs us so much more than we need it.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend feel comfortable being bracketed with those such as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who want to take away the rights of workers and recalibrate arrangements more towards employers?
Kelvin Hopkins
I want this Parliament, not Brussels, to decide our employment laws. I have every confidence that the British people will vote in a Labour Government next time, to restore powers to trade unions and to working people. That is what I shall always fight for.
If we were to leave the EU, we should also find ourselves not bound by EU competition rules, so that we could, for example—and uninhibited by Brussels—buy trains from Bombardier, rather than from continental producers. We could also stop EU rules being used to promote the privatisation of the NHS. So what is there to fear? Rather, I think that there would be great advantages to being independent of the EU, and I have not heard a compelling argument to the contrary. I am going to vote for the motion tonight. This is the beginning of a long campaign, and I look forward to its successful end.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to support the motion tonight. The House will know that I am not a “usual suspect”. Loyalty to the Conservative party runs through my veins, having been a member for 26 years. Those on the Front Bench will know that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) had his problems with grammar schools in 2007, I supported him. I also stood shoulder to shoulder with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) in 2001 when he was performing his historic role of saving our currency from the single currency that was being foisted on our country. He was traduced, lied about, ridiculed and attacked, and that was just by people in our own party. He was vindicated, however, and we have yet to hear a substantive apology from many of the people who advocated joining the single currency.
It is more in sorrow than in anger that I vote for the motion tonight, because I support the Government and the fantastic work that they are doing on schools reform, on welfare reform and on getting down the appalling deficit left by the previous Labour Government. So I need no lectures on loyalty from some people. I defer to the Foreign Secretary, but I regret the unfortunate rhetoric that he used this morning about parliamentary graffiti. If I may be cynical, I fear that it has been a long road to Damascus from Richmond, Yorkshire, but I hope that I am wrong about that.
I say to my colleagues that we can have a proper, mature debate on the future. This is not like the theological, semi-religious schisms of the 1990s. There is a settled Eurosceptic consensus in our party, and we now need to think about where we are going and how we are going to get there. The motion is helpful. It would have given the Prime Minister the wind behind his back. It is flexible, and it does not seek to fetter discretion. It is most certainly not a “better off out” motion. We could have had a well-informed, reasonable debate between the respective positions.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful, personal statement to the House on his position on the motion. Does he agree that the public want to see less Europe and more Britain, and that the only way to achieve that is through supporting the motion and giving the British public a democratic vote on our future relationship with the EU?
Mr Jackson
I could not have put it better myself.
Hon. Members have made the point that a person has to be over 54 years of age to have had the opportunity to take part in a plebiscite on our future in Europe. If we can have a referendum on fiscal powers for Wales, on the north-east Assembly, on Scotland, Northern Ireland, Greater London government and other issues, why can we not have one on one of the most important philosophical differences about our approach to the European Union in a whole generation? It is not right.
Nadine Dorries
We have heard many Members say this evening that now is not the right time. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disingenuous argument because this motion does not impose a referendum now, but at some time in the future. Those hon. Members who say that now is not the right time are, as I say, being incredibly disingenuous about the motion.
Mr Jackson
Absolutely; I agree with my hon. Friend. When is the right time? Net contributions of £9 billion are not loose change in our politics. We are on the cusp of a potentially new, more deeply integrationist treaty and an irreversible hard EU monetary union with profound ramifications for the future of this country, particularly for the City of London.
I have to say to the Foreign Secretary, who is now on his flight to Canberra, that he once described the euro as
“a burning building with no exits”,
but he seems happy now to provide new mortice locks for the windows and the doors.
The House of Commons should be allowed a free vote and an unfettered debate on this issue. The Government have no mandate to whip the vote as they have this evening. No one has a mandate since all the parties effectively reneged on the Lisbon treaty prior to the last general election. I have to say, as a former Whip, that this has been a catastrophic mismanagement for my party. We should have been able to show to our people that we were mature and that although we had logical differences, we would respect each other so that the integrity of Parliament would have been improved as a result. Instead, we have had the heavy-handed whipping that we have seen tonight.
We can no longer exclude the people of this country—in the era of Twitter, Facebook and the internet—from the decision-making processes. We cannot infantilise them and make them look foolish as if only we, with the political elite and the plutocratic, bureaucratic elite of Europe, know what we are doing and they are too stupid to understand because they are the little people. It will not do any longer. The people’s voice will be heard.
I gave my maiden speech in June 2005. I said then that
“all political power is merely a leasehold held on trust and…it can be removed at any time. The people of Peterborough put their trust in me…I promised not to let them down”.—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1078.]
It is a leasehold; we cannot sell the freehold of our birthright, our democracy and the freedom of our country.
I have no intention of breaking the bond of trust I made with my constituents in Peterborough. If we cannot debate the biggest constitutional issue of our generation here in the very cockpit of democracy in the House of Commons, why are we here? That would make manifestos a sham and elections meaningless. For me, constituency and country must come before the baubles of ministerial office. I will keep that faith with my constituents and, with a heavy heart, I will vote for the motion and take the consequences.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
My starting point is that there are good democratic reasons for those in favour of our continued membership of the EU, albeit a reformed EU, to support a referendum. I believe that it is precisely the refusal to give people a say on the EU that is leading to greater public disillusionment with it. It is precisely that that leads people to think that the EU is an elitist project which is done to them and which is not in the interests of the majority. I do not agree with that position, but I think it right that it should be debated.
I believe that the EU has enormous potential to spread peace, freedom and security, to promote and protect democracy and human rights—at home and throughout the world. It has the potential to be a true pioneer in the transition to low-carbon economies and living more rightly on the planet. I believe that to fulfil that potential, however, it has to change direction and put greater democracy and greater sustainability at the heart of its objectives. I think having a referendum would enable us to debate the end-goal or purpose of the EU. At the moment we have lots of debates about whether we want more or less EU without answering the question, “To what purpose the EU?”
For many Conservative Members, the answer will be that they want the EU, if they want it at all, to have far more of a free trade focus. For my party, we think it has too much of a free trade focus, but that is not the issue. The issue here is the right of the people to say what they want, the right to have that debate and the right for us to differ, as necessary, but none the less to have that debate about the advantages and, indeed, some disadvantages of the EU.
In my experience, many of today’s European citizens are simply no longer sure what the EU is for. In my view, the ambitious free trade project at the heart of its original treatise has become an end in itself. Debates about the future of the EU have been dominated by the idea that the overriding goals of European integration are economic and that the progress of the EU should be judged in terms of economic growth and the removal of market barriers alone. As a result, the EU has failed to address fundamental questions of political culture and strategic purpose and has therefore also failed to inspire the mass of citizens with a sense of enthusiasm and common cause, thus calling into question its own legitimacy.
In order to tackle the new threats and challenges we face today and to deliver a fair, sustainable and peaceful Europe into the 21st century and beyond, the EU must undergo radical reform. It must become more democratic and accountable, less bureaucratic and remote. It also needs to have a more compelling vision of its role and purpose, and a referendum would provide an opportunity to debate precisely those issues. To try to shut down that opportunity is, I think, very dangerous. It is possible to be pro a reformed EU and in favour of a referendum.
I agree that there are plenty of areas where the EU needs reform. The common agricultural policy is in many respects an environmental disaster. The common fisheries policy ends up with enormous over-fishing and the scandal of discards. Unaccountable corporate influence over decision making skews the outcome of many decisions. There is an extraordinary arrogance, for example, in dressing up the Lisbon treaty as something different from the repackaging of the constitution that it really was.
I believe that, more urgently than ever, we need the EU to fulfil its potential for strong environmental policy and for securing energy policy and energy security into the future. If it is to do that, however, it must have the consent of the British people. We need to make the case for a reformed EU. We should not be afraid of making that case. I believe that if we make it strongly, we will win it, which is why I support tonight’s proposal for a referendum.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. It is, in fact, a historic debate because it is the first that has been triggered by the public through the petitions system. I believe that that system is a wonderful one; it is absolutely right to hold this debate today. I also think it right in principle that this House should debate issues of particular importance to the public, of which this is one.
I shall oppose the motion, which fills me with disappointment. I would have liked to come to this debate to speak about the frustrations I feel—many of my colleagues have spoken about theirs today—over many of the decisions taken in the European Parliament, which I would have preferred to see taken in the British Parliament. There has been a trend for decisions to be made in the European Parliament since 1975. I should have liked to concentrate on that, and to speak in favour of a motion rather than against one.
I am a Eurosceptic and always have been. In 1975 I campaigned for an “out” vote. I remember one of my colleagues saying that at the start of that referendum we thought we would win, but in the event we lost by a ratio of 2:1, and that is a lesson that I have not forgotten. Perhaps my greatest contribution was that in 2001, during a Save the Pound rally in Monmouth at which the current Foreign Secretary was speaking, I was hit on the back of the head by an egg that was directed at him. I “took one” for the Conservative party.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
The motion is tragically timed, because it pits against each other the equally valid causes of ensuring that security and stability are maintained during a great euro crisis that will affect us here in the United Kingdom—even the discussion of a referendum on leaving the European Union will contribute to that instability—and giving the people the voice that they have been denied for so long in the determination of our role in Europe. It is a shame that that conflict has arisen today, but it makes our referendum lock and the conditions surrounding it all the more important.
Glyn Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am in conflict with many of my colleagues who have spoken today about timing, and I am very disappointed not to be flying the Eurosceptic flag that I should like to be flying. I remember how appalled I was when the last Government reneged on what I saw as a promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. That was the right time, but I believe that it may well come again and in similar circumstances.
Two issues matter greatly to me. One is the type of referendum that we are discussing. I think that if a referendum is to be held and is to engage the public, there should be two options rather than three, as the motion suggests. A “preferendum” would be a mistake because it would not be clear enough, and I therefore cannot support the motion. The second issue is timing. I think that to have a debate on a referendum would be a huge mistake while we in Britain must deal with huge financial and economic issues, along with another massive issue—the social dislocation felt by so many of our young people. A referendum on our future relationship with the European Union would constitute a severe distraction from the two real missions of this coalition Government.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman knows that it would take at least 18 months to reach the point at which a referendum could take place. If this is not the right time, is 18 months from now the right time? As for the questions that would be asked in the referendum, that will be resolved during the negotiation period and in the Bill Committee. All the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman can easily be accommodated, and I appeal to him to change his position.
Glyn Davies
I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think we should be much clearer about both those issues before proceeding with a referendum. We need to know exactly what the position is. We should not say, “We are in favour of this”, as if we were some sixth-form debating society; we should say, “This is what is being proposed”, and then say whether we are in favour of it or not. What we need is a clear-cut question.
Many people have asked when will be the right time, but we cannot say when the right time will be. We have a Foreign Secretary and a Prime Minister who will conduct negotiations with the European Union, hopefully in order to restore powers to the United Kingdom. There may well be another treaty, as there was a Lisbon treaty, and in that event we as a Government would not renege as the last Government did. We would hold a referendum on an issue that the public could clearly understand, at a time when the people were ready to debate it. I hope that this debate will not lead to a referendum, because I do not think its focus would be clear, and clarity is what we need.
There has been a great deal of discussion about a free vote and the involvement of the Whips. I want to make it clear that I made up my mind as soon as I saw the motion. I had been looking forward to a motion on this issue and had been keen to speak in favour of it, but when I saw it, I concluded that it had been a mistake because it divided Eurosceptic opinion. Long before any Whip contacted me I resolved to vote against it, and to try to catch Mr Speaker’s eye. I am glad to say that I did catch Mr Speaker’s eye, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
I believe that one day, following a serious negotiation, there will be a referendum on our relationship with the European Union, and that that referendum will ask a clear question enabling the public to say yes or no about our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to that day, but I shall be voting against the motion tonight.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
This is an interesting debate, and I apologise for having missed a few of the contributions. It is also a strange debate, however, in that many of the arguments being proposed in support of the motion do not, in fact, support it. My good friend the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is not in the Chamber at present. He talked about the £40 billion trade deficit, but anyone who voted for the Common Market voted for that to happen, as, unfortunately, it is inevitable in a free market economy. For instance, 73% of our chemical industry is now owned by companies that are not based in the UK, and that will end up against us in the trade figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is also no longer here. She urged us to put our own logical or ideological assessments before the instructions of the Whips. I have always done that, which is why I am going to vote against the motion. It is not logical to vote for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) has slipped away. He is not so much a friend as an ongoing further education project for me. I pointed out to him that the only way to get any of what he wants is to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which states that we can leave the European Union. That has been put in place very deliberately. However, article 49 states that any country that leaves will be dealt with as if it is a new applicant, with no automatic right to rejoin and no special advantages. All this nonsense about renegotiating, repositioning and working on reform does not apply, therefore, and only a straight in/out referendum would be relevant. We could act upon that, but everything else would be left entirely to chance and to negotiations in the European Council and the European Parliament. That is the reality.
Andrew Percy
Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that we can agree a new treaty that does exactly what many Members on the Government Benches wish. We can leave it to the treaty to achieve that.
Michael Connarty
Let me give the following advice to the hon. Gentleman, and to the Scottish National party Member who is present, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). The SNP thinks that if Scotland votes to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, it can walk straight into the EU, but that is not the case. Scotland would get into the EU only if it agreed to one major condition: it would have to join the eurozone.
If the UK wanted to get back in, we would have to join the eurozone too. That is the reality, because that is now a condition for entering the EU, and it has been since before the Lisbon treaty. The position is as follows, therefore: we would have to decide in a referendum whether we wanted to be out of the EU, and if we wanted to go back in after that, we would then be at a great disadvantage because a decision would not come into force until after two years. It would have to be ratified by the other states; it would go ahead only if the European Parliament were to agree to it; and there would then be a vote to agree it in the Council under qualified majority terms. We are therefore tied up in knots by the Lisbon treaty, which I have described as a tipping point.
I am glad to see that the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is back in his place. He argued that the closure of an accident and emergency department in his constituency was down to the European Union. If there is such a closure in a Member’s area, the people who can deal with it are sitting on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman should ask SNP Members about that, because of what happened after their party was elected with a clear majority in the Scottish Government elections. The first thing it did was overturn a proposal to close two accident and emergency units: one in Monklands and the other in Ayrshire. That illustrates the power of Government in this context. Such issues are nothing to do with the European Union, therefore, so the hon. Gentleman should not have made that point.
Some Members have also said that the call for a referendum expresses the settled will of the people. I respect, and am very fond of, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), but that is a very misleading claim to make. If we get 100,000 people writing in to say we should have a vote on a referendum on capital punishment, that would be more likely to be carried than the vote on this referendum. Are we really saying that 100,000 signatures would trigger a debate and vote in the House on a referendum on capital punishment? This is not about the settled will of the people, therefore. It just so happens that a lot of people have sent in some signatures on blogs, and I do not want to pay particular attention to them because I think that it is important that, like the Tunisian people, we respect parliamentary democracy.
Michael Connarty
I voted in the 1975 referendum, and I voted yes. I did not vote in favour of the Common Market; I voted in favour of the aspirations that were so well described by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). Do we really think we have lasting peace? How long ago was Srebrenica? What state are the Balkans in at present? Do we really think the search for peace is finished business? It is not finished business by a long way.
I also voted yes because I knew there was a better way forward that was not on offer at that time. That was introduced by Delors, when he brought in the social chapter. That is what I joined the EU for—social agreement. I support most of what would be offered us in the justice and social packages; they would guarantee them for our people as well as for all the people throughout Europe. These are things that are done by negotiation.
Michael Connarty
I do not have time to give way, as I have given way twice and I know how the system works.
It is clearly important that we consider what the European Union is about. There are things to give up, such as our obsession with not wanting people in Europe to have the same rights when they are on trial. We are opposing translation rights and the right to legal representation—this Government are opposing them at the moment. How can anyone justify that? Europe has to be a better place to live. If it was not for the social chapter—
Michael Connarty
The hon. Gentleman knows the rules. I have given way often enough and I have had my extra two minutes.
We need to think about Delors and what happened when the package for the social chapter came in. It protected the people I represent from Thatcherism in its worst aspects; it was a chance to rebalance Europe and bring about a social Europe. So much has been said about that. I respect the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway), who decided to resign as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, as it is right that people should be able to put their principles before someone’s attempt to give them a little bag-carrying job. I am not sure that he would be resigning quite as quickly if he was a Minister. The problem is that no Ministers have been saying that they will resign their ministerial position over this matter.
The Liberal Democrats say that they would vote for a referendum only on a fundamental shift, but there has been a fundamental shift. It has been away from voting Liberal, and their voting with the Government will damage them. I am sorry about that, but the Liberals did say that they would do something. The European Union still protects the three red lines: defence, tax and foreign policy. What we need to do in this place is give more power to the Backbench Business Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee to stop the Government voting things through in the Council, which they do at the moment.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
For 40 years, we have left Europe policy to Ministers and to mandarins—to a tiny Whitehall elite. Look at the collective mess that they have made of it. We have a fisheries policy with no fish; red tape strangling small businesses; financial regulation that suffocates the City; and now we are being asked to spend billions of pounds bailing out a currency that we never even joined. We have lurched from one bad deal with Brussels to the next, and from one disastrous round of negotiations to another. That is the price we pay for leaving it to Ministers and mandarins to decide our Europe policy. It is time to trust the people. Today, every Member of this House faces a straightforward choice. They can either vote to give people a referendum on the EU or they can vote not to trust the people.
Mr Carswell
I shall try to do so over the next three minutes, and I am grateful for that thoughtful and erudite intervention.
This is a matter of principle: is it right, in principle, to put the question of EU membership to a popular vote? Too many people in Westminster—in SW1—try to second-guess how the voters may vote in a referendum and then work backwards to decide whether or not they favour a referendum. Instead we should start from the principle: is it right for the people to decide? Yes it is, and I believe that this issue qualifies for a referendum. The issue is of massive constitutional significance, it divides all three parties and it cannot be adequately settled in a general election.
Referendums can no longer be dismissed, as they have been for many years, as somehow alien to the British tradition. We have had dozens of referendums since 1997, including a national referendum on the alternative vote.
Richard Drax
Does my hon. Friend accept that the reason why we are having more and more referendums is that the people who put us here simply do not trust us?
Mr Carswell
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There has been a mood change in this country away from what one might call “deferential democracy”, where people leave it to the 650 people here to make public policy, to a new kind of democracy, where people want more choice and they want politics to be done by them, rather than to them by a remote elite. Some people in my party and in our own Whips Office have not truly understood that sea change.
If we are to have a referendum to decide how we elect Members of Parliament, surely we can have a referendum to decide whether or not those we elect should make the rules under which we live. Today’s motion has been put on the Commons agenda by the people. It is to this coalition’s immense credit that it has introduced a mechanism to allow voters to trigger debates—some 100,000 voters have triggered this debate. But we cannot say that we want to renew democracy if we shy away from the outcome of what the people say. We cannot claim that we want a new politics if we then use old-style whipping tactics from the 1950s to crush debate—or, rather, we could do all that but then we would have the credibility of a Greek Government bond.
Today’s vote is about change. I am voting for an EU referendum because I want change—change not only in our relationship with Europe but fundamental change in the way this country is run. I am not voting for a referendum in the hope that it will take us to some insular, mythical island past: I am voting for an open society—a truly global country. Ultimately, this is not about flags, anthems or identity, but about whether it is right for millions of people to have their lives arranged for them by deliberate design of technocrats. It is about democracy.
I ask each Member to cast their mind back to the day they were first elected to this House. I ask them to recall that sense of pride mingled with awesome responsibility when the returning officer read out the winner’s name. Most hon. Members will have felt in their bones that entering this House was one of the most exalted and greatest moments in their lives. Look at how today we are scorned. “MPs don’t keep their promises,” say the cynics. “You say whatever you say to get elected,” they cry. Today is our chance to show the cynics that they are wrong.
All three parties until recently promised the people a referendum on the EU. There is no point in clever wordplay or in reading the clever brief from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials—most people understood that we were going to give them a referendum. That is what MPs in all parties wanted the people to believe and it is the impression that we deliberately conveyed. This evening, we have a chance to keep our promises, to honour our word and to keep faith in our country. I will vote to let the people decide and I urge other hon. Members to do so. My hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) are indeed honourable and it is a privilege to be their colleague on the Back Benches.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given what I want to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might, with all due respect, if I had had a choice, have preferred not to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell).
They say that if you hang around this place for long enough nothing should surprise you, but recent antics do surprise me. The other week we were subjected to manoeuvres par excellence by the Government Whips and business managers to block discussion on a clause put forward by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on the subject of freedom of speech in a Bill laughably called the Protection of Freedoms Bill. Tonight, the Government Whips—indeed, the Whips and business managers of all three main parties—have conspired to put a three-line Whip on a Back-Bench business motion, which effectively means that Parliament is being invited to talk about Europe but not to vote on it. So much for the mother of Parliaments!
Let me make it clear that I am not anti-European and that if I vote for the motion tonight I shall find myself in the Lobby with some strange bedfellows, including some people who, frankly, I think are mad. If there ever were an in/out referendum, I would almost certainly find myself arguing the case for trade and jobs in Europe. I think that is where I would end up. However, I also recognise that there is growing demand for reform in Europe. It is Lib Dem policy to have an in/out referendum, and most people understood it to be the Prime Minister’s policy to have a referendum if there was any significant change to the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, no one who has heard the Prime Minister over the past three years could think he was anything but a referendum man. And our esteemed Foreign Secretary once thought these issues were so important that he fought an entire general election on them.
Tonight, however, in a little Back-Bench business debate where the normally unimportant little people are expressing their views—views that strike a remarkable chord with the British public—the muscle men, the U-turn merchants and the bully boys, the Ministers and the would-be Ministers, are all out to force their say. What they are saying is, “All you little Cinderellas can go to the ball, but you can’t dance.” All the grand talk from this Government about greater respect for Parliament and Back Benchers, and the role that they have played in setting up the Backbench Business Committee, amount to nothing if the Government show tonight that they are scared to debate the topic.
A Back-Bench business debate is just that. It is about taking the temperature. This is not an Opposition day. We are not dealing with Government business. In a simple little Back-Bench business debate, I think I am entitled to vote how I damn well like.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to participate in tonight’s historic debate. We have heard many great, passionate speeches from both sides of the House, but none more so than from the Government Benches, many Members seeing this as an opportunity to strike out against over-whipped government and to seek a return to more democratic values.
I consider myself to be a Eurosceptic, so I find myself in a strange position: I will vote against the motion, but not because I have been leant on by any Whips. I came to that conclusion prior to the first call. It is an insight into the co-ordination of Whips that you tell one at length, then another one rings you up anyway. They could get more co-ordinated.
To follow on from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), it is a shame that tonight has gone the way it has, though it is unfair to say that the Government have not allowed debate. From a party political management perspective, it may have been naïve to do what the Government have done. They brought the debate forward to today, the Prime Minister through his statement was able to participate, and the Foreign Secretary led for the Government. Far from stifling debate, therefore, the Government at the highest level have engaged with it. Whether that was wise party management I leave to others to judge, but I think it probably was not.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who gave a powerful speech, I believe in parliamentary democracy. I do not believe parliamentary democracy puts down the small people. I know my hon. Friend has strong beliefs, which he has espoused over many years, including a belief in direct democracy. He has an agenda for direct democracy. He does not believe in the representative democracy that I believe in.
I do not believe that we are delegates. I am not about the percentage of my constituents who believe a particular thing. I should be out there listening to them, and I was out there on Saturday at my street surgery. The previous weekend I spent all day going round the villages listening to people and hearing from them, but it is not my job to do whatever the percentage majority tell me to do. My job is to come to this place and do the best I can by the people whom I represent.
Mark Reckless
Can representative democracy work only if we keep our promises to the electorate? On this issue, all three major parties promised a referendum and we are not giving it.
Mr Stuart
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is one of the great myths that has been peddled. He does a disservice to the party. As I said in an intervention earlier, I honestly believe that the Prime Minister was not reneging on the promise on Lisbon when it had been ratified. If I had promised a board meeting before a payment goes out and someone else pays it out, the cheque is cashed and I do not hold a board meeting to discuss the cheque that has already been cashed—I am not reneging on anything; I am simply recognising the reality. I do not believe that the Conservative party or the Prime Minister reneged on any promise.
The manifesto on which I and my hon. Friend stood in 2010 made no promise of any referendum whatsoever. What it did promise—I say this gently to my colleagues tonight—was to bring in a referendum lock if there was to be further treaty change. I recognise and my hon. Friends point out that some powers leak and leech away without a treaty in prospect. The passage of a European Union treaty, however, was historic in this Parliament and this democracy. There will come a time when a treaty triggers the provision, and it will not be far off—I do not believe that the Government can slip vast powers under it. The truth is that that time is coming and we are winning the argument. The last thing we need to do is fight among ourselves. We must recognise that we are carrying the British people, who are more Eurosceptic, with us.
I continue to believe that we are better off within the European Union, although I am open to persuasion that we could be better off out. Some colleagues who believe that passionately are using today’s debate as a Trojan horse. I respect their view, but I think that the three-part nature of the motion is confusion and that the suggestion that we can somehow mandate the Government to renegotiate is false. I do not see how we can do that. The Government must lead and get the best position they can. When they come back with a treaty, as I am sure they will in the not-too-distant future, it will be put to the British people. That will be the time to do it. I do not think that it is disingenuous to talk about timing.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My hon. Friend touches on a central point, which is that not all of us feel that we would be better off out of the EU. Many of us want the common market we signed up for, more free trade and less of the baggage. Is that not the direction of travel in which we should be headed?
Mr Stuart
I agree. Colleagues might say tonight with a wry smile that they, too, like the Prime Minister, believe in nudge theory. They would say that the motion, the strong debate and the number of Members who will be in the Aye Lobby will tell the Government how seriously members of our party feel on the matter, and they may have a point. My constituents, whom I have sensibly been talking and listening to, are not telling me that this is top of their list of priorities. At the top of their list are jobs, employment and the need to ensure that we do not put people in the dole queue, particularly young people, as one of the Labour party’s toxic legacies was to leave so many young people not in education, employment or training.
Our duty is to move very coolly on this subject. The time will come when we will have a referendum. We should not pass the motion tonight. We should absolutely listen to our constituents, who are telling us that they have priorities above and beyond the obsession in certain parts of the Conservative party with Europe above all other issues.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
May I say how good it is that we are having this important debate this evening, but how disappointed I am that the build-up to it has given the impression that the Conservative party is divided on Britain’s approach to the European Union? The truth is that the only real division this evening will be over the wording of a motion, not the substance of our approach to the EU. In reality, Conservatives are united in believing that the EU has accumulated far too many powers, that the status quo is no longer an option and that we must renegotiate a new relationship with the EU and make a fresh start.
I think that three distinct steps need to be taken. First, we need a plan, and in my view the Government should be doing the work right now to identify which powers we would seek to repatriate. Secondly, we need to take every opportunity we have to negotiate and to deliver that plan. Finally, the end of the process should be the point at which we have a referendum and put the renegotiation to the people.
It is because I believe that a referendum should come at the end of the process, rather than the beginning, that I cannot support the motion as it stands this evening. However, I cannot support the Government by voting against it, so I will abstain. The reason I cannot support the Government is that I want them to do far more than they have so far been willing to do to accelerate the plan for a renegotiation. That will be the main focus of my comments today.
It concerns me that the Foreign Office might be ducking the challenge here, and I have been very disappointed by the “jam tomorrow” nature of some of the Foreign Secretary’s comments. The urgent need to get our economy moving again becomes clearer by the day. There are no easy ways out of the current mess. We need radical thinking to get our country moving again, and that should include dealing with the morass of EU laws and regulations. I do not think that it is good enough to say that changing the EU is all too difficult and so nothing can be done for years to come. Sorting out the EU is not something that might be nice in the distant future; tackling the burden of EU regulation is an integral part of the solution to the current crisis and we must act now. We have to find a way of cutting the Gordian knot that has created a situation in which politicians talk about reforming the EU but can never find the moment to deliver real change.
Charlie Elphicke
Will my hon. Friend set out how exactly he would cut that Gordian knot?
George Eustice
I was about to come on to precisely that.
I do not accept the argument that nothing can be done until there has been an intergovernmental conference or a new treaty. Where there is the political will, there is always a way, and where needs must, the EU has shown itself able to react quickly and then sort out the lawyers and the legal basis for action later.
Mark Pritchard
I commend my hon. Friend for his long-standing convictions on these issues. He talks about a White Paper, renegotiating powers and then a referendum. What timetable does he envisage for that referendum?
George Eustice
It would come as soon as we had finished the negotiation, and if I had my way, it would happen very quickly and, certainly, within this Parliament.
The bail-outs in Greece and Ireland were technically against EU law, but the European financial stability facility was agreed and implemented within days; three years ago, the bank bail-outs breached EU state aid rules, but again exemptions were created when needs required it. Sweden has technically been in breach of the treaties for a decade, because it does not have an opt-out from the euro, but the EU has had to learn to live with it, as that is the political reality. The Danish Government have unilaterally introduced extra customs checks on their borders, which are in breach of the Schengen agreement, but, again, the EU has had to learn to live with it.
The lesson from those examples is that EU law is a flexible notion. In fact, the European Union Act 2011 explicitly states that EU regulations and directives have force in this country only when Parliament allows them to, so we must be far more willing to set aside the authority of the European Court of Justice, and crucially we should not let dreary treaties and EU protocols get in the way of taking urgent action to stimulate our economy.
Let us say to the EU that we are going to delay the agency workers directive, making it clear to the institution that it will have to learn to live with that and that we will not accept an infraction procedure. Let us make it clear, during the current negotiations on the budget, that we intend to disapply, for instance, the working time directive, which was mentioned earlier, until we get this economy out of recession.
The European Union would complain, but, if the evidence of the examples I have cited is anything to go by, it would probably take it at least three years to get around to doing anything about it. Such a move might do something else, too. People keep saying, “These European politicians have no intention of having a treaty; they just won’t negotiate with us, so we have to give up,” but if we unilaterally did those things we would suddenly find that there was an appetite for a long-term solution to such issues. It would be a catalyst to get negotiations moving.
George Eustice
I am sorry, but I have almost finished, and I do not want to eat into other people’s time.
Negotiators in the Foreign Office would probably wince at the idea of adopting such a stance, but it is the only way we can cut that Gordian knot, sort out the EU and get our economy moving again, and I very much hope that the Minister takes those comments on board.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I, like many in the country, am angered at the continued erosion of our sovereignty, and at the shipping of our powers across the channel to Brussels. Businesses, the judicial system and citizens of this country are subject to a growing federalisation—to federalist power—that seeks to engulf not only the economy but our politics.
The unfolding eurozone disaster is an example of the chaotic and unaccountable actions that have been allowed to play out within the European project, and that in itself is bad enough, but the failure of eurozone members to take responsibility, to lay the facts before each other and to own up to mistakes is what concerns me more. I am a Eurosceptic, and I struggle to find anything to respect in an institution that cannot sign off its own accounts, let alone manage someone else’s.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For 32 years the UK has been a net contributor, not a recipient, of EU moneys. If it were a pension scheme, everybody would say, “Let’s get out now.” Does that not underline the need for the people of the United Kingdom to make up their own minds in a referendum, and not to pay into a system that takes plenty but gives little?
Kris Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I look forward to campaigning for such a referendum to be put into our next manifesto.
I welcome and support the referendum lock, and I look forward to seeing the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to ensure that we bring powers back from Brussels, and initiate reform of the European Union. That was part of our election promise, and we should see it through.
I watched the Conservative Government in the 1990s rip themselves apart over Europe. After 13 years in opposition, I am dismayed that after just 18 months in government, we are sitting here again with the same tension. There is an element of self indulgence here and, if we are not careful, it will be a route to self-destruction. We are facing the greatest economic upheaval in 100 years.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain why this was the second most popular issue on the e-petitions list?
Kris Hopkins
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), if there is such support for the matter, we should campaign to ensure that it is part of our party’s next election manifesto.
Should we compromise on financial stability, growth and maintaining low interest rates for the sake of losing our ability to negotiate reform, and to negotiate to bring powers back to this country? If we compromise now, we will have a lame duck Government for a couple of years while the world watches, knowing that we will have a referendum that might compromise that position. We have the best hand in a generation, and we should play it to full effect.
This is the wrong motion at the wrong time for this country. This is Great Britain, and we do not run away when Europe gets into trouble. In fact, we have a reputation for sorting out those poor fellows. It is in Britain’s interest to be at the table.
Kris Hopkins
No.
The global economy is changing rapidly, and the focus of power is moving east. We need to be able to use all the opportunities, including through the European Union, to participate in that growth of wealth. Some hon. Members have said today that it would not be democratic if the 100,000 votes do not win the day, but I have an opinion and other hon. Members have a different one. That is democracy, and I will vote against the motion.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On 21 February 1992, there was a Second Reading debate on a private Member’s Bill that I had introduced on a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. It was anticipatory, and the occasion was the last one on which Mrs Thatcher voted as a Member of this House. It is not because of vanity that I mention that, but because of a remarkable speech. This is an appeal to Labour Members. I will quote that remarkable speech, which was made by Peter Shore—those who knew him will understand why I say that—the then Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. He said that a
“referendum…offers one of the few possibilities to remedy a fundamental weakness in our constitution. We have no written constitution and no procedures to protect and entrench features of our national and constitutional life. Everything can be changed by a simple majority. Many other countries, as we know, have quite elaborate procedures requiring a majority of two thirds for changes in constitutional matters and arrangements, often backed up with public referendums.”
Then he comes to the burden of the argument:
“We have no such defence. Indeed, previously we did not need them, because only this generation of British parliamentary representatives has contemplated handing to others the great prizes of national independence, self-government and the rule of law under our own elected representatives. It would not have occurred to a previous generation to hand to others that which we prize most greatly and have given to other countries throughout the world in the past 50 years. That is the novelty of the proposition, against which, because we did not think it conceivable, we have no defences. A referendum is a major constitutional device for defending the rights of the British people and our constitution.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 590.]
I was personally moved by that because it described the thread that ran through our long march for liberty, with the ordinary people coming to effect the election of this House, and those who represented them knowing that only they could make the law by which we were governed. In this, the concept of the rule of law, there has to be proper due process. That debate, which took place immediately before the election, was very controversial. Subsequently, I moved the referendum amendment to the Maastricht Bill.
All the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary amounted to what we have heard so often regarding ordinary and constitutional legislation: “It is not the right time.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) put it very brilliantly as he dissected what that amounts to. A referendum essentially says, “Trust the people”, and that is the one thing that the Executive of this House are loth to do because they do not know what the outcome will be. However, we should respond to the generosity of the Government in allowing a Committee of this House to accept a petition from the public outside. We need a referendum.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I have always been proud to be a moderate, one-nation Conservative and a supporter of this coalition Government. Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), my Euroscepticism is driven by internationalism, and I fear the dangers of a “little Europe”.
I welcome the work that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done to limit our exposure to eurozone bail-outs, provide a referendum lock on future treaties and reduce the EU budget, and I strongly support what they say about the benefits of being in Europe but not run by Europe. However, I believe that all three major parties are mistaken in opposing the motion, and more greatly so in imposing harsh Whips on their supporters.
This cross-party Back-Bench motion reflects a profound disquiet in the country at the fact that, for decades, we have had no say on our relationship with Europe, and it reflects widespread popular support for an opportunity for people to have that say. I was born in 1978, and in no time during my lifetime, nor in the adult lifetimes of the vast majority of hon. Members, has there been an opportunity to debate publicly our membership, or even the terms of our membership, of the EU. Eight out of 10 people eligible to vote today have never had this opportunity. There should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I am proud that Conservative Members voted against that treaty when Labour disgracefully broke its promise to hold a referendum on the constitution that it replaced.
There have been many debates in this House on aspects of European policy, but none has triggered a referendum or engaged the public in the way that today’s motion could. Many hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), have very reasonably criticised the idea of a three-way referendum. I would far rather have supported a straight yes or no question on renegotiating the powers of Brussels. That is why I would have unreservedly supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Sadly, as that amendment was not selected, I find myself faced with a dilemma. In a three-way referendum, there is a risk that the wrong answer can be achieved with a significant minority vote, as the Prime Minister has explained. I have never argued for an in/out referendum because I do not believe that that is the right question to ask.
Mr Walker
I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that that was in our manifesto. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the policy of the coalition Government. That is my concern.
I support the third option set out on the Order Paper: renegotiating our membership to base it on trade and co-operation. That is what we signed up for in the first place. The question comes down to whether one believes that the risks inherent in a three-way referendum outweigh the benefits of what in my view, in the view of the last Conservative manifesto and, I believe, in the view of the vast majority of the British people is the right thing to do. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, it comes down to whether one trusts the people, and I trust the British people. I believe that if they were offered such a choice and were engaged in a reasoned debate on the three options, they would do as they did with the AV referendum and come to a sensible conclusion.
Mr Walker
I will not give way again, I am afraid.
I do not buy the argument that now is the wrong time. The motion states that a Bill should be brought forward in the next Session of Parliament. If the eurozone crisis has not been resolved by then, we are all in much greater trouble than we thought.
In conclusion, I am no Euro-fanatic and have no great desire to earn the label of rebel because I strongly support many of the steps that the coalition Government have taken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) pointed out, we are the representatives of our constituents, not just delegates. It is not right to vote on an issue simply because of the number of letters we have received or according to what we hear on the doorstep, but as representatives we should certainly take those things into account.
I spent much of my weekend talking to constituents about this issue, along with many others. Everyone I asked felt it was right that they should have a choice. I received many letters in support of the motion and only one against, from a retired Labour councillor. Among those letters, one that made an impression was from my constituent, Mr Raymond Cross, who wrote:
“I am almost 87 years of age, served and offered my life to my King and Country…in the army during the second world war. I still have the original ‘Britain & Europe’ booklet issued by the Ted Heath Government in July 1971. That is what we voted on in 1975.
There should be a free vote on this referendum. Members of Parliament are there to debate the pros and cons of the motion put forward not to obey slavishly the will of”
their parties. I profoundly regret that there is no such free vote. I am a passionate supporter of my party and this coalition Government, but it is a well-established convention that constituency should come before party and, still more importantly, that country should come before all. On that basis, I shall support the motion tonight.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I contribute to this debate as a Eurosceptic who believes that too many of our powers and freedoms and too much of our money have been handed over to Brussels.
For years, we have argued desperately and even begged to maintain our membership of the EU without being ruled by an undemocratic federal state. We failed largely because the whole basis of the European project was to have a federal country with its own currency. The assumption was that even countries such as Denmark and Britain would come round eventually and join the euro. After that, we would all become one big federal country like America. That situation made it almost impossible for people like me who want to co-operate in Europe, but to remain British.
Things have changed significantly in recent years. The euro is in turmoil. The dream, or perhaps the nightmare, of a federal state with one currency is nearly dead. It cannot now happen. That gives us an opportunity. For years we have talked about a two-speed Europe. There is now an opportunity for a two-system Europe. Those who want closer union can have it, while countries such as Britain, Greece and Denmark can be more loosely aligned. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about when he used the phrase,
“In Europe, but not run by Europe.”
It seems that there now have to be two systems, whether Brussels likes it or not. The good news for us Eurosceptics is that for the first time since the 1980s, we have a Government who are genuinely committed to negotiating for that. If negotiations fail on the two-system Europe, we will have to reappraise our approach.
For now, we must grasp the opportunity. This is the first time in decades when we have had the opportunity to be in Europe, but not in a federal state where we are dictated to by people with whom we disagree. We are now in a stronger position and we need to show strength. This window of opportunity will not exist for ever, so I want the Government to go back to Europe and get our powers back.
Most people who advocated this referendum would be happy if we got the benefits of Europe, namely free trade, without all the red tape. If we can do that, we can put the issue to bed for ever. We would save ourselves from extra tax and bureaucracy. That is agreed across the House. Saving ourselves from both those things will be vital for economic growth. I think we now all agree that a federal Europe is dead. Britain will now never join the euro, and we have the chance to renegotiate—we have that assurance from the Prime Minister. Let us do that while the opportunity exists, and if that fails, we can have a referendum on leaving the EU.
The motion has the passion of a broad, belief-based ideology, and we can read it in any way we want depending on our own views. I believe that I signed up to point (c) in the motion—let us renegotiate. In Europe, but not run by Europe.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but having sat through some three hours or so earlier and heard a number of points of view, I thought I would take the opportunity to make a few points.
I fully accept that the House should take very seriously the number of signatures on the e-petition and the views that have been expressed to many MPs. I certainly accept that they are expressions of widespread concern. However, Members must accept that although some people feel very strongly about the issue, that does not mean that all people do. It is only a year and a half since we had a general election, and at that point none of the major parties stood on a platform of an in/out referendum of the type that is being suggested today. We must question how democratic it would be if we were to vote tonight for a policy that very few of us stood on in the last general election.
The motion is about leaving the EU, or changing our relationship with it in such a way that we would effectively no longer be part of it. My reasons for opposing it are simple, and some of them have already been stated. First, there is the powerful argument that the EU has been a defender and supporter of security and peace in Europe since it was established. If Britain were to withdraw from the EU, it would bring into question the EU’s whole raison d’être, and I do not want us to return to a Europe of instability and, ultimately, conflict between member states. We have been lucky over the past 70 years, but for many centuries Europe was riven by all sorts of terrible warfare, and we do not want to see that return.
Much more immediately, I support colleagues on the Labour Benches, and some on the Government Benches, who have pointed out that there would be a real danger to our economy, because there would be a danger to the European economy, if we were to begin negotiations over the next 18 months on Britain withdrawing from Europe or renegotiating our relationship in such a way that we would no longer be recognisable as part of the EU.
I have noticed this evening that the view put forward by the Eurosceptics seems to be that their ideal relationship with the EU would be something like that of Norway and Switzerland. Leaving aside the fact that there is no suggestion anywhere of that being a realistic option to put on the negotiating table, as has been said, everything that Norway and Switzerland do in the economic field is affected by the decisions of the EU. As part of their agreements they are required to accept most European legislation. Where relevant, they have to accept the decisions of the European Court, and where they are not bound to accept EU legislation, they are certainly heavily influenced by it. The difference between those countries and us is that we would not have any voice, because we would not have representation in Europe either in the democratic institutions such as the European Parliament, in the European Council or elsewhere.
I believe that we need Britain to play a stronger role in Europe, and I want our Government to take an active role to defend our interests in Europe. I hope that one good thing, at least, will come out of tonight’s debate, and that some of the politicians who have played with a Eurosceptic position over the years as a way of trying to win votes might recognise that they have played with fire and are responsible for the consequences of their action tonight, which is the rebellion by Tory Back Benchers. I hope that there will now be a more positive approach to Europe—criticism, yes, but at the same time let us recognise its benefits to our country. Let us ensure that we work in Europe to make it succeed, rather than go down a road that would lead to an economic downturn for this country and economic damage to Europe as a whole.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I have listened with great attention to all of the speeches for the past five hours, with the occasional break to take in and then expel a little liquid. I can tell the House that the passion and the idealism, and even the personal courage, has all been on one side of the debate—the side of those who support the motion.
I agree with much that those hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House believe and want. I agree with them that Governments of all stripes have given too much power to the EU; that we need to renegotiate the terms of our membership, so that it focuses more on economic matters of trade and co-operation, and less on other issues that Europe was not set up to deal with; and that the British people should have the final say.
However, I will not vote with them tonight for the following reason. Although they have the passion, the idealism and the personal courage, I am afraid that they lack good sense. There will be only one time in the foreseeable future when we can hold a referendum on our membership of the EU—it has been 40 years since the last one, and we are likely to get only one shot in the next 40—and we must use it well. We must hold that referendum when it is most likely to assist us in getting the deal from Europe that we want.
Andrew Percy
I can predict exactly what will happen. If we propose a referendum at a time of economic growth, everyone will say, “Now is not the time to have a referendum, because everything is going so swimmingly.”
Nick Boles
I thank my hon. Friend, but that was not my point. My point on timing is simply this: we need the promise—or, indeed, the threat—of that referendum to persuade our European partners to give us some of what we want in that negotiation.
Nick Boles
I will not give way again yet.
If an imminent referendum hangs over that negotiation, the Prime Minister has a hand to play. He can say, “If you don’t give me the concessions I need, and if you don’t meet the demands of the British people, I will not be able to win that referendum, and you will lose one of the biggest members of the EU for ever.” However, if we have the referendum now, we will entirely waste the whole exercise. If we have a referendum in the next three years, before we have completed that renegotiation, and on a muddled question with three options, we will entirely forfeit our best negotiating tool.
Mark Pritchard
I commend my hon. Friend for his consistency, and although I do not agree with him, I respect him for his convictions. Will he tell the House what timetable he envisages for a referendum? Would it be in this Parliament or the next one?
Nick Boles
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because he brings me to the conclusion that I probably would otherwise have forgotten. He asks exactly the right question, but I do not have news that will cheer up Conservative Members.
The first step before we start that renegotiation is, I am afraid, achieving a majority Conservative Government. We cannot start a renegotiation of our entire membership of the EU when the Government speak with two voices. We need a unified position, and we do not have it now, which I regret. I fought like all Conservatives for a majority Government, but we did not get it.
Nick Boles
I will not be giving way again.
The second step is to start a renegotiation, which will probably take two or three years. We can promise that referendum in about year four of the next Parliament, after the Conservatives have won a majority. We might then get the Europe we want.
If we do what those brave hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen want us to do, we will waste our chance and get no clear answer to that referendum question. We might find ourselves in an unreformed and unreformable EU for the rest of my lifetime. I am not willing to risk that, which is why I will vote against the motion.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Many Members have referred to the part that they played in the 1975 referendum, and sadly I am one of those who is old enough to have participated. It is interesting to note that that referendum followed a renegotiation of our terms with the Common Market, as it then was, and the question put to the electorate was: “Do we stay in or do we leave?” I voted to leave, and I am pleased that I did so, because I have been consistent throughout. On my selection as a candidate and on the doorstep during the election, I said consistently that I had voted no and that I had not changed my mind, and that the Government position was one thing but mine was another. I am not prepared to break that bond of trust with the electorate.
It has been mentioned that the electorate are becoming disconnected. To a great fanfare of trumpets, the Government introduced the e-petition system, but within weeks they have destroyed the public’s confidence in it. It was as certain as night following day that a motion for an in/out referendum would result from an e-petition, but what have the Government done? They have cast it aside. There have been other distractions. We have been told that it is only eighth or 10th on the list of people’s concerns. This time last year, we were ploughing ahead with legislation on the alternative vote referendum. On the No. 45 from Cleethorpes to Immingham, people were not demanding a referendum on AV, but we allowed ourselves to be distracted.
I am pleased that my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), is in his place, because he will know that the scars run deep in our part of the world following the destruction of the fishing industry which resulted from the sacrifice made at the negotiations to enter the Common Market in the first place.
Jim Shannon
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the national opinion poll today showing that 81% of those who voted Conservative, 62% of those who voted for the Liberal Democrats and 61% of those who voted Labour would vote for the motion? We ignore the electorate and national opinion polls at our peril.
Martin Vickers
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman: the Government and the Opposition parties ignore the electorate’s view on this at their peril. We must consider the real people of England, as I like to call them. Yesterday I was at a civic service for a town mayor in Barton-upon-Humber. Members on both sides will have been to these occasions. The real people, those who run our community groups and churches—they are the big society—feel very deeply about this but think that they are being ignored and cast aside. Unless the Government come to terms with that in the near future, they will pay a high price.
I said earlier this year in the debate on votes for prisoners that all Governments take decisions that they know to be against the overwhelming views of those they represent. If they continue to refuse to grant the people a referendum, it will become one of those issues. In fact, it would be something more: it would take away two of their lives. The electorate are disillusioned and cynical about the body politic and the whole political process. If we deny them this opportunity again, the cynicism and disillusionment will grow. I am proud to say that I shall be supporting the motion this evening, and I urge all Members to do so.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
This has been a good debate with some outstanding speeches, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). There have been timing issues during the debate. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) that to keep saying, “Now is not the right time”, is likely to engender frustration in the other member of the relationship. I believe that a referendum is long overdue. It has been a long time—1975—since we had a referendum. The world is a different place and the EU is certainly a different institution from what it was when we knew it as the Common Market.
There were a few lonely voices in that referendum campaign who said that Europe was a political project and not just an economic project. Others might take a different view, but I think that those who said that have been proved right in spades. The other case made in that referendum campaign has been comprehensively disproved by subsequent events. As the European Union has changed incrementally, granting more powers and competences to itself through successive treaties—the Single European Act, the treaty of Nice, the treaty of Maastricht, the treaty of Amsterdam and the treaty of Lisbon—it has changed beyond recognition.
We were right to offer the electorate a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon. Again on the timing, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that commitment to hold a referendum until that treaty had been ratified and stayed absolutely true to its terms. His commitment meant that if a Conservative Government had come to power at any point before 3 o’clock on 3 November 2009, amidst all the events taking place in 2008 and 2009, we would have been obliged to hold a referendum. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have stayed true to that commitment and held a referendum, but now the electorate feel that they have been promised a referendum many times. There has been no shortage of promises, and many electorates in other countries have been allowed to hold a referendum, but not the British electorate.
People today are waiting to have their say on the European Union. We have made our arguments about the European Union in this debate, and we have heard some arguments in favour of it from Opposition Members. Let them put those issues to the people and trust them to make the decision. We cannot be wrong to trust the people: that is why we are having these Back-Bench business debates. This is an excellent example of what can be achieved through such debates. We should send out the message in this debate that we are prepared to trust our constituents, who are the ones who sent us here.
Now is the right time. We have seen much power transferred to the European Union. We need to free ourselves from the dead hand of European Union regulation to give ourselves a chance of achieving the higher growth rates achieved by non-members of the European Union and give our industry a chance. All that makes this an ideal time to have a referendum and set out the terms of that referendum. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to other Government Members that if we keep making these promises to the electorate and not fulfilling them, we will pay a heavy price in lost trust with that electorate. We have to remember that today.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
I have listened to the debate for the past five hours, and it is clear that we on the Conservative Benches are all Eurosceptics now. I speak in this debate as a Eurosceptic, and I could not put the case against the EU better than some of my colleagues have. However, I will be voting against the motion, because I believe that anger and frustration are not enough to form our considerations; we need a clear-sighted, clear-eyed strategy to move forward.
Let me mention some of the considerations that we need to take. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said—I paraphrase, probably poorly, in which case I am sorry—that we need to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that something is done. However, we must remember that to lead the country on this issue we need to be a united rather than a divided party. In 2010, just 13% of voters described the Conservative party as divided, but at the height of the Maastricht rebellion 50% described us as divided. We can all stand for our principles and say that this is only about our consciences—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, that nothing is more important, including the coalition—but we need to remember that in the reality of the political world, if we want to achieve something we have to balance those factors. We know from the 1997 election result that we need to be mindful of that.
Why do I raise that point? Because when we were kicked out of office for being divided, we suffered the greatest setback in the European project. During those 13 years, the Labour Government opted into the social chapter, which was responsible for a lot of the regulations that have suffocated business and stifled growth, and in 2007 the Labour Government signed the Lisbon treaty. For all our high-minded principle in the mid-1990s, when we got kicked out of government because of division we set back our own project.
Zac Goldsmith
My hon. Friend is speaking as though this were a Conservative party issue, but we can see from the debate today that it is a cross-party issue. The question that we face today is: do we trust the people to make this decision or not? The pros and cons of Europe can be discussed later.
Mr Gyimah
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am not speaking as though this were a Conservative party issue, but we can see that the media, in every interview, have pitted Conservative against Conservative. We need to be careful about divisions on our side.
Of course people need to decide, but we should be careful not to jump from responding to an e-petition that has been signed by a number of people to assuming that this issue is on every voter’s mind. A number of voters will talk about the fact that they care about their jobs. A number will say that they want their streets to be secure. Others will say that they want their children to have a better life than their own. National polls show that when the issue of Europe is considered on its own, everyone is hostile to it, but in general elections, its salience disappears. We need to adopt a very clear-eyed strategy in dealing with this.
I will not be supporting the motion. It should be clear from the debate today, especially to those who are saying that we would be better off out, that, with the eurozone on its knees, we now have the best opportunity to negotiate the best conditions for Britain. It would be catastrophic for us to walk away from the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) suggested, as that would result in our giving up influence.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am sure that the constituents of East Surrey will have followed the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) with great interest this evening.
In the 1975 referendum, the country was assured—by a Conservative Prime Minister, I am afraid—that there was no question of any erosion of national sovereignty. The people were told that we would have a veto over any important issue, yet those same people have now seen that what they were told was a common market has become a political union in which we can be outvoted, whether we like it or not. They see other countries not following the rules when our country does follow them, and they see an institution whose accounts have not been signed off for some 20 years, yet we continue to give it money year after year. In the coming year, we are giving the European Union £10.9 billion. That is the net contribution, taking account of what we get back. Indeed, in every year except one, we have given more money to the EU than we have got back. That one year was 1974, the year before we last had a referendum on this matter. That was the only year in which we received more money from the EU than we gave. Members who have yet to make up their mind might like to reflect, in the light of that £10.9 billion, that when putting pressure on the EU to reduce our budget contribution, nothing would concentrate its mind more than the knowledge that this country might hold a referendum on our membership of the EU.
There now has to be a referendum. The people have heard too many promises, made by too many parties over too many years. They now want to decide for themselves what our future in Europe, or as an independent country, might be. There has been significant movement on this side of the House during today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) asked why we were having this discussion, 18 months into the Parliament, and why there was so much disagreement. He wondered why the coalition did not agree on this matter. The reason is that the 57 Liberal Democrat coalition Members were given the referendum on the alternative vote that they wanted, yet a far larger number on the Conservative Benches have not been given the referendum that we want on our country’s position in the EU.
Martin Horwood
We have discussed this already. The Conservative manifesto did not make a commitment to an in/out referendum; it committed to a referendum lock, which we have achieved through the European Union Act 2011.
Mark Reckless
The Conservative party had offered a referendum on Lisbon. The Liberal Democrats had offered a referendum with a choice between the EU with Lisbon and leaving the EU. However, what the country got, through the coalition agreement, was the Lisbon treaty and no referendum on anything. Three or four days ago, the Liberal Democrats’ website was still campaigning for an in/out referendum, but that has now been removed. Not only have they gone against what they told the electorate on student fees, but they have done the same on Europe.
Sheryll Murray
I voted in the last referendum in 1974. It was the first time I had—[Interruption.] The question was whether we wanted to stay in the European economic area. We have never had a referendum on whether we want to be members of the European Union.
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend is quite right. We have the opportunity this evening to give our constituents that referendum—to decide whether they want to be governed by people whom they elect, whom they can hold to account, whom they can throw out if they do not agree with how we vote, whether we make the decisions for them, or whether instead a qualified majority of 26 other countries will decide what the law of this country should be while we pay £10.9 billion a year for the privilege. That is the decision. It is no longer a decision that we can hope to keep within this Westminster bubble, without our constituents having their say. Sooner or later, that decision is going to be made.
We heard earlier that there was going to be a referendum and that a Conservative-led or a coalition Government of some stripe would renegotiate sooner rather than later. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told us that they were going to bring back powers over social and employment policy, but what is key now is whether our constituents will get to vote on the outcome. Do they want to stay in with whatever improvements we have been able to negotiate, however great or otherwise they might be, or do they want to come out and be an independent country, trading with Europe but governing ourselves? I say to Members, particularly those who are undecided, that that decision must now be our constituents’ decision. That is the way in which we will restore belief and trust in politics.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I support the principle of having an EU referendum, yet I will not support the motion. Let me explain why those two positions are not contradictory.
I am on record as saying that our membership of the EU should be put to the British people. I am 32, and I find it incredible that the last referendum took place four years before I was even born. One has to be 55 to have voted in it. It is therefore understandable that people of my generation do not feel that they have had their say on Europe. They see the EU interfering in our everyday lives, from how fruit and vegetables are packaged, to the number of announcements on trains and, most insidious of all, how long we are allowed to work in our jobs—for just 48 hours a week. [Interruption.] It is clear to me that what was put to the people in 1975—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting courteously; he deserves a proper hearing, and that is what he must get.
Mr Burley
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
It is clear that what was put to the people in 1975—we should remember that they voted yes—was the Common Market, but the European Union that exists today would be unrecognisable to those who voted then. When Britain joined the Common Market, it signed up to a free trade agreement. Since then, the power of European institutions has changed beyond all recognition. I am delighted that the Government have enshrined in law that a referendum must be held before any further powers are ceded to Brussels. This is a major step—one that I have supported with enthusiasm.
Frankly, given the EU’s propensities for creating new treaties, I suspect it will not be long before the people get the vote that they desire and deserve. That vote will be important. If the public vote in favour of a future treaty, it will rule out for another generation any thought of us ever leaving the EU. If the public vote to reject it, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, for there not to be a subsequent vote on our withdrawal. Given that the referendum that I want is inevitable, as a result of the laws passed by the Conservatives, I must think carefully about the current motion and its impact on the people of Cannock Chase.
Andrew Percy
I respect my hon. Friend’s views. Like him, I was born after the last referendum on the matter, but the problem with his argument is that it does not give us the opportunity to have a say on whether we want to be in the EU. That is what my and his generation want to have. We have never been asked that before, and it is about time that we were.
Mr Burley
I think that our generation will be given that choice.
I must consider the impact that passing this motion would have on my constituents. That is the key point. Business men have told me that there are signs that give cause for optimism, but that the recovery is fragile.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Burley
No, I will not.
Those business men’s fear, and mine, is that the announcement of a referendum, involving the campaign extending to 2013 for which the motion calls, could have a devastating effect on business confidence and investment. This morning I spoke to a business man from my constituency who had come here to be given a tour of the House of Commons. He works for an international company in the private sector which has invested heavily in the United Kingdom and employs several hundred people in my constituency, and he has already been told by the members of his executive board in America that the potential further instability caused by a referendum could cause them to question future investment not just in Cannock Chase, but in the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe.
Mr Burley
I will not.
At a time when business is crying out for stability, a referendum would move it in totally the opposite direction, creating yet more instability when what we need is foreign investment. While that business man would not oppose a referendum in principle, now is simply not the time for one.
I think that the referendum that we all want is coming, and will be a result of the policies that have already been backed by the Government and by the EU itself. However, I think that to hold that referendum now, regardless of the result, would create a significant risk for our economy and for Cannock Chase in particular. I say to every Member who supports the motion, “Ask yourself one question: are you willing to jeopardise the recovery?” [Interruption.]
British people are worried—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, British people are worried about bread-and-butter issues. They are worried about jobs and about their livelihoods. I do not want to do anything that puts my constituents’ livelihoods at risk. The time will come for people to vote on whether we stay in the EU, but, in my opinion, that time is not today. This is a debate for another day. Voting for the motion would be an indulgence, and I hope Members will vote accordingly. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. It will want to hear Mr Christopher Chope.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
In essence, the debate is about whether we are representatives of the people, or delegates of the Government or the shadow Government. I think that those who have argued today in support of our being representatives of the people have won the debate—a debate in which I am proud to have been able to participate, having sat here for the best part of five and a half hours.
This time last night I was at a polling station in Tunisia, observing the election results. People were queuing for more than three hours just to exercise their right to vote. It is vital that, in Tunisia and in this country, the people do not elect representatives and then find that those representatives go back on their word. There is a certain worry in Tunisia that that may happen in the case of the party with the most votes. I believe, however, that in this country participation in elections has been plummeting because on too many occasions we have promised something to the electorate and then let them down.
I do not think that we should hold a referendum until we have had a chance to conduct a proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of our membership of the European Union. In the last Parliament I tabled a Bill to achieve just that, which was supported by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. Now neither of those Front Benches supports the idea of such an audit. Why not? I think that that is indicative of the present cynicism about the issue of Europe.
As for timing, many people have forgotten that the forthcoming seven-year budget presents us with a great opportunity. Once every seven years, we have a veto over the EU budget. I think it a pity that the Foreign Secretary effectively indicated today that he was satisfied that we would be doing very well if the next seven-year budget contained only an increase in line with inflation. We are telling local authorities and people working for Governments that they must make real-terms cuts. Why are the Government selling us short by not entering into those negotiations in a much more hard-headed way? If we pass this motion, or give it a tremendous amount of support, it will strengthen the Government’s hand in their efforts to secure a better deal and negotiate a reduction in our contribution to the EU budget, rather than a real-terms increase. The Government have fallen short of their responsibilities to the people on too many occasions, and the message coming from the House tonight is that the Government must listen and the EU must listen and we, the people, must press the point home that we want a referendum. We want to trust the people.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is customary when summing up to say, “This has been a good debate,” but this has been an amazing debate. We must thank the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the Backbench Business Committee for putting it on, and we must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for having opened it so sensibly so many hours ago. I have sat and listened to most of the debate, but as there were 52 speeches, I must apologise to the majority of contributors because I will not be able to respond to what they said.
Let me say at the beginning, however, that I must praise the Prime Minister. If it were not for him, we would not have the Backbench Business Committee. If it were not for him, we would not have petitions either, and it is the petitioning of this House of Commons that has brought this debate into being. I also thank the Prime Minister for his speech on 26 May 2009, when he encouraged returning power to the people. He said that in the past when debates were held in this House, the arguments went one way and the other, but then the bells rang and the Whips got into action and Members floated through the Commons like a herd of sheep. That is not going to happen tonight. I am going to take the advice of my Prime Minister when he encouraged every Member to be independent-minded, to put his constituents first, to put his country first, and to put narrow party interests last. I say, “Well done, Prime Minister,” and I will be voting in accordance with my conscience tonight.
It is unfortunate that some of the Whips have not quite got the Prime Minister’s message yet, but there is a rule of thumb in this House: if the three Front Benches agree on something, it is absolutely wrong. That is the situation tonight.
I say to my Whips that a mistake has been made tonight. The Backbench Business Committee was set up to test the will of Parliament, not in order for us to vote on party lines. This is exactly the sort of debate on which we should have a free vote. I am of the opinion that if there had been a free vote tonight, this motion would have been carried.
Lights have started flashing, instructing me to shut up early, although I thought I could go on for a little longer. I am afraid I must apologise to all 52 members who contributed for not having had time to comment on their speeches, but I will write to them.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any reason why the vote is being delayed?
Mr Speaker
The Tellers are in. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time—[Interruption.] I do not know why people are referring to three-figure numbers; the hon. Gentleman has not been here that long. His patience will be rewarded. He does not have long to wait and must calm himself. I like to see him in a state of permanent calm. That is my ambition.
Business without Debate
delegated Legislation
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 3 to 8, all six of them, together. The motions are in the name of the Chair of the Committee of Selection.
Ordered,
Business, Innovation and Skills
That Dan Jarvis and Ian Murray be discharged from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Julie Elliott and Ann McKechin be added.
Culture, Media and Sport
That Cathy Jamieson be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Steve Rotheram be added.
Defence
That Mr Mike Hancock be discharged from the Defence Committee and Bob Russell be added.
Health
That Yvonne Fovargue be discharged from the Health Committee and Barbara Keeley be added.
Northern Ireland Affairs
That Ian Lavery be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr David Anderson be added.
Public Accounts
That Stella Creasy and Mrs Anne McGuire be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Meg Hillier and Fiona Mactaggart be added.—(Mr Mark Francois, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Mr Speaker
We come now to the Adjournment. Just before I call the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), may I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Lady that they would wish to be extended to them in similar circumstances?
Live Animal Exports (Port of Ramsgate)
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
First, I should like to make a great apology to the Minister, whom I seem to keep up regularly at this time of night—on matters DEFRA.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
And his Parliamentary Private Secretary!
Laura Sandys
Great apologies to his PPS as well.
Given the theme of the motion on which we have just voted—the European Union and the barriers that it sometimes puts up to our cultural and historical norms—I want to raise the issue of live animal exports leaving the port of Ramsgate.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and we maintain and have always maintained the highest standards of animal welfare. Indeed, as I am sure the Minister knows, we passed our first piece of animal welfare legislation almost 400 years ago, so is it not rather surprising that sheep and two-week-old calves are driven from as far away as southern Ireland, across the Irish sea to Ramsgate, across the channel and then as far as Greece? Should we in this country endorse such transport and trade?
Tens of thousands of animals have arrived at Ramsgate this year to be put on a Soviet ship—a roll-on/roll-off ferry that was designed for river and inland water transport. On to the boat they go in their trucks, with water spraying and in gales of up to force 6. The longest estimated channel crossing is five hours due to very adverse weather conditions. Those journeys are inhumane.
The Minister knows that the trade is deeply undesirable, but on these issues we are not in control of our destiny, because we are controlled by the EU, which views animals as goods rather than as sentient beings. This is not a new issue, however, because the stalemate was experienced under the previous Government. For 13 years, we had little or no progress on ensuring that we improved animal welfare and, in particular, transportation.
I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that residents from all over Kent, including the Thanet Against Live Exports and Kent Against Live Exports groups and many individuals have written to me. I have received four times as much correspondence on this issue as I have on the EU referendum.
This debate is particularly important given the timely review of the EU’s regulation on the transportation of live exports so I should like the Minister to outline what the Government will submit in response to the review, and I urge him also to take the evidence that my residents have gathered and to include it in our submission in order to show what really happens at the coal face of this trade.
We must revisit the number of hours an animal can be transported without lairage. Fourteen hours for sheep is too long, and a one-hour stopover is not long enough. Calves that are only 14 days old are taken half way across Europe on land and sea. That is an ordeal.
I commend the Government for aggressively pressing for revised labelling of meat products. Meat will have to show the country of origin, not just the country of slaughter, which in previous years has allowed much of our British beef to be designated as French, Spanish or Greek when the animals were born and bred in the UK or Ireland. Greater transparency will give European consumers the choice of whether to endorse live exports.
There is additional good news. The live export trade has diminished significantly over the past 20 years from more than 300,000 animals a year to around 50,000. But that tells its own story. Reputable meat wholesalers transport animals to Europe not on the hoof, but as carcasses. Today we have abattoirs in the UK that butcher meat to meet the unique tastes of any part of Europe, and that poses a question. Who are the small number of people who transport live animals, and exploit EU single market legislation? Who are the individuals who believe that transporting live animals is humane and financially viable?
DEFRA has responsibility for issuing export health certificates, and is the competent authority that licenses those who transport animals. Enforcement, even of the existing regulations, is crucial, and I ask the Minister to take further action. As the licensing authority, DEFRA must do more investigations as soon as possible into whether the wholesaler or the owner of the Ramsgate ship, Joline, have any connections with business men who have already been convicted of animal cruelty? Has the Department made the necessary inquiries to find out whether someone who was prosecuted in Folkestone for six offences against animal welfare has any connection with the current trade out of Ramsgate?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady referred to the fact that sheep, cattle and young calves come from Ireland to the UK mainland and then cross over to Europe. Does she believe that DEFRA should contact the Irish Republic’s Agriculture Minister to ensure that what the hon. Lady wants to be stopped in England is also stopped in the Republic of Ireland?
Laura Sandys
I welcome that intervention, and I totally agree. There should be an EU-wide regulation on the transport of animals, but it is incumbent on us to enforce our existing domestic regulations. I urge the Minister to examine the matter.
It is understood that a former trader who has had several prosecutions is located in the same offices in Amsterdam as the company that holds the licence to operate the Joline for animal transport from Ramsgate. Coincidences may occur, but that feels a bit too close for comfort. More worrying are several reports of the operator not complying with the regulations. For example, it has sailed in a force 7 gale when the boat is licensed only for force 6. It has not provided adequate protection for the animals, and there have been discrepancies in the time spent in transport.
This weekend, I was horrified to hear that at 9 pm on Friday, eight lorries turned up, but the ship is licensed for and can accommodate only seven lorries. The lorry drivers dismantled their cabs and drove to Dover to cross by ferry. The animals were loaded on to the ship without their drivers, who are responsible for their welfare. The ship did not leave the port until after 4 am. The animals then faced a four-hour trip across the channel taking them over the 11 hour regulated transport period. I understand that in addition, the ship was unable to dock at Calais for several hours because of the tides. The animals would then have had to be unloaded, and to leave Calais for a resting place.
The report indicated that the transporters of the animals—those with the lorry licences and the operators of the ship—contravened animal welfare regulations. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Department investigates such reports and that action is taken to revoke licences immediately while further evidence is gathered. We believe that these operators are, at best, cavalier with the regulations and, at worst, have little interest in animal welfare.
Action needs to be taken, and I hope for the Minister’s commitment on these matters. I know that he and his Department, like me and the residents of Thanet, would like to end this trade. Yes, we might have to wait a while for it to be banned altogether, but we must stop any cruelty that is happening under the current regulations and ensure that our animal welfare enforcement is robust, including in the port of Ramsgate.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Let me start by thanking and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on seeking this debate to raise an issue that is of great concern not only to her constituents and residents in the wider area of Thanet but to me and to my Department, and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom I am pleased to see have stayed for the debate.
I emphasise that, as stated in the coalition agreement, this Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare, including their transport—how it is done and where it is done. Clearly, the Government would prefer animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production; and as far as breeding stock is concerned, we would like the trade to be only in meat or in germ plasm, because that is preferable to one based on live animals. That also has advantages in terms of animal welfare because it helps with our own domestic slaughter and in developing our own enterprise, business and industry. Moreover, as my hon. Friend rightly said, we now have all the butchery expertise to cater for whatever particular specifications overseas customers demand.
As my hon. Friend said, the previous Government recognised that such a trade in live animals is lawful provided that the safeguards laid down in the European Union and in our own national welfare-in-transport legislation are observed. Whatever we may think about this, the Government have to comply with our international obligations.
Naomi Long
Would the Minister advocate the tightening of the international rules to allow for cross-border trade in the case of operators who neighbour a border—for example, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—with another slaughterhouse on the other side in order to avoid long, arduous journeys such as those described by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys)?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will come to some of those points. Yes, there is a distinction between cases where there happens to be a border, but it is a few miles to an abattoir, and the sort of journey to which my hon. Friend has referred.
The safeguards that I mentioned include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised and for drivers to pass a competency test. Indeed, I passed one myself. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved by qualified engineers working for authorised private vehicle inspection bodies. Also, for long journeys, transporters must apply for a journey log for each journey that provides the details of the proposed route, and these applications are checked by the Animal Health and Veterinary Agency before they are approved. More importantly, the journey logs have to be updated by the transporter as the journey progresses and returned once the journey is completed, and we then check whether the actual journey was in line with the original application. If there were any variations, they need to be investigated to see whether they were consistent with the legislation.
There are many other safeguards in the transport legislation, such as the fitness-to-travel rules in terms of the animal itself and technical requirements on space allowances, ventilation, water, and so on. I want to emphasise that the commercial transport of animals on journeys of more than eight hours is highly regulated. On top of all the checks before and after a long journey, inspectors undertake risk-based checks on consignments, either when the animals are loaded at the point of departure or on arrival at the port of Ramsgate. They have powers on discovery of any infringement by individual transporters—that has happened a number of times—and that can lead to suspension or revocation of the transporter’s authorisation to transport animals or the withdrawal of their vehicle approval certificate. I emphasise and, in effect, give a warning that all those engaged in this trade must ensure that they are fully in compliance with all the regulations, because we will continue to be as tough as possible on this trade. It has been the subject of a number of legal challenges over the years by local authorities and port authorities.
The trade in live animals to the continent for slaughter has fluctuated markedly, as my hon. Friend said. There have been periods, such as during the outbreaks of BSE, foot and mouth and, more recently, tuberculosis, when the trade has been halted or interrupted. As she rightly said, the scale has dramatically reduced, so its impact on the economics of the UK livestock sector is now minimal, if anything at all. The present trade is tiny at just a few tens of thousands of animals and certainly fewer than 50,000 so far this year.
The concept of free trade is enshrined in national legislation in the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and more recently in article 34 of the treaty of Rome. The latter states:
“Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.”
Some welfare lobbyists have suggested that changing the 1847 Act is the way forward. However, such a move would clearly be illegal as it would be contrary to article 34 of the treaty.
On the subject of EU treaties, I would like to lay to rest the idea that member states might deal with this issue through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:
“Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”
Some suggest that that is a new requirement and that, therefore, long journeys can no longer be considered legal. That is not the case. The corresponding text of article 13 was previously set out in the binding protocol to the treaty of Amsterdam, which was agreed in 1997. It was therefore already a requirement to treat animals as sentient beings when the European Council agreed the terms of Council Regulation 1/2005. I am afraid that that is not a legal option open to us.
My hon. Friend raised a number of specific points. She rightly referred to the recent changes at European level to make labelling fresh meat with the country of origin mandatory. We are awaiting the detail of that, but I sincerely hope that it will have the effect that she and I want it to have. We have always supported the need for country-of-origin labelling to ensure that British consumers are properly informed. However, that same legislation must not deceive consumers overseas into believing that sheep—it is mainly sheep—born and reared in the UK are native to France, Spain or wherever they are bought.
My hon. Friend referred to the licensing of the ship and the lorries. She referred obliquely to a Mr Onderwater. There is no doubt that he is closely involved in this trade and she is right that he has been prosecuted for cruelty. I cannot comment on the authenticity of her comment about where his office is, but he is not the authorised holder of the shipping licence, which was issued in Latvia. We have asked the Latvian authorities for details of it and they say that his name is not on the licence.
My hon. Friend referred to what happened on Friday. I was not aware of the eight lorries that she referred to. However, there is no legal specification about the number of lorries allowed on the ship. The specification is about the number of people who travel. We believe that that is why some of the lorry drivers decamped and travelled via Dover. I am aware of the six-hour delay in loading to which she referred, which is clearly unacceptable. Whether it was illegal is questionable, because it could count as part of the rest period. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency issued a notice to sail to stop any further delay. I admit that I did not know until today that such a power existed. The AHVLA is considering the best course of regulatory action. We are seriously inclined to introduce a maximum period of two hours to load and sail, to prevent that from happening again.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Many of us have constituents who have expressed concerns over the years, and who specifically want swift action on preventing the sail. I think that would help greatly.
Mr Paice
I think that preventing the sail might be counter-productive, because then the animals might face a longer journey back to where they came from if they had come from, say, the Republic of Ireland. However, we are taking measures to ensure that the ship sails quickly after loading, so that loading and sailing take place within two hours. I should also emphasise that it is a requirement of European legislation that all the necessary arrangements are made in advance, so that welfare is not compromised by insufficient co-ordination between the parts of the journey.
The motor vessel Joline, to which my hon. Friend referred, is licensed to sail in up to force 6 gales. We have recently had concern that she was sailing at what was considered to be the margin of that safety level. The captain was warned, but I emphasise that that is a maritime safety issue and not directly related to animal welfare, although clearly the welfare of the animals may be affected. There is no evidence that the captain has sailed in winds higher than force 6, but if I may use this phrase, he has sailed close to the wind.
There have been a large number of investigations by the AHVLA, but I need to emphasise that virtually all of them are about the vehicles rather than the ship. That is rather an important point, because it brings us to the enforcement of the existing legislation. That is an important consideration, particularly when we are discussing long journeys. The European Commission has spent nearly two years gathering data on the impact of the legislation and is due to report very shortly. It is too late for us to make any further submissions, as my hon. Friend suggested, but as soon as the report is published we will study it very carefully. We understand that it will have something to say about the level of enforcement across the Community, but will not make any recommendations of changes to the existing legislation. If that is the case, I can assure her that we will make further representations.
Whatever the report concludes, I will press the European Commission to come forward with proposals on both tightening the current enforcement of the existing rules and reviewing the existing long journey requirements to encourage shorter, more sustainable journeys linked to available slaughter capacity. Whatever the eventual outcome, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it must be based on the available scientific evidence, not subjective opinion or belief. I have to say to her that many member states will be opposed to any such tightening of those rules, and because the European Commission appears reluctant to take any action, any changes to the current rules on long journeys are unlikely to be achieved in the immediate future. That brings the matter back to this country and to my Department.
I believe that a more sustainable approach to the transport of livestock on long journeys must be found, and I will push for that at every available opportunity in the framework of future EU discussions on animal welfare during transport. I can say to my hon. Friend that, as I implied earlier, we will use every measure available to us within the bounds of legislation to be as robust as we can in ensuring that the highest welfare standards that can be achieved are achieved. As I said, we want to ensure that all those involved in the trade, whether they be shipping people or those running the lorries that transport cattle and sheep, are under no illusion that we will deal with them as robustly as we possibly can and take whatever measures are possible whenever there is an infringement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Although I have not been able to do what I know she and other Members would like me to do, which is to declare that we will ban the trade—I am not able to do that—I hope she will rest assured that we will take every measure we can within the legislative arrangements that we have.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
HM Revenue and Customs - Discussion Document
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HM Revenue and Customs is publishing today a discussion document on pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) pooling. Its purpose is to consult on HMRC’s proposals to alter the PAYE system to give closely connected employers the option of being treated as a single entity for PAYE purposes (PAYE pooling).
The discussion document is available on the HM Revenue and Customs website at: http:// www.hmrc.gov.uk/consultations/.
The Cabinet Manual
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The Government have published today “The Cabinet Manual” on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/cabinet-manual.
“The Cabinet Manual” is intended to be a source of information on the UK’s laws, conventions and rules that affect the operation and procedures of Government.
A summary of responses received on the “Draft Cabinet Manual”, which was published in December 2010, and a Government response to the reports of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and Public Administration Select Committee (Cm 8213) on “The Cabinet Manual” have also been published on the Cabinet Office website.
Copies of all documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
National Policy Statement (Ports)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
Having considered consultation responses and the report of the previous Select Committee on Transport, I am today laying before Parliament the national policy statement for ports in England and Wales, pursuant to section 5(9)(b) of the Planning Act 2008, together with the Government’s response to the Committee.
I am also publishing, on the Department’s website, a written response to the consultation and an updated version of the appraisal of sustainability that had been published as part of the consultation process.
The ports industry is a vital contributor to this country’s economic recovery and success. Well over 90% of trade by tonnage passes through sea ports, and so the importance of a clear planning framework for their future sustainable development can hardly be overstated.
The NPS gives full prominence to the importance of development in sympathy with the environment, while also stressing the national need for developers’ commercial judgments to be respected in what continues to be a successful, market-oriented and responsible sector.
It has been agreed with the House that the same procedure as proposed in the Localism Bill will be followed for the NPS. The Secretary of State intends to designate the NPS after a period of 21 sitting days has elapsed, or following a debate in the House of Commons if the House wishes one, and approves the NPS, within that period.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, I shall make the usual housekeeping announcements. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes, or at a time at my discretion if there is any problem.
I also remind the Committee of the new procedure during Grand Committee on the Bill for Divisions in the Chamber. Members who have registered with the Clerk of the Parliaments may vote in their places in the Grand Committee, provided they are present in the Grand Committee when the Question is put in the Chamber after three minutes. Members who have not registered, or who are not here at the three-minute mark, will not be able to vote in their places.
I also remind Members not to touch the microphones. They are all set and it will cause a nuisance if you play with them.
Welfare Reform Bill
(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
“( ) the fact that a claimant has reached the qualifying age for state pension credit.”
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, unsurprisingly, this is primarily about people who have reached, or have nearly reached, retirement age. We know that for a long time the means-tested benefit system has supported, and given greater support, to people who have reached retirement age. However, under this Bill, unless couples where one person has reached retirement age receive some additional support, the older person who might be, say, 80, who happens to have a partner of 59, could be worse off financially than someone with a partner of the same age. My amendment seeks to remedy that anomaly.
Not allowing couples, when one has reached state pension credit age, to get working age benefits is an important change from the current rules because the way in which couples have been treated in the past for benefit entitlement has been based on the age of the youngest partner. In the Bill as it stands, one of the basic conditions for entitlement to universal credit set out in Clause 4 is that someone is under the qualifying age for state pension credit, which, by the way, is gradually increasing in line with rises in women's state pension age. However, Clause 12(2) allows for exceptions to that. The Government have said that the age limit will not apply where one of a couple is above the qualifying age for state pension credit and the other is younger. That is necessary because Schedule 2 to the Bill will prevent pension credit claims in the future from couples where one is under the qualifying age.
In some situations, couples where one is above and one is below pension credit age may be better off financially receiving universal credit and I am really pleased about that. That could apply, for example, where one is working, as an important aim of universal credit is to make work pay, and benefits will gradually be withdrawn. However, by contrast, a couple receiving the pension credit guarantee have only a £10 disregard from earnings. After that, any earnings are counted in full as additional income, which will reduce benefit entitlement. If neither partner is working, a couple relying on universal credit will receive a lower level of payment than a couple receiving the pension credit guarantee.
I fully accept and agree with the fact that the Government want younger partners who are claiming benefits to be seeking work, but I believe that when neither partner is able to work or, if able, is unsuccessful in finding work—we know it is rather difficult for people who are near retirement age—the basic level of benefit should reflect the fact that one of the partners is older. The addition of this minor age exception to the list in Clause 12(2) would achieve that aim. I trust that this amendment will be acceptable to the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
I support Amendment 50A. I am very concerned about the implications of the change of the rules on pension credit because the effect of the proposed change is a severe restriction on the availability of pension credit. The most recent impact assessment which updates that provided in February to take account of a more recently announced policy confirms that the number of households with lower entitlements under universal credit has increased relative to the previous version of the impact assessment. That is primarily due to the announced policy changes to disability payments and the treatment of couples with one partner under and one over the qualifying age for pension credit under universal credit.
I find this change in policy a peculiar form of couples penalty, when the Government are on record, I understand, as being against such a penalty. It is a couples penalty that disproportionately impacts on the poorest of couples because the recent impact assessment reveals that the number of households with lower entitlements under universal credit will increase as a result of this particular treatment of couples with one partner under and one over the qualifying age for pension credit. As a consequence of these changes, although not wholly attributable to this one, 70 per cent of the lower entitlement is concentrated in the bottom and lower quintile.
Although the figures in the impact assessment do not separately show the impact of the pension credit changes, the impact assessment states quite clearly that:
“Some of the heaviest notional losses … are in cases where one member is of working-age and one is currently eligible for Pension Credit”.
I see in response to a question from Stephen Timms in the other place, Steve Webb answered that as of February 2011, 93,200 pension credit recipients had a partner aged below 60. A not insignificant group of people, no doubt in low-income groups, will be impacted by this change.
When one looks at previous impact assessments that the department has released, in many of these couples when one is a pensioner and one is not, the partner below state pension age may well be caring for children or somebody with a disability or who is ill. Now those households would be subject to the new in-work conditionality requirements. We know that older women are less likely to be employed outside the home, so this is another example of a policy that will impact on women—exactly the kind of policy upsetting the Women's Institute according to this weekend's papers. I am sure that it will be onto the case with this one as well
I notice that the Minister, Mr Grayling, commented in Committee in the other place that it should be acceptable to say to someone:
“‘Your household is on a low income, you need more money, get a job’”,—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 28/4/11; col. 553.]
as a defence of this change to the pension credit rules. Perhaps he should have reflected on the characteristics of the community affected by this change, such as the number of older women in such households who are undertaking valuable non-wage caring work or the fact that disabled people are more likely to be reliant on pension credit at minimum qualifying age. Those facts and figures are freely available in impact assessments from the department.
We now have a policy that is discriminating between pensioners on the basis of their spouse’s age and producing some quite arbitrary outcomes with poorer households having significantly different experiences because of what could be quite moderate differences in the age of their partners. Let us be clear: the effect of this policy is to disentitle someone under the current rules who would otherwise receive pension credit and place them, because of the age of their partner, into universal credit.
This policy will impact on a lot of low-income households. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, detailed that when she moved the amendment. I know that Age UK is particularly concerned. If, for example, a couple received an amount of universal credit equivalent to the basic level of income-related jobseeker’s allowance that would be just £105.95 compared with pension credit for a single person of over £137 and £209-plus for a couple.
The other point that causes me concern is that pension credit provides an automatic passport to benefits such as health benefits, Christmas bonus, home improvement grants and free school lunches—I was looking the list up—and any cared-for children’s access to school lunches. Will all these fall away now for these couples, even though one of them reaches the qualifying age?
The other impact is that this change in policy will also mean that these older couples, with one at the PC qualifying age, will find that any savings that they have are now subject to the more aggressive capital rules, rather than the gentler rules under pension credit. That strikes me as particularly harsh as a consequence of this change. I feel that this Bill is being used to change the rules on pensions, yet it is not a pension Bill, because the population most impacted on by the change in this policy will be subject to a series of government policy changes, the accumulative effect of which would be quite significant. They face an accelerated increase in the pension credit qualifying age, consequent on the state pension age changes, and the impact of that has been clearly detailed. The savings credit element of pension credit has been frozen until 2015, and now a new policy of disentitlement has been introduced, whereby a qualifying age of entitlement to pension credit will be dependent on the age of the partner. When one stands back and looks at the cumulative impact of this on these individuals, the impact of the rules on their savings and the characteristics of this demographic, one can see that this is a very harsh change of rules. Yet the Government’s own impact assessment for the Pensions Bill shows that women under 55 on low incomes, who are most likely to be the people under the qualifying age, whereas their male partners may be at it, are the hardest hit by any changes in pension credit policy because of caring responsibilities, ill health or availability of work. They are now going to be caught up in the conditionality requirements under universal credit.
Pension credit is a very effective policy for targeting pensioner poverty, which was confirmed by the recent PPI research commissioned by Age UK and launched at an event supported by the Minister, Steve Webb, who came to speak. Here we are, tampering with the rules of pension credit when it is probably the most effective mechanism that we have for immediately addressing pensioner poverty. The effect that it will have is simply to disentitle people who have previously been entitled to pension credit and put them through a discretionary work conditionality process when we know that the characteristic of this particular group should not be subjected to those kinds of policies. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will allow the Government to address my concerns on this issue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, may I just ask a question of the Minister in support of the amendment? As I understand it, if someone is on pension credit above the age, they pull a younger person up to their age. In future, if someone is of a younger age, they will pull someone over pension credit age back down again. How will that interact with the proposed new state single pension, which will of course embed pension credit into the pension, so that somebody over the age of 65 or 66 will get the whole lot? Could he confirm that the timing of this, which I thought was 2014-15, will be precisely when some of this is due to be implemented? Would it not therefore be wise to rethink that, in terms of those proposed changes?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I support each of these amendments. Perhaps I could start with a reply that was given by Mr Chris Grayling to Stephen Timms in the other place about the cost of this. He said:
“It is estimated that this policy could save up to £100 million over this spending review. Because of the interaction with other changes to support pensioners, which are still being developed, we are not yet able”,
to produce,
“a firm estimate for a long run figure for savings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/11; col. 936W.]
Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have apparently argued in favour of this policy, because it brings working-age claimants within the conditionality regime, that is the thrust behind this as I understand it.
We heard from my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, about the possible cost implications for individuals who would have been within the pension credit regime now being forced into the universal credit regime and the losses that could produce. There are not necessarily losses for everyone. Yet the original proposition in the White Paper, as I understand it, was for there to be a choice: that in these circumstances a couple could choose universal credit if they wanted to, or otherwise stay within the pension credit regime. This matter was raised in the other place and I do not think that a satisfactory answer was given for that change of policy which was, by and large, unannounced. A number of points arise. I think it has been confirmed that those who are already in receipt of pension credit when these provisions are introduced will not have to back out of it. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that, but what about if there is a change in circumstances for somebody in that position? If they were perhaps dipping in and out of pension credit because of the savings threshold—or for any other reason—and if they were in at one stage, would they be able to stay in?
My noble friend Lady Drake dealt with the impact of savings. You could have somebody who has just retired and who would have been within the pension credit regime, and maybe just taking a tax-free sum from their pension scheme, now being precluded from being within pension credit and forced out of universal credit as well. On that point, there is a provision in the Bill—I think it is Clause 64—which lays the groundwork for caps to be introduced on capital amounts within pension credit. I am not clear whether that is just to address the issue of housing benefit being attached to pension credit in the future, which has a capital limit attached to it, or to bring the generality of pension credit within the regime that is otherwise going to operate. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify matters on that.
We heard about the impact of passporting, particularly with pension credit currently being a full passport to housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, if in fact the working-age partner does not have to be subject to any conditionality because of a caring responsibility, or for any other reason—perhaps they are subject to no work-related requirements under the assessments that take place—why then would the Government still force that couple through universal credit? If the rationale of using the universal credit to bring people within conditionality falls away, why should those couples not then have the opportunity of remaining in pension credit if they choose? It does not make any sense to say, “We are doing this because we want people to be subjected to conditionality”. If the conditionality rules do not impose any work-related activity or requirement on those individuals, why should they not be able to remain in the pension credit regime?
As has been mentioned, this provision is discriminating against somebody not on their age but on the age of their partner, which is somewhat of a departure from previous policy. I hope that the Minister will address these issues. I fear that this is something which we will have to come back to at Report, because it cannot rest as it stands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, Amendments 50A and 53 concern couples where one member is above qualifying age for pension credit, and the other below. The Bill provides that such couples will in future claim universal credit rather than pension credit. I should stress that this change will not affect couples already in receipt of pension credit. It will apply only to new cases. The effect will therefore build up slowly and existing cases will not be disturbed.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we still need to decide how to deal with cases which move on and off pension credit in future. To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the impact assessment, this shows the long-term effect, and not the immediate impact.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for clarifying that she is not opposed to this change of emphasis in principle. The rationale is that while one member of the couple may be over the qualifying age for pension credit, the other member of the couple is of working age. Since all people of working age who can work should be expected to do so and there are no work-related requirements associated with pension credit, it follows that universal credit is the appropriate benefit. I should stress that the work-related requirements would apply only to the working-age partner.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for also acknowledging that in some cases the more generous earnings rules in universal credit may mean that it is a more advantageous benefit than pension credit. The disregards and earnings tapers in universal credit will mean that if one or both of the couple does work, they will keep much more of their earnings than they would in pension credit where earnings over £10 a week are deducted pound for pound from the guarantee credit.
The issue is about the rate of universal credit and how this compares with pension credit. Noble Lords will be aware that the levels of support through pension credit are significantly higher than levels of current benefits for people of working age. This is due in particular to the way in which pension-age benefits have been uprated at a faster rate than working-age benefits in recent years.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As usual I am not up to speed on everything. Could the noble Lord say exactly what he means in this context by “working age”?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not often baffled, but by “working age” I mean someone below the state pension age, which is moving currently. But that is a formal definition.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to the Minister. In other words, as the age of eligibility for a state pension increases, under the definition in this Bill “working age” will increase at the same time with it. Is that right?
Lord Freud
Yes, I can confirm to the noble Lord that that is absolutely what is happening here. Clearly, we have debated the changes in pension age. That is to do with the very welcome increase in longevity and the length of people’s healthy lives. Returning to the point, the noble Baroness’s amendment would deal with the difference between pension credit levels and universal credit levels by including an additional amount in universal credit where a claimant is over the state pension qualifying age. I understand the reasoning—and indeed there are currently pensioner premiums along these lines in income support and jobseeker’s allowance. In designing universal credit, however, we have not included any additions specifically for people over pension age. There are two main reasons for this.
First, we think that it could reduce the work incentives for the working-age partner if they are paid a higher rate of benefit simply because they have an older partner. We are already including additions for specific reasons such as caring, or limited capability for work, where people are likely to have longer durations on benefit. Clearly, we are raising some of those levels appreciably. If in a particular case these additions are not appropriate, there ought, in principle, to be as much scope for the working-age partner to work as in any other case, so it is not clear why a higher rate of benefit should be paid.
Secondly, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, rightly pointed out, there is a significant programme of change under way for people over pension age. Following the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of 23 March, the Government published the Green Paper A State Pension for the 21st Century in April. That paper set out options for reforming the state pension system for future pensioners. In the light of the responses to the Green Paper, we are currently developing proposals for changing the state pension system and at the same time are considering how pension credit may need to change to best meet the needs of future pensioners under any reformed state pension. It would clearly be important to make sure that any arrangements for pensioners dovetail closely with universal credit to ensure a smooth interface and also to ensure that we deal fairly with couples where one person is over pension age and the other is under it. Until our thinking is further developed, we have only one side of the equation. We need both sides of the equation to consider this issue fully. I should just add that clearly once there is a migration on changing pensions the migration strategy into universal credit and the timing of how we take different groups into it will also be hugely relevant. That goes to the heart of the very perceptive question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful for the Minister’s very full reply on that. He clearly anticipated the question coming up. When will he be in a position to tell the Committee about the two timetables? There is the universal credit timetable and people coming over to that and the new pension timetable. When will we be in a position to see? Frankly, if there is only a year or so’s difference between them, that raises a question mark about putting this extra weight on to the complexities of UC for a very short period before it is overtaken in turn by the changes to pensions, at least for the older partner in such a relationship. Can he give us some indication? I suspect that this is probably not worth doing.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not think I can give a precise time on this because there are quite a lot of moving parts at the moment. All I can do is assure the Committee that we really do have this issue front and centre if we have these two sets of changes. I hope I have explained how we are planning to proceed, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister follow up on two points? First, in a situation where the Secretary of State cannot impose the work-related requirement on a claimant because the claimant has limited capability for work and work-related activity, there is nothing in forcing people away from pension credit and into universal credit because the working-age partner is not going to be subject to conditionality in any event. What is the rationale then for preventing people being in pension credit? It seems to me that it falls away completely.
There is a separate question about the impact of capital. My noble friend Lady Drake made the point that currently there is a big difference between the capital rules in pension credit and the capital rules that will operate in universal credit, but there is a provision in the Bill that looks as though a capital limit will be introduced for state pension credit. I do not know whether it is intended that that capital limit will mirror the £6,000 and £16,000 limits that are going to operate generally. If it is, I am not sure that I had cottoned on to that fact before. Or is it simply to deal with the housing component that is obviously going to be brought in and will work alongside pension credit?
Lord Freud
I think that I am safe in confirming to the noble Lord that we are bringing in capital limits. They are related to the housing issue, although I think that my colleague Chris Grayling said that they will be at a substantially higher level than those for universal credit. The noble Lord also probed the issue of people where no work conditionality is imposed. Clearly, within universal credit, other additions are going on. It is not a straight comparison. Under universal credit, the other person is likely to have a series of additions as well, so the imbalance is nothing like as great as the simple one.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I accept that point entirely. But under those circumstances why should the option not be available to people, to couples, to go into one or the other, which I think was the original proposition in the White Paper?
Lord Freud
That is the nub of the change. When we looked at it, we thought that the appropriate policy was to put everyone below working age in that category. On looking at the noble Lord’s question of why do it when there is not work conditionality, there we have support in universal credit through the additions and the ability to keep a rather simple set of definitions working. That is the rationale.
Baroness Greengross
I thank the Minister for responding. Obviously, I am disappointed because I think that it would work in a society where at the age of 55 one could just go and get a job, but we know that that is not the case. Unfortunately, there is a still a lot of discrimination and barriers to older people who try to get a job. More flexibility would be very welcome. I think that the noble Lord said that he cannot do more but that he is still looking to see if things can be improved for these couples. I have hopes that he will look at this again and try to improve on something that seems fairly minor but which would help a lot of people.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I may come back on a point with the Minister to make sure that I understood an answer to an earlier question. In relation to the proposed changes to capital limits for pension credit, did the noble Lord say that that would apply only—I am not sure how it would be worked out—to the housing component or that it will apply to the totality of the package?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
While the Minister is consulting—because he spoke about the additions and so on—it would be very helpful if he could send a letter around giving worked examples of various pensioner couples, or a couple who bestride the pension credit line, indicating what the implications might be, including the cases that my noble friend mentioned. We could then see what it would be. I have no reason, obviously, to doubt the Minister’s word but it would be useful to know whether the discrepancy is £10 or £50.
Lord Freud
I am happy to send a letter around. We should deal with capital limits in its entirety when we come to Clause 74, which we may get to if we hurry along.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I am about to chair a meeting on health and rather rudely have got to go. I hope that noble Lords will excuse me for rushing off to Millbank. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“School meals
(1) The amount in respect of other particular needs or circumstances, under section 12, shall include an amount in respect of school meals for any dependents of the claimant.
(2) The maximum award of the amount under this section shall be 100% of the cost that the claimant would expect to incur in respect of school meals, up to a prescribed maximum value per child.
(3) Regulations shall specify the circumstances under which a claimant shall be entitled to an amount under this section.
(4) Under no circumstances shall any amount payable under this section be included in the “relevant amount” specified in section 93(5) of this Act.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 51C. These amendments seek to ensure that free school meals and health costs, which are the core of passported benefits, are included as part of the universal credit. They also seek to ensure that any amounts included for universal credit are not included as part of the benefit cap.
In May, the Minister deftly devolved the tricky matter of how to deal with passporting to the Social Security Advisory Committee. In a Written Statement earlier this month, he updated the House on the committee’s consultation and its information gathering. It reported that the SSAC had had more than 60 responses from individuals and a wide range of organisations, including disabled people, offenders, schools, children, housing bodies, medical bodies, the NACAB, local councils, debt advice bodies and, of course, the devolved Administrations. That was alongside a trawl of relevant research and some qualitative research, which included focus groups with welfare rights advisers, and a few in-depth interviews and discussions with individuals who either have or are claiming passported benefits. The research identified more than 25 different passported benefits provided by government departments or local authorities, some of which were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Drake on the previous group.
Perhaps more significantly, although hardly surprisingly, the committee found that passported benefits are viewed as fulfilling important needs. Respondents’ views on the withdrawal of passported benefits were mixed, with some supporting a tapered withdrawal and others more of a timed withdrawal when a claimant moves into work. At the moment, we would argue—I think that this would go across the Committee—that passported benefits should be designed to incentivise people both to move into work and to stay in work. The committee has now been asked to develop guiding principles for such a design of passported benefits in relation to universal credit. I think that it has been given until the end of January to do that. My understanding is that we will see that report and the DWP’s response only in the spring of next year, which makes it difficult for this Committee and the House later to judge whether the Bill will ensure that work always pays.
Furthermore, I am slightly unclear as to how the new “app” foreshadowed by the Minister last week will be able to deal with things such as free school meals and other passported benefits if these are to be subject to any sort of taper or awarded only to certain UC recipients. Perhaps the Minister will spend a moment exploring this in his response, especially now that my noble friend Lord Knight who understands these things is in his place and will understand, I hope, the response better than I will on things like that.
The Social Security Advisory Committee unsurprisingly found that passported benefits provide a vital support to many. Free school meals can have a significant impact on the well-being of children. In its response, the CPAG stressed that access to school meals has a range of positive well-being, health and educational outcomes for children, from improved classroom behaviour to increased key stage 2 performance. It also pointed out that school meals tend to be far healthier than packed lunches: only 1 per cent of packed lunches meet the nutritional standards set for school lunches. We know that for a number of children, this is the only hot meal that they get in a day.
Similarly, the support available under the health costs criteria provides vital help to people on a low income. People who meet various criteria can get support with dental charges, optical costs, wigs and travel costs. In England, some get free prescriptions. Unlike Scotland and other areas where prescriptions are free, they are paid for in England. Passported benefits thus provide a means of safeguarding the health of children and adults, and can be worth substantial amounts in cash terms. The CPAG in its evidence gave an example of a lone parent aged 37 with two school-age children and a two year-old, and her passported benefits were probably worth about £37 a week from the mixture of free school meals, prescription, dental costs, bus fares and eye-care, along with some discounts on travel, phone bill and leisure activities. So, knowing which of these benefits she will still be able to be entitled to as she moves into work will be absolutely vital in judging whether or not she will be better off in work, and whether work really does pay.
We know that the current system is not perfect. Some 20 per cent of children in poverty are not entitled to free school meals. But for those who are, the current loss of free school meals when the parents move into work is really quite a significant cliff edge; but at least at the moment that loss of support is offset by the extra payments in working tax credits, because the current system provides an income boost when parents move into work of 16 hours or more. But by contrast, the welfare White Paper suggestion that passported benefits would be withdrawn once the family reached a certain income level seems to have two problems. The first is in replicating the cliff edge. If entitlements were suddenly lost at an income threshold, that could have a disastrous effect on work incentives as well as family budgets, and a family with two children earning an extra pound a week could be in a state where they lose £18 per week in free school meals.
Secondly, if it was to be an income threshold, that appears to take no account of family size. So a mother of three would stand to lose much more as she reached the cliff edge than—for example—a mother with one child. The first mother’s work incentives would obviously be much worse.
Now we know that, again, the canny Minister has asked the Social Security Advisory Committee to consider these issues, which are clearly pretty challenging. So we may not have the answers today. Nevertheless, we would ask for two assurances and clarifications. First, will the commitment made by the Secretary of State in the White Paper that universal credit,
“will ensure that work always pays and is seen to pay”,
apply after the loss of passported benefits has been taken into account? Because it is unclear at the moment whether passported benefits have been included in the current impact assessment of work incentives under universal credit. As Citizens Advice says, the Government really do need to ensure that decisions about who is entitled to free school meals and help with health costs does not undermine universal credit principles—which we are all signed up to—of making work pay.
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that any calculation of total benefits for the purpose of the benefit cap, will not include amounts paid in lieu of passported benefits—or the value of those benefits—if they continue to be provided in kind?
Perhaps I may add two points of clarification. First, will the IT system be able to deal with passported benefits? Secondly, could the Minister help me with the definition of “spring” as he has rather helpfully done over “soon” and “very soon”? It does seem that unless we are clear before the Third Reading whether work really will pay—taking passported benefits into account—then it will be very difficult to measure whether this whole Bill will achieve the laudable aims that the Government have for it. I beg to move.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the helpful introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Two points occur to me. The background to passported benefits is a wonderful mish-mash—an attempt, in effect, to meet certain social needs and then, possibly, to avoid the interaction of malign or unfortunate consequences by trying to dovetail them in some way, which produces an acceptable outcome. It would be a brave person who said to this Committee that they fully understood them—and I certainly do not rate myself among them—or who thought that there was a sublime, overarching concept that reconciled them all. Even the Social Security Advisory Committee will have some difficulty with it.
I simply want to distil my concerns, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. The first is the simple point, which the noble Baroness has already mentioned, that if one believes that the whole principle of universal credit is making work pay and that benefit is withdrawn on a smooth taper, it is clearly very important to consider the consequences for other kinds of benefit when people come in or out of the system. In other words, the anomalies, inconsistencies and differences in coverage become, if anything, more critical under the new regime.
I feel very strongly about the second point, which the noble Baroness did not bring out perhaps quite so clearly. The two benefits that she produced, school meals and health costs, are very salient and important, but there will be others—including some attachment to disability, which may relate to transport costs or otherwise—which may be less obvious. However, what is clear, and was clear when I did a little work on this, is that a very large number of government departments become engaged on this. It is very difficult for anybody, even with the erudition of my noble friend the Minister, to stitch these together and get an overall view of what is going on. One can be quite sure that the Minister’s transport colleagues, admirable though they may be, are not taking that overview, although the particular benefit in question, whether health costs or school meals or otherwise, may be very important to the individual or family concerned. So that must be looked at.
I hope that the Minister will approach this in the spirit of giving assurances in principle, and in the determination of the assistance of the expert advice that he will receive, to achieve sensible solutions. It would be absurd to set out the admirable and agreed principle of universal credit, with a smooth taper and making work pay, and then find that we had left this, because it was in the “too difficult” category. Some of the consequences of the withdrawal of any of these benefits might be very damaging to individuals.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I, too, support the aims of this amendment, which are primarily about protecting certain key benefits but also making sure that they are not subject to the benefit cap, which we will come to later. My noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town carefully set out the challenge that the Minister will have in squaring a circle, in making sure that work pays but also dealing with the consequences of a quite important specific provision. I ask the Minister to reflect briefly in his reply on the fact that free school meals, for example, have more than one public policy aim. How does he go about squaring that? They clearly are a means of effectively transferring a benefit that has a cash value to some of the poorest families in the country, but they also have the effect of making a hot or at least good, nutritious, meal available to children within all those poorest families. That feels like a separate and quite specific policy aim. How will he ensure that that policy aim will be achieved within whatever solution he comes up with?
As the Minister will know—and I certainly support the view of his erudition, which is obviously legendary—the evidence of the efficacy of free school meals goes back to the 1960s. If anything, the evidence suggests the extension of breakfast clubs rather than going in the opposite direction. Some noble Lords, perhaps more on this side of the House, may have read the Observer yesterday, in which there was a piece specifically on breakfast clubs. It looked at both, mentioning in passing that one in four school children in the UK are in a position where the only hot meal that they have in the day is their school lunch. It was talking in particular about breakfast clubs. An interesting head teacher in a very poor area described the benefits of breakfast clubs as being way beyond any cash benefit and being in the energy of children, improving their behaviour and improving their learning. She said:
“It helps with their socialisation skills too. School is about life chances and unless the children have something in their bellies then they are not going to get those life chances they deserve. There is very little money out there in our community and for many it's cheaper to feed the family on takeaway fried chicken than anything else. You see the leftovers in lunchboxes, or rice; we get a lot coming in with just rice.
We tried to run a breakfast club ourselves, it was £1 a day, but the numbers just dwindled away and you realise that it doesn't seem expensive but it adds up, five days a week, three children or more. It's a lot. And you can't turn a child away if they arrive without their £1”.
The article also pointed out that breakfast clubs are starting to shut around the country as a result of a combination of budget cuts and the ending of ring fencing for wrap-around care. If we are not careful and end up with a solution that does not retain the provision of free school meals, we could end up with a double whammy, with the two potential sources of nutritious food available to children disappearing at the same time.
I am just as concerned, as I know everybody in this room is, that the universal credit system continues to make work pay and that we do not find ourselves in a position where someone who is now entitled to free school meals will not be entitled to them in the future. That would be a travesty of the anti-poverty element as well as of the work incentive element of universal credit. It means that we have to consider carefully the other policy implications.
In the years I worked with single parents, I became very aware that the vast majority of parents prioritise spending on their children. In fact, I often met lone parents who went without food themselves in order to buy things for their children. Indeed, there is research that bears that out. I suspect that my noble friend Lady Lister may have done it; she seems to do most of it. The evidence is very clear, but none the less there is a minority who, for a variety of reasons, are not in a position to put the kind of food in front of their children that we would wish them to do. In some cases there simply is not enough money to go round. Since it is cash, it is subject to an awful lot of other pressures: a huge bill coming in, debt collectors, being sanctioned or fined, or other pressures on the budget. At least this is money that is for the child, not simply for the family. I do not want to say any more than that. I am not pretending it is easy. When he replies, will the Minister reflect how he will do those three things: protect those families that currently get the benefit of free school meals; ensure that work continues to pay; and fulfil the other policy objective?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I want to comment briefly on this. I say “briefly” because I have the next amendment, there is more I want to say and I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time today. I got a bit of billing from my noble friend Lady Hayter as someone who might know something about this, which daunts me somewhat as I had intended to make a contribution more in keeping with my noble friend Lord Foulkes than my noble friend Lady Hollis in terms of knowing something about it or being something of an expert. My noble friend Lord Foulkes is, of course, the master of the probing question, rather than the probing answer.
My noble friend Lady Hayter and others have set out the quandary that the Minister and the Social Security Advisory Committee are clearly in as regards issues around whether it will be included within the cap, for example. If it is going to be part of a tapering rather than a cliff edge, I hope that extra money is added so that you are not taking money away from those who currently get free school meals. I particularly want to focus on free school meals because if I know anything about any of these things, it is about free school meals, given the time I served as a Schools Minister.
Very much in keeping with what my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, I think there is great importance in ensuring that free school meals continue to reach the child. It is a finely grained argument, but I encourage the Minister to look at whether it is possible to get the money straight to schools rather than including this in universal credit. It is important to note that free school meals are used as a proxy within the education system for all sorts of things, and I am sure in other areas as well. In particular, the level of the pupil premium in England is set by the numbers on free school meals. That presents an opportunity to the Government, if they choose to follow the side of the argument that I would advocate in terms of giving the money to schools, and, through them, to children, rather than having it within the universal credit. If the pupil premium is set on the basis of knowing how many children are eligible for free school meals within a school, it ought to be possible to passport the money for those meals to the school directly, given that most schools now operate a cashless payment system. It will then be possible to passport that money through to children's fingertips, if they use fingerprint technology, in respect of paying for their school meals, or on to their cards, if they use a card system. Either way, if they do not operate that, it is possible to get the money into schools so that we can be confident that children are getting a nutritious meal every day, which is hugely important.
I represented a parliamentary seat in Dorset for some time where I found that the health inequalities were such that a child born in my constituency had a life expectancy 10 years longer than one born in Manchester. A lot of that was to do with issues like whether or not they were getting a decent start to the day as regards food and nutrition and the quality of the nutrition that they were receiving during the day. I know that school meals are a crucial part of that. That is why, in the end, my contribution on this is to encourage the Minister to think about that aspect in terms of the needs of children to get a decent meal every day, rather than how things work within the universal credit.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I have a quick point to make in support of the very strong case made by my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord Knight, even if he does not want to be thought of as an expert. If the money for free school meals is paid through universal credit, could the Minister explain how families will know what part of the universal credit is supposed to be for school meals? We know from research that money that is clearly labelled for a particular use is more likely to be spent on that use, but if it is swallowed up in the universal credit, that credit may not be paid to the person responsible for ensuring that the child has money for a school meal or a packed lunch. The danger is that the money will not be spent on the school meal, with all the consequences that my noble friend Lady Sherlock has pointed out.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
A long time ago, during the last welfare reform Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was the Minister, I moved an amendment in favour of free school meals full stop. I think it was the highest kite I have ever flown. I was very much in favour of the benefits that it had. One of them is the startling fact that research has borne out that children concentrate far more in the afternoon if they have a good hot meal inside them, which may be the only meal of the day. This is an extremely important issue.
The other day I discovered that some boroughs are giving children free school meals in primary schools and I think that Suffolk is one of them, so good for it. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Freud
These amendments would provide a cash amount for school meals and health costs within the universal credit award as opposed to the current system of passported benefits, which are often given as a benefit in kind. Clearly, I understand that to be by way of a probe rather than a specific direction. This is a very complex area and I think all of us in this Committee Room have agreed today what these problems are. Defining entitlement to passported benefits is the responsibility of several government departments and the devolved Administrations. Entitlement and the value of benefits can vary by county or by area. My department is taking a keen interest in the work under way to consider passported benefits across the piece.
Lord Wigley
I apologise very much to the Committee that my five-hour journey from Wales took six hours and that I was late in arriving. The Minister referred to a consultation with the devolved Administrations. Clearly, some of the criteria for passported benefits may vary within the responsibilities of those devolved Administrations. Will the report that he is referring to, and which he will be bringing forward shortly, cover that point in adequate depth to make sure that there is no falling between two stools?
Lord Freud
Yes. I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have specifically asked the SSAC to cover the point of working with devolved Administrations when it comes up with its recommendations so that will be incorporated in its original review, let alone in our subsequent review.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, having learnt last week that the Minister is not a bad man, this week we learn that spring comes after winter and before summer. I have discovered that my education is absolutely complete. We welcome very much the assurance that at the point when he gets the report, he will be looking at this firm of the view that passported benefits should not undermine the incentives to work in the rest of the Bill. It may be no surprise but it is nice to have that—and the acknowledgement of the importance of making sure that any such passported benefits are spent on what they are needed for. Of course, the comment that these will not count towards the benefit cap is particularly welcome. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“Secretary of State obligations
Before the implementation of the universal credit system can commence, the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament demonstrating that the following have been fully tested and established—(a) the relevant Department of Work and Pensions IT system,(b) the relevant Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs IT systems,(c) the integration of the necessary IT systems,(d) any necessary administrative agreements between the Department of Work and Pensions, local authorities and other delivery agents, and(e) other systems and processes necessary for the successful delivery of the universal credit system.”
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, forgive me for taking a little time in introducing this amendment. It seeks to address delivery concerns around the implementation of universal credit and requires a report to be published in both Houses demonstrating that there has been proper, full testing and establishment of things such as the IT systems, the “necessary administrative agreements” and other systems that are necessary to make the universal credit work. I know that, as discussed last week in Committee, we have a much fabled briefing that the Minister is going to give us on delivery. I think that is on 3 November; the sooner we get some detail on that, if nothing else, the better so that we can get the right time and place in our diary. However, I hope that the Minister, in responding to and thinking about this, can at least give us some thought that is on the record.
My intention in moving this amendment is to get some of my concerns about the delivery of universal credit on the record here in this Committee, in front of your Lordships and in the official record. As I have said on other occasions in discussing this Bill, I strongly support the principle of the universal credit as indeed I support the work programme. In many ways, they are both too important to fail but I am worried about failure. My worry is not about the strategy, which is right, but more about the tactics and timing given what else is going on in the environment around the introduction of these reforms, so that they in turn will then affect the reforms being delivered with any success.
My worry is that there is in some ways a time bomb set to go off around 2013-14, as universal credit starts to be introduced, and that we need Parliament to be able carefully to monitor the development of these reforms in order to have reassurance that my worst predictions are not going to come true. There is a high risk around this performance and, as I said at Second Reading, I would like to see the delivery milestones for this programme published. That risk is enhanced given that the additional funding for implementing the universal credit is capped at £2 billion, including the additional AME cost attached to the programme, as I understand it, from my reading of the Public Accounts Committee's recent report. There is a background to that, which I will go on to talk about, and which makes me very anxious.
The background is principally economic but it also involves some of the things that the department itself is responsible for. We are seeing housing benefit changes and planning reforms in the form of the Localism Bill, some that have been discussed in this Bill and others that have been moved in regulation that raise serious questions in my mind around housing affordability and homelessness. We will discuss in Committee the effect of the changes in this Bill on the disabled. There is also the effect of the failure of government economic policy in stimulating growth, which, as we heard last week, is leading to rising inflation and rising unemployment. We know from the Institute of Fiscal Studies’ recent report about worries that another 300,000 children will move into child poverty over the next two years despite the fact that median incomes will remain stagnant or worse, which is quite an achievement given the relative poverty measure for children. The IFS thinks that there will be such a disproportionate impact on poor people's wages and benefits that another 300,000 children will go into poverty.
This impact on unemployment in particular is leading to growing fears among providers of the work programme that there will be a collapse in the viability of that flagship programme in about two years’ time because there simply will not be the jobs for people to go into to be paid by results for. At the same time, the capacity of Jobcentre Plus is being reduced in order to deal with the fallout of an 8,000 headcount reduction over the comprehensive spending review period, which will lead to a loss of talent in the welfare-to-work area, which compounds the loss that has already taken place with people being moved from the flexible New Deal into the work programme. A survey that I saw in the Times last week said that that had led to a 50 per cent loss of talent in the industry already.
There is a £1.4 billion temporary allocation to the DWP to assist with the recession, which is now being withdrawn even though unemployment is going up. All of this, which sounds very rambling, leads to an external environment that will put huge pressure on the Department for Work and Pensions as it is seeking to implement this programme and huge pressure on DWP budgets at the same time. I cannot see that the assumption within the CSR of the DWP's funding settlement of unemployment falling to 1.1 million will hold true. No serious commentator would agree with it. That has implications around the risks to universal credit as a programme. I appeal to the Minister to get his head out from beneath the towel he has to hide under in order to think about these things and think seriously about that external environment.
I have real fears of significant social problems emerging over the next year or so and becoming more acute in two years’ time as a result of all these changes. They will increase the number of people dependent on universal credit and that in turn increases the pressure on it, hence the need for a report to Parliament on delivery to ensure that it is staying on track and that none of my fears is founded. It is worth reflecting on what the new Permanent Secretary at the department said in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in the other place. When he was asked how risky the change was in respect of universal credit, he replied in Question 58 of the evidence that:
“There is substantial risk in it”.
It does not take a genius to say that there is substantial risk, but it is not just my opinion.
On some of those risks, we are reliant according to the programme on 80 per cent being able to apply online by 2017. I did a lot of work on digital inclusion during my time in the department. It is something for which I have a great passion. In many ways, it is right to be digital by default in the design of a programme like this and then to work hard at making sure that poorer families have access to online so that they can make substantial savings in their household bills, for example, in order to be able to do that.
The question for the Government is: have they allocated resource to get people online? I am sure that they will be working with UK Online and the excellent work that Helen Milner does as its head. Are they extending discussions with her to extend some UK Online centres into job centres? Will they extend the number of terminals in job centres so that people can use them, perhaps with assistance for those who are unable to do so?
Lord Boswell of Aynho
The noble Lord might like to know that when I applied online for my state pension, I got a very rapid response. It was so rapid that it set some alarm bells ringing in my mind. I put down a Question—one can look up the date but it would have been in 2005—and at that time only 2 per cent of applicants were applying for state pension, which admittedly is perhaps a skewed distribution, online. There is a long way to go.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Certainly, it is important that individuals such as the noble Lord can apply successfully for their state pension online. We have seen some great successes across government in being able to use digital as the default route—in particular, the student loan application process, and vehicle licensing and road tax services are excellent. The Department for Transport should be a model on how this is being done. But still a significant proportion of the population is not online, despite the best efforts of Martha Lane Fox and the rest, who I wholeheartedly support. The Government need to set out what they are going to do. In education, I introduced a home access programme that got 167,000 families online but it cost quite a lot of money. It was a fantastic, fraud-free scheme using prepaid credit cards. It was great but, I repeat, it cost a lot of money. I would ask the Minister whether he has got the money in his back pocket.
There are big questions around the delivery of IT. I am looking forward to the briefing. The Minister is evangelistic in his enthusiasm for how it will work, which is impressive, and I want to know more. But, at its basic level, what concerns me is that in essence it seems that we will have three IT systems being developed. There is the IT system within DWP to integrate the benefits side of things. As I understand it, it is not much more complicated—it might even be less complicated—than the IT project that the department successfully delivered in respect of ESA, which gives the department considerable confidence. As I think I said at Second Reading, the chief information officer at the DWP, who is one of the better-rewarded civil servants across Whitehall, is an excellent official and deserves every penny of what he gets because he delivers for the taxpayer in this regard.
That complicated database is quite possibly within the capacity of DWP to deliver successfully. However, it has to integrate with another database which is being developed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for real time information around employers who will have to report in real time how much they are paying their staff. The two databases will have to integrate in order for universal credit to work. That is not just the complication of an integration of two databases.
I know, for example, from the SATs crisis—I was the Minister who oversaw it—that that crisis was as a result of three databases interlocking, corruptions occurring and the data letting us down. In developing this real time information system, HMRC is also developing something based on a tax system, which looks at our personal tax, that has to integrate with a benefits system database, which looks at household tax. You have to make sure that all the data have enough alignment around the identifiers to make sure that the right individuals and households all fit together properly. That seems quite a tall order.
Now I also understand that there is a contingency plan; at last the Government have a plan B. This is good. That is the contingency plan around whether or not the real-time information database at HMRC will work. It can then fall back on the third database, which has to be developed, for self-employed people, who will be self-reporting into a database at HMRC their changes in income and circumstances so that they can be eligible for universal credit. That might be fine in terms of database integration, but it raises a consequent question. If plan B is to work, it needs us to believe that all the employers up and down the land will happily self-report in real time without error or fraud to the HMRC in order for universal credit to be paid accurately. Of course, we all know what happens when either the database falls down or the information going into the database is inaccurate from our experience of tax credits, which in part we are looking to replace through universal credit. As a Member of Parliament, I found that quite a significant proportion of my case work and the work that my staff did for me and my constituents was chasing up problems with tax credits—over payments, when individual families were weighed down with debt to HMRC, which was then at times quite aggressive in chasing it and needed a phone call or a letter from an MP’s office to get it to calm down and be reasonable. We do not want universal credit to suffer reputational damage and cause real problems for families in that way.
If noble Lords are interested in any of this, they may be interested in the Public Accounts Committee report from the other place. Its third recommendation says:
“The Department admits that there are substantial risks attached to implementing major welfare reforms while at the same time reducing its costs. The successful transition to Universal Credit, for example, will depend heavily on the development of a new IT system with HM Revenue and Customs to a very tight timetable. We have often seen problems with delivering new IT to time, budget and specification. The Department should allocate clear responsibility for scrutinising progress of the welfare reforms alongside cost reductions, develop a clear understanding of the risks to each and how they will be managed and encourage staff to report any emerging problems early”.
That is at the root of this amendment. The Public Accounts Committee is saying that there should be clear responsibility for scrutinising progress of the reforms, and that is what I want for Parliament. I want parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of these reforms.
I have mentioned the efficacy of the self-employed database and the plan B for real time information in the HMRC system. I have, in a previous debate in this Committee, mentioned my worries about documentation and housing benefit local delivery, which will be answered in the famous meeting that we are going to have on 3 November. I am sure that there are many more delivery risks that others can think of, but I shall not take up the Committee’s time in going into them. I repeat that I want this to work, but I want it to work in a way that is fair. The Minister, understandably, has to spend time with his head under a towel working out the details, but he also needs to get out and have a look around at the environment into which he is going to introduce this. It is the worst possible economic environment in which to carry out this massive welfare reform; it adds huge risk, as the DWP has to lead the response to a worsening situation in the employment market with limited, effectively capped, resources. I believe that it is a perfect storm, and it is therefore right for this House to demand absolute transparency on the risk assessment and risk management and the delivery of the various milestones in the programme. Indeed, it may be prudent for the Minister to reflect and say, “Let’s get the legislation through, but let’s adjust the delivery timetable until the employment situation has stabilised and we can be confident that the work programme will be able to be delivered successfully, because jobs will then be created by the private sector in order to make that programme a success”. All my worries will then dissipate.
Finally, I want noble Lords to imagine the consequences of this programme going wrong, with people already moving from fortnightly to monthly budgeting having to manage without getting into rent arrears, and so on, then getting no money and facing recovery action. They are already the poorest and most disadvantaged, in part because of policies from other departments having no money; they will have to beg at the door of impoverished local councils for social fund money. That does not bear thinking about in human terms. We know that local authorities will run out of that social fund money and then where will they go? All of that is a scandal, a year or so out from a general election. I am giving political advice to the Minister: that it is in his best interests and in the coalition Government’s interest to take this seriously and to think about the delivery timeline, which may have made sense when it was first written, but I do not believe it makes sense now, given what is going on in the economy.
Lord German
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for his self-declaration. He is an enthusiast for IT and the changes that it can produce, but he also recognises the difficulties which could overtake anyone who is trying to undertake such a major change as this. It is very difficult. I shall not repeat much of what he said, but his last point is: what happens if we fail with an IT structure that does not deliver the welfare reform that we are looking for? I think that, more than anyone else getting the blame, the political class as a whole will get the blame for a structure under which individuals would suffer. So it is very important to get it right.
Unfortunately, we tend to roll a number of words together. I suppose you might say that the universal credit depends on a substantial, reliable, appropriate and functioning IT system. I have used the phrase “IT system”, which is probably not the correct phrase because we tend to throw these words around. I use a series of analogies, and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. I used the phrase “daisy chain” because it is the easiest way to describe linking between one system and the next. In essence, there is a number of inputs into the IT structure, some of them from employers and some from potential claimants, and all those pieces of data have to be linked together—hence the phrase “daisy chain”. If you break the daisy change, clearly you do not complete the circle and the person does not get paid at the end.
None of those changes will be possible without substantial shifts, in recent years, in the IT platforms that we have available to us in order to deliver such as programme. If we are going to make this work, we have to ensure that all those parts are working. Of course, there are—most noble Lords would recognise this—two substantial departments of government, both of which have a hand in ensuring that this works. I do not know, but there are plenty of people who will tell me, whether the relationship between the two big departments, Her Majesty’s Treasury and DWP, works as one might hope. If that were the case, you would be looking for the sort of regime where one department was trying to exercise responsibility over another. I hope that that has not happened. I hope that there is genuine cross-departmental working. My first question for my noble friend is: who is taking responsibility? Is DWP sitting in the driving seat, as that is the hub from which all this will happen, and is HMRC material coming across to it in the way that DWP prescribes in order to achieve the result?
My second question relates to the passing on of data. One of the lessons that we and the world have learnt about the passing on of individual items of data connected together is that there is now an international standard for data passing. I would like reassurance from the Minister that we are using the correct ISO standard for the passing on of data. If we are, we can be reassured that not only are we able to pass it on from one department to another, but that it can be passed on to any other part of the system in the public or private sectors, or whoever else wants that piece of data, and that it has the same level of acceptability from one to the other. I would like a reassurance—particularly on what happens at the end, the starting point of which is this data from employers—that we are going to be using and transferring the employer’s data at that ISO level, and that there will be no “Well, we’ll do it this way to start with and move on to a better way later”. I want to be reassured that that happens, because without it we would have some difficulty in achieving the result we want to see.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, will not take it as an insult—I assure him that it is not intended to be one—if I say that he is genuinely an expert as well as an enthusiast on the use of the IT system in government. I warm to that, and I have a great deal of sensitivity to what he and my noble friend Lord German have said about the need to get the system right. I am perhaps a little less pessimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Knight, in introducing his remarks, which seemed a little apocalyptic at one or two points. Perhaps I may also say that they were not quite as differentiated as they might be between general concerns about the level of unemployment or economic activity, about which we could have a debate in another context, and specific issues about the impact on the universal credit system.
In that context, one of the three points that I would like to ask the Minister to comment on is his assessment of the extent to which the system is sensitive to variations in volume, with all the difficulties that he is putting together, which have been rightly touched on. Depending on the number of claimants, there could be consequences if it has been under-specified; it could be resourced for a lower number but the numbers turn out to be higher. There could be quite a small movement of the margin which could tip over the sensitivity of the system. That is the first point.
The second point is an extension or a reflection on the point raised by my noble friend Lord German about the transfer of data. I am not a great expert in this, although I have taken an interest in some of these security issues. Indeed, there has been a conversation about the dangers of discrediting the system or the political class more generally if all this went wrong. It would be helpful if the Minister gave reassurances, not only on the specification of the data transfer but on the security and understanding of the transfer of that data. I think there is a strong wish across the Committee that data that is publicly relevant and obviously impacts on people's housing benefit, as it now will, on their housing claim, on other aspects of their financial package, or on arrangements with the public sector, should be transferrable. As one makes that longer daisy chain, there is also concern that it might get out of control or get into inappropriate hands.
Perhaps I may take the analogy produced by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about the Department of Transport system for vehicle licensing, a system which I used at the weekend entirely successfully and, to be honest, because it has rather good graphics, quite enjoyably. The first time I used it, I thought to myself, “Do these people really know that I am insured and did I give consent that they should know?”. Now, because it is extremely convenient, I am very happy to accept that. There are issues about public reassurance, not least about employment data getting out to the public sector, to which the Minister may wish to respond.
The third point—one could say it is my motive for making this speech—is having intervened in the noble Lord’s introductory remarks, I realised when I sat down that I had given the wrong date for my entitlement to the pension. I did not want anyone here or in the wider world to assume that just because I said 2005, as I did, that in some way Members of this House or Members of the other place had an inside track to get their pension two years early. So I am now putting it on the record that when I said 2005, I should have said 2007. I want to cap it with a specific point. That is the kind of error which, however well conceived the system is, whether it is a public input or, in this case, a private input, it can be wrong; it can be a verbal slip or a misreading. We get older and we do not read the digits as clearly as we might.
One of the biggest points—I come back partly to the experience of tax credits, as a former Member of Parliament, and no less to child maintenance claims under the CSA, as it was—is that there is a huge capacity either on the official side of the system or on the private side to make entirely innocent errors, which then need correction. They may appear and then need to be sorted out. One element that the Minister needs to bottom—perhaps my noble friend will speak about this—is a system that enables people to get such errors attended to when they are noticed, without huge bureaucratic difficulty or excess delay, otherwise people will often run away from putting them right. That is where the rubber hits the road and where, despite the macro concerns that have been set out in this amendment, we should equally recall that there are micro-concerns: “Is it sensitive to me? Do I feel comfortable using it?”. I would be very grateful if my noble friend could give us some assurances along those lines.
Baroness Sherlock
I want to intervene briefly to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. There is very little to add to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. The Minister should hope that this does not go badly because he may find that speech being quoted back at him. He has been warned, and very eloquently too.
I have huge sympathy for the Minister. As I have said before in this Committee, I was involved as a special adviser during the development of tax credits, and I watched Ministers seek and receive all assurances that it would be reasonable for a Minister in those circumstances to have. I would not for one moment suggest that the officials with whom they worked, all of whom I was hugely respectful of, did anything other than give the best assurances they could. However, until a system is up and running one never really knows how it will respond to the realities of the information within it, so we all know this is a risk.
I want to ask the Minister about what kind of assurances he has been seeking and receiving and, in particular, whether he has been getting any independent assurance on the development and management of this project. As I understand it, the DWP’s development of its system is going to be dependent on the revenue’s system. Has the Minister received any assurance from the Treasury that has enabled him to progress, given the interdependence of those two things? Has he received assurances from the Treasury or from HMRC, in particular, about the nature of their systems so that he can make plans on the back of them? Secondly, what assurance has he about whether his plans are robust enough? If he will not tell us what it is, what is the nature of the assurance that was sought and from whom was it sought? I am aware that by and large large-scale government projects of this nature often seek some kind of independent assurance, perhaps from an independent auditor, whether internally or externally procured. Can the Minister assure us that the department has been through that process and can he reassure us on the basis of the reassurance that he has been given?
Thirdly, I am interested in how plan B will work. I am very sorry to say that I cannot make the briefing on 3 November. That is a genuine disappointment on my part. I am in the anorak category as well. I am afraid I am engaged with a communities and victims panel looking at the impact of the riots, and that takes me elsewhere on that day. Can the Minister explain very briefly how plan B will work? For example, is it the intention that businesses will report real-time information manually monthly or that individuals will report? Is the assumption that the DWP part of the game, where it matches up the different packets of real-time information from different employers in relation to individuals or households, will be done automatically as it is now? How will that work? Is it the intention that the new child maintenance system will be dependent on the same HMRC real-time information system? If so, is there any priority about which of these projects gets first dibs on the HMRC data, should it come under pressure?
If the Minister can answer only one question, I am really interested in the assurance question, so he will save me getting up again. Finally, if there is reporting under plan B, has he been able to get advice on what additional pressure that will put on the system? I am conscious that automated systems often put on much less pressure than processing individually and manually entered data, whether from businesses or elsewhere. Is that something that has been factored in?
Lord Freud
My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I want to deal with the issues about what universal credit does and some of its impacts because the noble Lord, Lord Knight, implied that it has a perverse impact on poverty when exactly the opposite is the case. The IFS noted that it is progressive and pointed out that the bottom two quintiles gain £11 and £10 per week respectively and that 80 per cent of the gainers are from those bottom two quintiles. In fact, its estimate is that child poverty will reduce by rather more than our estimate. Our estimate is 350,000 when the system is in; its estimate was 450,000.
I do not want to go over the economic stuff, otherwise we will stay here all day. I want to deal with this issue. I can assure noble Lords that as part of the work to build the universal credit system we are undertaking a level of testing fully commensurate with a programme of this scale. Prior to the main go-live date in October 2013, there will be significant levels of testing specifically focused on ensuring that the various components work effectively together, including realistic business testing. For this project, we are adopting the Agile method of development, which creates and tests working IT components at an early stage. We are actually testing them now, and I shall show them to Members who can attend on 3 November. Instead of building very big sections of the IT system slowly, we are building small pieces more quickly. We are confident that this approach will provide a stable and fully proven system that will allow us to successfully deliver universal credit. I assure my noble friend Lord Boswell that the system will be sized to cater for the worst case volumes and will be robustly tested for performance at peak times. But I do not believe that it is necessary to introduce the additional step of a formal report, with the additional cost to the taxpayer and inherent time delays this would entail.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the Minister for that. At the outset, obviously that kind of assurance will give confidence in the nature of the planning. Is he receiving independent assurance, as the programme goes on? The fact that he is, very unusually, a member of the programme board as a Minister, is certainly a sign of his own commitment to the project. It makes independent assurance even more important, because part of the point of independent assurance is to give an outside view in case those who are too close to the project may not see pitfalls as they develop.
Lord Freud
Yes, I am absolutely aware of that. The Major Projects Authority is looking at the process, and coming up in November or December is the next major independent look through the whole project. It is genuinely independent and quite a tough set of governance.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am grateful to the Minister. Can he tell us when those reviews will be published and whether they will continue to be published?
Lord Freud
The responsibility for those reviews is with the Cabinet Office. It is slightly hazy—I think that is the best word. They seem to get out, but I am not sure of the exact process. I take the point of that question and I will explore and report back to the Committee exactly how that information will be published. It may well be that we would look at extracts. Leave it with me. I take the point and will come back and say exactly how that information will be treated.
I want to clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Knight, his questions on costs because there are a lot of different figures flying around. One of the confusing things is that the figure of £2 billion has genuinely attached itself to two or three different parts of the project so it is easy to get confused. If you see £2 billion you think it is that £2 billion. The first £2 billion is all the costs associated with the implementation and operation of universal credit across the SR10 years, which is not just purely an IT investment. Some £1.5 billion of that is investment in systems, people, estates and other resources to allow the creation of the model. On top of that, there is another £0.5 billion for transitional and future running costs following the launch in October 2013. That £2 billion is a separate £2 billion to the net extra AME costs when it is all in operation compared with the current system. I apologise for the various £2 billions. There are some more running around but let us not get into those.
Baroness Sherlock
I am sorry, but I would like the Minister’s help in understanding which £2 billion the Public Accounts Committee was talking about in its report. It said,
“Approximately £628 million of the £2 billion set aside for Universal Credit is capital expenditure and a further £400 million is to cover the increased benefits … So less than half of the funds … will be available for staff costs”.
Is that the £2 billion that he was just talking about?
Lord Freud
Yes, that is the £2 billion of the implementation. The £628 million was within the £1.5 billion figure that I was talking about. I apologise for the confusion. There are a lot of figures. There are too many £2 billions. This is the oddest topic to joke about that I have ever come across, but there we are.
The noble Lord raised an issue about the complexity of universal credit in comparison with the ESA. This is a large project. There is no doubt about that. It breaks down to three different projects from the one that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was talking about. The first is the universal credit administration platform. That is a DWP responsibility. That incorporates large elements that have already been developed, such as the payment accounting system. The next thing is the universal credit real-time earnings calculation and the payment and accounting system. That is basically the front end of the system and the rules engine behind it. Then there is the feed, which is the HMRC RTI system. You are looking almost at two components there: the supply of the information, which is being piloted—those pilots are getting going—and the data cleansing because, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, getting the data through in a way that is readable and matchable is the key. Currently, the HMRC is working really hard on getting that right. It has got up to a data cleanse of 98.3 per cent and its aim is to push that higher and higher.
On data security, we will use our secure file transfer system, which is already in place between DWP and HMRC and is currently used for national insurance systems as well. We have recently had an independent assessment, which is an extra piece of independent scrutiny, undertaken by IBM on that technology plan. I should add on data sharing, as there was a question from my noble friend Lord German on data standards, that we are using the relevant information—the ISO standard. In fact, it is not a question of having it to be used for universal credit; we are already doing so and it is in place today.
We have a robust governance process with the Major Projects Authority. There is a commitment from me to keep noble Lords well informed on this matter, and I can make that commitment from a stronger position than most Lords Ministers because I am responsible for it. I make that commitment informally and I make it formally. The development can also be monitored by Select Committees in another place—the Work and Pensions Select Committee or the Public Accounts Committee—and they indeed look at it. All the structures are in place to ensure that the introduction of universal credit is properly scrutinised and on that basis I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, in my view we have had a useful debate and I hope that others agree. Some helpful and important points were made. The noble Lord, Lord German, talked about the data daisy-chain. Clearly, I hope that he is one of those who will be able to attend at 11.30 am in Room 3A on 3 November to help us scrutinise this. The points that he made about bank accounts and financial inclusion are things that the Minister can take away and reflect on.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, about getting errors seen to quickly and easily—they will inevitably arise—is equally important. I was perhaps clumsily trying to make a point there in respect to the link with rising unemployment, although it is not perhaps directly relevant to universal credit beyond there being potentially more claimants and more volume. That may well not affect the systems but there may well be an increase in the individual cases of error that the system would have to deal with. The substantial worry in increased unemployment is of the capacity of the department itself to oversee the programme when it is distracted by having to deal with the recessionary impacts on it that I outlined. My noble friend Lady Sherlock's points about independent assurance went right to the heart of the issue.
I was reassured, as ever, by the Minister’s detail. The bit I am worried about is that that is what he is focusing on exclusively. I am trying to make the point that there are times when you need to rise above the detail and look at the overall environment in which this is being introduced, and to do your own health check on whether this is the right time—given the economic cycle—to introduce such an ambitious and important reform.
I am reassured by his informal and formal promises to keep this House up to date. In an ideal world, I would ask him, through a Written Ministerial Statement perhaps, to publish the major milestones of the project so that we could anticipate further Written Ministerial Statements in response to each of those milestones as they were reached so that we could have real transparency over the scrutiny. He said there is something hazy around the Major Projects Authority reviews being published and admitted that they tend to come out anyway, so when he looks at that, I hope he decides that, given that they are going to come out anyway, he might as well publish them, then he can take the credit for being an open and transparent Minister, rather than them having to dribble out. Finally, given the confusion around £2 billion and the succession of £2 billions, I would value a note from him to clarify how that works. My guess is that if he copied that to the Committee, it would be gratefully received. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall, when imposing work-related requirements with which claimants must comply, ensure that claimants have the necessary type and level of personalised support, and access to localised support, to enable them to obtain employment, or to undertake work or work related activity.”
The Earl of Listowel
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, have put their names to this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment 71F. These amendments have similar ends. They ensure that hard-to-reach vulnerable claimants receive the support they need to find and maintain employment. Noble Lords will be aware of the currently very high rate of youth unemployment. The danger is that the hardest-to-reach young people will lose out the most in these difficult times. As vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, I am particularly concerned for young people leaving care, but other young vulnerable groups are those with learning difficulties or drug or alcohol problems, black and minority ethnic groups, Travellers, those in the criminal justice system and others. Many of these vulnerable claimants may combine several of these tickets.
Good practice is out there. Action for Children’s Youthbuild programme assists such people into work in the construction industry. It provides one-to-one support and has a 70 per cent success rate in gaining employment for its young people. It costs £31,106 each year to keep a male in a young offender institution, so we are making an important difference in the cost to the taxpayer by finding these claimants work.
I shall give another example. Some noble Lords are already very familiar with the National Grid Transco young offender programme. I should declare an interest as a beneficiary of hospitality in the past from National Grid Transco. I was introduced to the programme about eight years ago, and I think it has been running for 10 years. It began at Reading young offender institution. In a nutshell, the programme carefully selects young people in young offender institutions and then provides them with training to NVQ level 3. Originally it offered forklift driving, but it moved on to pipe laying and so on and so forth. If the young person passes the NVQ, he is guaranteed a job in a company. National Grid Transco has been very effective in recruiting businesses such as Skandia, Anglian Water and other large companies to take on these young ex-offenders. Going to award ceremonies, I have seen young men with their partners, often with their young children, starting a life of work, earning money, providing for their family, being there for their young children and giving them an example of what it is to be a good father, and one can be fairly hopeful that their own children will follow that example. It makes a huge difference to reach out to these hard-to-reach claimants and get them into employment. Of course, National Grid Transco has reduced the reoffending rate in this group from well above 70 per cent to below 7 per cent.
However, the Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee’s recent report, entitled, Work Programme: Providers and Contracting Arrangements, highlighted the pitfalls in this area. It states:
“Previous contracted employment programmes have experienced ‘creaming and parking’, whereby providers focus their attention on the participants who are most likely to gain sustainable employment, at the expense of those who face greater challenges to finding work”.
We need to ensure that this Bill hits those groups. I hope that the Minister can accept these amendments or come forward with a similar change to the Bill. The Government’s reforms—I hope he agrees—will be disappointing if they do not reach these hardest-to-reach groups. I look forward to his reply.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
We have now had 14 minutes. The Committee should reconvene.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our name to the noble Earl’s amendment and have Amendments 51CAC, 51CCA and 51EB in this group. These amendments relate to Clauses 13, 14 and 22, which refer to the introduction of the work-related requirements and the claimant commitment. The drivers of some of the work-related requirements or no-work-related requirements depend on whether the claimant has limited capability for work or work-related activities. These concepts are familiar to us from ESA deliberations and it is understood they are to be imported into the universal credit.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as I was saying, these amendments relate to Clauses 13, 14 and 22, the introduction of work-related requirements and the claimant commitment. The drivers of some of the work-related requirements, or indeed no work-related requirements, depend on whether the claimant has limited capability for work and/or work-related activities. These concepts are, of course, familiar to us from ESA deliberations, and are to be imported into universal credit under Clause 38. We will debate that in due course when we reach those clauses. The definitions are aligned to the provisions of Clause 12, and the additional amounts payable under that clause.
Amendment 51CAC seeks to ensure that the claimant commitment provided for by Clause 14 should be not only a record of a claimant’s responsibilities but a statement of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State with regard to the claimant. Amendment 51CCA is in similar vein and requires the claimant commitment to include a statement of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities and details of how the claimant can appeal the contents of the commitment. A similar proposition was advanced in the other place and received short shrift, but given the Minister’s clear commitment to transparency and to the universal credit actually changing attitudes, we are interested directly on these issues.
We had understood that there was a consensus around the proposition that welfare benefits systems should involve both rights and responsibilities for claimants. Those responsibilities clearly encompass compliance with work and work-related activity requirements and the rights obviously include, but are surely not limited to, receipt of relevant benefits. Much of the support for claimants will come via the work programme in which the Government are investing heavily and seem committed to providing personalised support to individuals. A black-box approach gives a framework for that flexibility, but not of itself individualised assurance to claimants. What contractual obligations will providers have to spell out for individual programmes and communicate this to the claimants? Although we accept that the incentivised payments structure will provide encouragement not to abandon the hardest to help—a point that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, focused on—the obligation to be clear on what support would be provided should surely reinforce this. Of course, not all claimants will enter the work programme, or at least for a while, so there should be an obligation on Jobcentre Plus staff to particularise their side of the bargain.
It is fine having general customer charters, but they are no substitute for setting out what the Secretary of State will commit to in respect of individual claimants. Incidentally, could the Minister take this opportunity to take us briefly through the claimant journey, as it is now envisaged—those who will or will not enter the work programme and the related timescales for the claimant commitment? It is understood that the intent is that the claimant commitment would result from dialogue, although that does not necessarily mean total agreement in every case.
Amendment 51CCA would also have the claimant commitment set out information on how to challenge the contents of that commitment. The Minister in the other place indicated that appeals could arise only following sanctions for failure to comply and we will obviously be discussing those in due course. In respect of work search and availability requirements, the briefing note provided by the department indicated a right to object to what is proposed and an ability to have the position reviewed by another employment officer. However, that is stated not to apply to other requirements recorded in the claimant commitment. Why not?
The amendments yet to be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, are concerned in an important way with those involved in drawing up the claimant commitment to make sure that they are appropriately trained. That must involve access to specialists to cover the multiplicity of situations that will be encountered, such as dealing with those with mental health conditions, fluctuating conditions and hidden disabilities, to name just some. Will the Minister remind us what information from the WCA or indeed the work-focused health-related assessment—he might update us on that because it was suspended for a while—will be before those who have responsibility for inputting into the claimant commitment? So far as the work programme is concerned, what contractual commitments do providers have in respect of training and how is that to be monitored?
These issues of claimant commitment are very important, but in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who is not with us today, we believe that co-production is an important issue. If there is to be real commitment for individuals, it should not be something that is imposed: the Secretary of State should have some ownership of it. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher
I rise to speak to Amendments 51CB, 51CC, 71C and 71D on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who sends his apologies to the Committee because he cannot be in his place today. It is a little unusual for me to speak to amendments on behalf of a Conservative Peer, but it is a pleasure to do so.
Before I refer to the comments of the noble Lord on these amendments, I would like to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in relation to the claimant commitment and the importance of that containing the responsibilities of the Secretary of State as well as the responsibilities of the claimants themselves, and the importance of specialist Jobcentre Plus staff. I will also speak about those two points in the next group. The groups were together but now they are apart.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has given me his notes on these amendments, which I will try to reflect in my remarks. He says that we heard a lot on the Health and Social Care Bill about the myth that the Secretary of State for Health is in total control of the National Health Service. The situation is not very different in the DWP, is it, he asks. I emphasise the fact that the noble Lord said that because it is more interesting that he makes these comments than if I were to make them. We all know that, although technically it is the Secretary of State who is occasionally involved in tribunal and court cases, it is really one of his officers who does the work and occasionally is found to be at fault—or, says the noble Lord, in the case of the employment and support allowance, not so occasionally.
The noble Lord was alarmed to discover that for ESA alone, there have been around 518,000 fit-for-work decisions between October 2008, when it started, and November 2010. The rate of appeal was around 40 per cent and, in that percentage, 40 per cent were successful in their appeals. The reason for all those successful appeals is not solely the Atos computer; the desk officers and DWP staff generally share the blame, although perhaps not to the same extent. The noble Lord has, with difficulty, discovered the success rate of appeals against decisions relating to other benefits from April to August this year. They are 15 per cent for JSA and 27 per cent for income support. Those are probably the nearest thing we have to the universal credit arrangements in the Bill and they give us a guide to what we might expect, not least because the fault, if fault there is, will be with DWP staff rather than computers. This all brings us to the noble Lord’s amendments: it must be vitally important that staff are not only trained, which to some extent they are, but monitored as well. The 24th report of the Merits Committee also raises these issues.
I share those concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but perhaps I might add a few remarks of my own. I am aware that the Minister has been determined to reduce the appeals success rate and that he has in fact had some considerable success. If I understand it correctly, this has been in part as a result of introducing a review process, prior to appeal hearings, which has enabled errors to be picked up earlier. Perhaps the Minister can explain the average length of time between the initial decision and the review decision following an appeal, and how that average time gap compares with that between a benefit entitlement decision and an appeal hearing, as we had them before the reviews came into play—we still have them, of course. In other words, has the introduction of the review process significantly improved the position for claimants by providing a significantly earlier opportunity to have wrong decisions righted or overturned? Also, does the Minister know what proportion of successful appeals, whether at review or ultimate appeal hearing, apply to claimants with mental health problems?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the form and content of the claimant commitment is of the utmost importance and we are working hard to get it right. I hope that the illustrative claimant commitments provided to noble Lords have proved helpful in this regard. We are introducing the claimant commitment to improve compliance, bringing together in one place a clear statement of the requirements a claimant is expected to meet. What we need to bear in mind is that the claimant commitment is for every recipient of universal credit, many of whom will not be subject to work-related requirements. For these individuals the contents of the claimant commitment will be minimal, including the duty only to report relevant change of circumstances. In this case, the amendments we are discussing would not be relevant.
Even for claimants who have work-related requirements placed on them, certain requirements are simply not open to negotiation. A claimant in the “all work-related requirements” group must look and be available for work. A claimant in the “work-focused interviews only” group must attend work-focused interviews. These very basic requirements are not open to negotiation. When establishing the detail of requirements, for example, and the type of work that someone has to look for, I agree completely that there should be dialogue and consultation between the adviser and the claimant. This is not to say that we will not be tough on some jobseekers but, for the majority, we expect this to be done in co-operation. If a claimant is unhappy with specific requirements, they will be able to ask for another adviser to review them. This happens now under jobseeker’s allowance; there will be an appropriate review procedure under universal credit as well.
The basic work requirements, which are not negotiable—such as that the jobseeker must look for work—clearly would not and could not be the subject of such a review requested by a claimant. Similarly, in terms of the support we provide, we envisage there being a wide range of support available to help claimants prepare for and move into work. It is intended to meet the needs of individuals and target the right support at the right time. The issue raised by both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, of what we are doing for the hardest to help and on creaming and parking is one that we have endeavoured to answer in the structure of the work programme, where we are trying to deal with it by price differentiation.
We have minimum standards for prime providers. If they breach those it is treated as a breach of contract, so we do have some powerful tools. At the same time, we have much more active management provider performance than ever before, and to the extent that providers are under-performing, we will shift market share by claimant group to the best performing providers in each area. This means that claimants will be moved to where they are most likely to get the best support to help them deal with their particular barriers to work. These are systems that we have created within an overall black-box approach, which would clearly break down entirely if we then imported a series of regulations and requirements such as were implied by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he is giving. But in that context, while these decisions remain within the black box, can he give the Committee some assurance as to the extent to which they are inhibited by the law of contract, in respect of shifting the workload between different providers? If an issue develops about the level of remuneration—or level of difficulty against the remuneration—how much can he vire that within the contract? It is obviously desirable that he should be able to do these things, but equally providers need, I presume, some measure of stability and understanding.
Lord Freud
Yes. There are two or three issues wrapped up in that seemingly simple question around whether we got the differential pricing right when we set the contract terms up. The answer is that we do not know and we will not know. I doubt if they are completely perfect—that would be very surprising. But as we learn and get information, we will be able to adjust them. In practice, looking at the timescales of this, with the next set of contracts, which will be out in about five to seven years, you effectively have to start negotiating in four years’ time. By the time we have all the information on this, I suspect the reality is that it will not really be a question of changing existing contracts; it will go into the design of the next round. That is how it will happen in practice.
Let me now explain how much differentiation there really is, when you are looking at a regime for everyone. When you look at those who come off the system as jobseekers, half leave the benefit system within three months, and three-quarters within six months—the majority, to put it bluntly, with very little help from the state. So it would not be appropriate to offer support to all claimants early in their claim and, clearly, it would clearly be much too costly to do so. I am very comfortable in believing that those who have sat in my chair before me will be very aware of the dead weight issues of running that kind of system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Does that mean that with the sharing of this insight, the Minister will therefore look more favourably at amendments trying to protect those who are temporarily caught in the housing benefit underoccupancy trap by virtue of suddenly losing a job?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I very much remember the debates we had last week. I am thinking very deeply about some of the observations made by noble Lords in this Committee, and I think that is probably as far as I should go today.
We operate in a world of finite resources, and we need to target them appropriately. Clearly, at the moment, we do not refer all claimants to the work programme until 12 months into their claim. We pull some further forward. So we need to ensure we continue to have flexibility to allocate resources in the most effective way.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked what is happening to work-focused health-related assessments—WFHRAs. The suspension of the WFHRA allows us time to re-evaluate the assessment, particularly in the light of the new work programme, and to consider whether its operation can be improved better to support claimants or whether this support should continue to be provided in other ways. I do not propose to second-guess the outcome of that review or to place constraints on our ability to take the best course of action on that.
On training, we already have a system in place for the professional development and upskilling of advisers. This includes access to a learning framework endorsed by Edexcel, the UK’s largest qualification-awarding body, which will be updated to reflect changes in policy ahead of universal credit. We strongly believe that our advisers are up to the task of personalising requirements and support. We have some very experienced professionals in Jobcentre Plus and their decisions are supported by relevant training, tools and guidance. In a Jobcentre Plus customer survey carried out this year, 88 per cent of claimants reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their experience of Jobcentre Plus. The changes we are making in Jobcentre Plus are precisely intended to allow district managers and their advisory teams more freedom and autonomy rather than having to follow a tick-box, process-driven approach. It is critical that we maintain flexibility in legislation to tailor training and tools according to business need and developing strategy. For all the reasons outlined here, I urge the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall follow up on one or two points. I asked him if he would take us through the claimant journey at the moment, and he did that partially by saying that it is 12 months before claimants get into the work programme, although I am not sure whether that is right for everyone.
Lord Freud
I am sorry. I realise I did not answer that question fully. It is quite complicated, and it is probably easier to see on a graphic, which we have. I commit to making it available afterwards. I also realise that I failed to answer the series of questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about the timing of the review process after the adjustments. It is pretty early days for those adjustments but, rather than detailing them again, I shall add them to the same letter and make that available.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that. I revert to issues around the black box or the equivalent period before people are in the work programme. I was not arguing for lots of conditions other than, I guess, robust contractual conditions imposed upon providers, but providers within the flexibility that the black box gives them should be particularising in individual cases how they are going to support individuals. It is that that ought to be spelled out in some way.
Lord Freud
There is a genuine difference of approach with the work programme. I know that we agree that what we have done with it is evolutionary, and in some ways it is very evolutionary. We have learnt a lot from what has happened in the past decade. In particular, one of the things the work programme builds on is the employment zones, which were by far the best performing welfare-to-work programme in the past decade. That is the experience. The issue is that if you have a payment-by-results system, I strongly believe that it forces providers to provide an individualised service. What matters is that you get that one person in. I can say exactly what drove this insight for me, and it might have been someone from the Shaw Trust. They said to me, “If somebody needs these eight steps to get back into work, it is no good if you have a top-down system that says ‘these are the six things you have to do for everyone’. You can do those six things but that person who needed eight things will still not get into work”. That insight drove me towards payment by results as the model. If you want to get that person into work, you will need a particularised, individualised process to do that. You cannot legislate for that at the centre. It cannot be laid down. We must not put too many central requirements because it changes all the time. That is a difference of philosophy and the one that lies behind this issue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not think that we are apart on that issue. I am not arguing for six constraints to be placed on every provider which must be carried out in every case. The point is that if the black box enables eight steps to be provided in a particular case to get someone into work, that is fine, but why could not the provider simply ensure that those are set out for the claimant? What is so difficult in doing that so that the claimant has the reassurance of the journey that they will go through to get into work? There could be flexibility over that. It does not need to stay at those eight steps for ever. But if that is what the provider has concluded is needed to get someone into work, why should they not give an undertaking or commitment to the claims?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there is a simple answer to that. You start off on a journey thinking that there are eight steps, which you might write down. If it is a formalised process and you decide after three weeks that, “Actually, I do not need to do these two steps or I need to add another two”, you might change it. You might change it weekly, as people change. If we have an overformalised process, we just make that in management terms impossible and very expensive. I would resist it on those principles.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not think that we are going to agree on this issue. But one is not arguing for rigidity: one is simply arguing for the fact that claimants ought to understand the process that they are being asked to go through. If some steps can be missed out or other steps added, that would be fine. No one is saying that that should not happen. Put simply, there should be some obligation as regards the claimants, who should know what is going on and what the provider is seeking to help and to support them with. Perhaps this is an issue on which we will not settle today and to which we will have to come back.
Part of the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who read the script of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was about ESA. In a sense, it is a forerunner to the determinations that we are talking about because the categories that people find themselves in are a consequence of that WCA process. The claimant programme moves on from that, which I hope we will discuss in more depth later in our deliberations on Clause 38. On behalf of the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the point that Jobcentre Plus staff are well trained and highly qualified, which I accept entirely. We hope that providers would have robust training programmes. But what information from the WCA will they have before them when they are seeking to devise the individual programmes?
Lord Freud
The medical information in the WCA is sensitive and personal, which is gathered at an assessment. It informs benefit entitlement and does not provide comprehensive information about readiness or not. In practice, it is likely to be of limited use to advisers and, for that reason, is not shared.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand and I thank the Minister for that. You will see the point that I am trying to understand. There was that initial assessment, through the work capability assessment, which determines what category people end up in. There has been much challenge and discussion about whether that process is an appropriate one, whether Atos is fit for purpose, and so on, and that debate will continue. Once that has happened and people are categorised, then support has to be given to those individuals by the claimant commitment, written down or not, by the providers and/or by Jobcentre Plus. When one is looking at the expertise that is available from those providers or Jobcentre Plus, do they have to go through the process again to understand people who have fluctuating conditions, for example, which is one of the recurring issues of the categorisation in the first place? Do they have to relearn what Atos may have devised, I hope, correctly in that original designation? If not, how will they best serve those claimants, particularly those who are most challenged as regards the labour market?
Baroness Meacher
I very strongly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, because it seems to me that we are talking about oiling the wheels and enabling the system to work. It seems to me that part of that is transparency to the claimant, which is the noble Lord's previous point, but also transparency for the provider. If I understood this right, the assessment and the clinical report on the claimants will not be provided to the provider, who then has to prepare all this activity to enable the person to return to work. If that is really so, I appeal to the Minister to take that back and think about it because I cannot see the system working.
Lord Freud
Let me clarify what information goes over. The former WCA is confidential and does not go over. How does the adviser build the revised requirements with the claimant? The evidence that he uses includes the claimant’s fit note, advice from Atos—not the former WCA, but some advice can go over—and other medical evidence. Those things come together to form the basis on which agreement is reached.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have probably taken this as far as we can this afternoon. I would certainly like to read the record and reflect on it. We ended on a high note. The Minister made reference to a fit note, which is most welcome. There is a conundrum here which I do not think that we have bottomed out this afternoon. We propose to take it away and I imagine that we will wish to return to it on Report.
Lord Freud
There are quite a few moving parts to this. I have talked about the WFHRAs reviewing that and there is also a review coming out on the sickness absence regime in the not too distant future. There are areas that need to be brought together, which impact on this reasonably specifically.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for his support and the Minister for his helpful reply. Clearly, he has a great depth of knowledge of this area and I am grateful to learn from him this afternoon. I have a couple of brief points to raise. I also have an aside which is that his black-box approach sounds very familiar, in terms of the young offender programme for National Grid and Transco, to which I referred. It was developed for National Grid and Transco by Dr Mary Harris, who is an astrophysicist by background. Her approach was very much testing and incrementally trying things out until she got a method that seemed to work very well for young people. Maybe there is some read-across there to what is being discussed this afternoon.
The Select Committee for the Department for Work and Pensions looked at the work programme, and although it welcomed it, it had this to say:
“However, there is a risk that creaming and parking may still take place under this model”—
the work programme model—
“since it remains open to providers to continue to focus on the easier to help participants within each customer group”.
Perhaps the Minister could write to me, or say now to the Committee, whether he is aware of that particular problem and what needs to be done within each of the tranches.
The second issue that I would like to raise with the Minister—and I would like to think more about this—is where he talks about attending being a fundamental requirement. One just has to attend if one is going to get anywhere through this process. I can imagine for some young people that even attending would be a big step to take. I do not want to push it too far, but if you have someone coming out of the criminal justice system who is very oppositional and who has complete distrust for authority of any kind, you might need to woo them a little bit before you can even get them in a meeting—but it would be well worth while wooing them in terms of the outcomes at the end. That is the first point; I will go back and think about the second.
Lord Freud
To save the department writing a letter, I actually think that “creaming and parking” is not desperately helpful, although I know that it is a very popular phrase. I shall explain exactly why. Within a black-box approach, if you are a provider you are clearly trying to spend your money on an outcome that will be successful. Our job is to ensure that we put the amounts of money into the right level. There will be people who are ready and worth while investing in and people for whom it is not the right time—you need to wait. There is quite a sophisticated judgment there, and you can get those judgments too crudely wrapped up with what are basically terms of abuse in “creaming and parking”. That is how I would respond to that, and I hope that that has saved us a letter.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollins
“(d) if the claimant has a long term health condition or impairment, the claimant commitment must specifically address any reasonable adjustments which need to be made.”
Baroness Hollins
What I am going to talk about is very relevant to the discussion that has just taken place. I shall speak about Amendment 51CD first, whose purpose is to require Jobcentre Plus staff who are drawing up an individual claimant commitment to specifically address whether the claimant has a long-term health condition or impairment. There is growing evidence that the current system often fails to take adequate account of specific health needs of some individual claimants. This is relevant when considering compliance with the conditions that the claimant has agreed to as part of the assessment in the claimant commitment. It is a concern both when looking at a person’s performance during the work capability assessment and with respect to their ability to attend and fully explain their condition at the assessment.
The policy intention is for staff to make reasonable and appropriate adjustments as required by the Disability Discrimination Act. I was going to give noble Lords a different example, but last night I had a phone call from an acquaintance who is autistic—a middle-aged woman, who rang up to ask my advice about something. She does this quite regularly on a Sunday evening. I thought last night, “I really don’t want to have this conversation”—but in fact it was very useful, because halfway through the conversation she said, “I’ve just had this work capability assessment, and they have said that I have to join the work-related activity group”. She does not know what I do, apart from being a psychiatrist. So I said, “That’s really interesting. What conditions have been suggested and what is happening? Did they ask your doctor for advice?”. She is autistic, she has epilepsy and at the moment she has a neurological condition which is leading her to be quite unable to move very far or fast. She does not have very much insight and she has a recurrent depression, which is really not good at the moment. I find it quite difficult to imagine what conditions one would be able to put in place. I would love to see her back in work but, knowing her as I have done for 20 years, I really wonder. She said that as far as she knew, her doctor and her psychiatrist had not been asked for their opinion, so I thought, “I need to tell the Committee about her”.
The claimant commitment really should include specific reference to a health problem and to the agreed adjustments which should be made to enable a person to meet the conditions which are set. Another example was given: if somebody had agoraphobia and was perhaps unable to travel by bus or outside their own familiar neighbourhood, that would restrict where they could reasonably be expected to seek work. Yet there is some evidence that many quite ill people are being sanctioned because they have not been able to comply with conditionality, when such needs have not been taken into account.
Understanding that particular candidates have particular needs is the first step to ensuring that the claimant commitment is workable, which is of course what we are looking for. That awareness could be built on through training Jobcentre Plus staff. Good training is clearly vital but it is not enough to rely on, so that is the reason for this amendment. Many of these people will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act and there is a requirement for the DWP to make reasonable adjustments, but I want to make sure that the question is specifically addressed in the claimant commitment so that it cannot be overlooked. I hope that the Minister will agree that staff training is not enough but that through this amendment, the requirement to make reasonable adjustments as part of the claimant commitment would make it more likely that appropriate action would be taken locally. I suggest that addressing the responsibility to make reasonable adjustments would in fact result in improvements in treatment for a lot of claimants and should be put into law.
The purpose of Amendment 51CE is to ensure that the work-focused health-related assessment process takes into account:
“Evidence from the claimant's own”,
doctors, who will of course have much fuller knowledge than the independent assessor. The purpose of these assessments is to highlight what they can do and what useful steps they can take to get back to work. It is important that they give as accurate a picture as possible of the impact of the claimant's condition on their daily life but the assessments carried out by an independent assessor, without access to the person's medical history, often fail to pick up vital information. If the healthcare professionals do not know somebody, a 40-minute assessment really is not long enough to fully appreciate the nature of a claimant's condition, particularly if it is complex. I propose that medical evidence from the claimant’s own doctors should become a key part of any work-focused health-related assessment.
Mind has written about a client who attended a work-capability assessment and failed to score any points, but what was not taken into consideration was that the client had a serious mental health problem and had been in hospital under Section 3 for six months prior to the assessment. She knew very little about her own condition and had a long history of hospitalisation.
Baroness Hollins
Yes—she did not score any points. I would like to mention a small, recent study done by Citizens Advice and presented to the Select Committee looking into the personal independence payment proposals last week. It reviewed 37 reports. The claimants went through the report with the CAB adviser, looking mainly at the section where the healthcare professional is meant to record the claimant’s account of the impact of their impairment or health condition on their life. Sixteen of the 37 were reported to have a very substantial level of inaccuracy. The suggestion is that if information from the claimant's own healthcare professionals had been involved, the accuracy of those assessment reports would surely have been better. In another recent report commissioned by DWP, healthcare professionals working for Atos were interviewed and agreed that the provision of medical information from a claimant's own doctor is rather helpful in completing their own assessment.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 51CD, 51CE and 51FA and the related amendments concerning Clauses 44, 46, 49 and 56, which were all tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollins. As she said, they concern claimant commitment and sanctions. The objective of these amendments, as I understand them, is to ensure that claimants’ long-term conditions or impairments are understood by Jobcentre Plus. The claimant commitment ensures that the claimant’s problems are recognised and that the necessary adjustments are made and that when sanctions are being considered the likely impact of the health condition or impairment on the claimant’s failure to comply with some condition is fully taken into account.
I shall take these three points in turn. The first is the need for Jobcentre Plus to understand the long-term conditions and impairments of claimants. Here the training of staff is paramount. In view of the incredible range of disabilities to be dealt with and the precision of the assessments required, can the Minister confirm that people with mental health or learning difficulties will be dealt with by specialist Jobcentre Plus staff in those particular fields?
That has not been the case in the past, and the consequences have been absolutely appalling, yet the need for specialist knowledge will be even greater when this Bill comes into effect. I have referred in previous discussions around these issues to a conversation that I had with a Jobcentre Plus manager about people’s mental health problems. When I asked that manager what happened to those people, he said, “Oh, my staff don’t understand mental health problems”. I said, “Well, so what happens when someone with a mental health problem comes in seeking help?”. He said, “We can’t really help them, so what happens is that they become homeless and then they go back into hospital, and so then they get some help, and the process starts again”. That is such a statement about the failures of the past, and the reasons why I fear that with all this precision about what everybody has to do things will be very much worse for this group in future. We know that an awful lot of these people will fall into jobseeker’s allowance—and we know what happens then.
Many case histories have been sent to me, and no doubt to many other noble Lords, which illustrate the impossibility of the task and the consequences of mistakes being made. I want to quote one case to illustrate the point. Just as my noble friend referred to a case where a person had been given nul points—no points—I am also aware of somebody with a mental health condition assessed with no points a year ago. This person was placed on JSA and failed to cope with the conditions; her health deteriorated and she was reassessed and given 33 points. There is something terribly wrong about that. This lady, who was solely concerned to get back into work, complained that she had lost a year of her life. When she could have been getting the support that she needed and getting back into work, she has been sitting there deteriorating. This error, as I see it anyway, probably cost the taxpayer a year of benefits. That is one of my concerns. I have absolute respect for the intentions, and certainly the intentions of the Minister, but the fine-tuning on all these things will not work. I cannot see it working.
In that context, I support the comment of my noble friend Lady Hollins in asking for a medical opinion in relation to these complex cases. We are all aware that psychiatrists and their teams spend weeks and weeks assessing a person and their needs and what the problems really are—and even then they get it wrong sometimes. So how somebody in a single interview who does not have the experience or skill can do that job is really pushing it, I would suggest. That is not quite the language for this House, but I could say much more on that issue—and no doubt we will come back to it on Report.
I move on to the importance of the claimant commitment and recognising the claimant’s problems. The first step is for the Jobcentre Plus to understand—we have dealt with that. The next step is for something to be done about those problems. Here it seems to me that for claimants with mental health problems who are not under a secondary mental health trust—they are a different group altogether and I shall not talk about them here—but the million or so who are under a GP or not receiving any help at all, who are assessed as appropriate for RAG due to a mental health disorder, usually caused by anxiety or depression, it is surely vital that the claimant commitment includes very clearly the requirement that the person should be referred to a professional therapy or health service. IAPT is an obvious choice for many of these people, but not all of them. But my point is that it should be very clear in the claimant commitment—and this takes us back to the responsibility of the Secretary of State—that there is that responsibility there for the referral to be made. My concern is that this very substantial group will finish up with these providers, who probably will not have any real understanding of these kinds of issues.
They will quite likely refer these people to a rather cheap option. I know that they will have £14,000, which is wonderful, but you wonder what they might want to spend that money on. If these people are referred to a cheap or inappropriate option, they will not get back into work. Something relatively simple like a requirement that a therapy or health service that a person requires should be specified in the claimant commitment could transform a system from an incredibly ineffective one to one that would effectively get people back into work.
I know that the Minister has high hopes for Professor Harrington's work, and I share his optimism to some extent, having played a very peripheral role in that work. However, I do not believe that Professor Harrington's work will address the issue that I am raising here. His work should improve the quality of the assessments, particularly of mentally ill people and those with fluctuating disorders, but as I understand it, it will not at all ensure that the right help is available to this very large group of claimants. The whole edifice will fail if this crucial link is missing.
Another issue that I want to touch on is the need to take full account of the claimant's condition in considering sanctions following a failure to fulfil one of the benefit conditions, such as a failure to attend an interview, work-related activity and so forth. I was going to mention the agoraphobic claimant to whom my noble friend Lady Hollins referred. The crucial point is something that the Minister said a little earlier: everybody must attend interviews. They must do this and must do that. In my view, an agoraphobic claimant could not do anything realistically except, with help, get along to get their treatment—professional treatment, not a cheap option. If that happened, and their symptoms were brought under control, you could then start talking about other things that that person should do.
I understand the Minister's point about needing eight processes or whatever, but for some claimants it is vital to stick with the first one until that is done. Otherwise, sanctions will be applied completely inappropriately and destructively. It will not help. In fact, it would make things a lot worse. The extent of errors is well illustrated by the fact that 29 per cent of those in the work-related activity group are placed there only after reconsideration on appeal having originally been found fit for work. For 29 per cent of people, they get it wrong in the first place. The suffering those people go through is appalling.
I was struck by the level of fear in the voice of the carer who is herself a service user at a recent meeting of our service users and carers in east London. She had just attended a reassessment and said that it was terrifying. She said, “He had no idea about my disability”, and had no idea about her responsibilities to her mentally ill son. Under the new system, a claimant can obtain a report from a healthcare professional of their choice. That is great progress. However, there are major concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I intervene very briefly in support of the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and to note the very eloquent way in which she presented them. The experience that she brings to this Committee is something phenomenal. There can be no doubt whatever that the Minister would not want to be in breach of discrimination law. However it is one thing to say that and another to provide the systems to ensure that does not happen. The point of these amendments is to ensure that there is a systematic approach and that the health dimension—the professional dimension—is brought on board to ensure that reasonable adjustments are undertaken where they can be. It is not enough for us just to hope that that happens. It needs to be built into the system.
In response to this group of amendments, I hope the Minister will be in a position to tell us how the Government intend to ensure that there is a systematic approach to this, that it is not left to luck and that people who need their situations to be explained and put over professionally get that opportunity. It is clearly going to be very difficult indeed for the system by itself to have the expertise that professionals would have at hand, and we need to make sure that all the information is fed in so that everyone has a fair crack of the whip.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, it is very difficult to add anything to the most eloquent remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and I do not intend to do so. As I have already mentioned to the Committee, I have some experience of the Conservative Disability Group, but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, prompt me to add two more thoughts to the pot. I should declare that I am not a professional in this area. I am fairly familiar with disability law, and of course the Minister is absolutely right that reasonable adjustments are an obligation and, indeed, an equality duty within the Equality Act for the public sector.
There are two other considerations the Minister needs to remind his officials to make sure are properly considered. One is the need at all times for public officials to act reasonably in administrative law and the second is for people, who are in a sense, when they go into an assessment, undergoing some kind of trial process, to be treated according to the laws of natural justice. The Minister has to take this trio and convince the Committee not only of his sincerity, but of his ability to effect the means by which they are delivered.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Meacher, spoke most movingly about people with mental health problems and fluctuating conditions. What they said was extremely important. I want to add that people in manual wheelchairs are no longer automatically going to be on ESA after their work capability assessment. They may be on jobseeker’s allowance. That concerns me because we all want people in manual wheelchairs looking for a job and if they are otherwise healthy, of course they want to get a job. They may not be impaired in any other way, but they just cannot walk. However, if ever there was a group of people who needed reasonable adjustments made, this is it because around the country a lot of jobs will not be physically accessible for people in manual wheelchairs. With the Disability Discrimination Act, Jobcentre Plus officials will have to take that into account. However, if it were reinforced by the words “reasonable adjustments” in the claimant commitment, that would remind officials that it is an important thing that they have to have regard to because there must be an awful lot of jobs that are not open to people in manual wheelchairs, simply because of the difficulty of getting into a place of work. This amendment is an extremely good one for that reason, so there is another group of people who might need this reinforcement in Amendment 51CD.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am prompted to ask the Minister a couple of questions as a result of what has been said. Are the needs of care leavers being particularly taken into account? The Office for National Statistics reviewed the mental disorders and level of mental health of young people in care in 2004. The results were really shocking. It found that, on average, 40 per cent had mental disorders. The most vulnerable group, the 10 per cent in children’s homes, had 68-plus per cent levels of mental disorder. This is not surprising given the histories of these young people but when they leave care, and one hopes that some of those issues have been addressed while they have been in care, I am concerned that they might have difficulties with these meetings. I wonder whether some of them might even have difficulty turning up to a meeting and whether there needs to be somebody going out to them and making a relationship or whether they need to be worked with through some organisation, such as Action for Children, which knows them well and has built a relationship of trust with them.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I have a few words to add to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about people in manual wheelchairs. I have been contacted by a number of disabled people recently who are very keen to get into work, but they have told me some heartbreaking stories of the hidden discrimination that they have faced. One young lady had very good skills and qualifications and she applied for more than 40 jobs but was turned away from each of them for some quite interesting reasons. It all boiled down to the fact that it would be too difficult to employ her. I think it was a case of providing a little extra support. We want to get that group of people into work and they want to be in work. It is important for them to be in work so that the rest of society can see their range of impairments and disabilities. That will encourage people to be much more open-minded. I am really concerned that we are not doing everything we can to ensure that that group of people get a fair crack of the whip.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we support this group of amendments, which seeks to ensure that a person’s long-term health condition or impairment is taken into account, both when drawing up a claimant commitment and when considering compliance and, therefore, possible sanctions. Amendment 51CE requires that evidence from a claimant's own health professionals is part of any health assessment required in drawing up the work preparation requirements, along the lines set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
The amendments affect both those claiming ESA and those who fail the assessment process and are asked to claim JSA instead. They apply to people with long-term physical or mental health conditions and impairments. I particularly bring to the attention of the Committee the fact that many of these long-term conditions also fluctuate, as has been mentioned, particularly things like multiple sclerosis. As the Committee will know, MS is twice as prevalent in women as it is in men, so it will excuse us taking a moment on it. Some long-term conditions, such as relapse-remitting MS, also happen to have what can appear to be very non-specific symptoms, such as fatigue, generalised pain and cognitive difficulties. It is vital that the assessors understand those, along the lines mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and that the advisers take full account of the claimant’s own physician.
The DWP note states:
“Claimants with a health condition, or who are undergoing regular treatment to manage their health condition (but do not have limited capability for work) will be required to provide evidence of any limitations on what work (hours, nature of work, and location) they are capable of doing. This will be taken into account when setting … requirements”.
However, as has already been touched on, if a claimant raises reasonable objections to their work availability and work-search requirements, although those will be considered by the adviser, where there is no agreement, the claimant can only get them reviewed by another officer. That was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. That falls short of a proper right of appeal.
As we know, the process for assessing whether someone has limited capability for work is not perfect. It is not easy. Will the Minister update us on the implementation of the year 2 recommendations from the Harrington review following last month’s closing date for evidence? This continued process and the very real concerns that it is causing disabled people mean that it is important that long-term health conditions are considered when the claimant is asked to sign up to that claimant commitment or when good cause is being considered as to whether a sanction should be imposed for failure to comply.
Even if the review process is perfect, there will still be some people with long-term health conditions who are able to undertake work search but who need their conditions to be taken into account. They may, for example, be able to work very competently and fully but for only part of the day or a few days a week from time to time. In other words, they can work well but not necessarily on a sustainable basis. The resulting absences or the requirement for additional time to travel to work or extra support at work need to be taken fully into account when assessing both their search for jobs or subsequent work record. The descriptors relating to fluctuating conditions will be crucial in assisting the assessors.
Because the claimant commitment is new, we do not know the extent to which DWP advisers will take long-term or fluctuating conditions into account. There is a precedent for health conditions to be taken into account when good cause for turning down a job is considered. Those are already set out and include,
“any condition … that suggests that a particular job or carrying out a jobseeker’s direction, would be likely to cause you excessive physical or mental stress or significant harm to your health”.
The draft regulations do not list how this issue will be dealt with under universal credit. Will the Minister outline what is intended in this regard?
I want to finish by bringing to the attention of the Committee the concerns of Scope, which is very worried about the proposals as they stand. It fears that,
“there will not be adequate safeguards to ensure that sanctions are not applied to disabled people who are unable to meet the conditions due to factors relating to their impairment or condition”.
Scope is,
“not convinced that applying long-term sanctions … will incentivise those to comply after the sanction has been introduced”.
Moreover, Scope is,
“deeply concerned that the use of stricter sanctions will impact upon disabled people receiving JSA”.
After all, sanctions are most likely to affect those who did not fully understand that penalties could be imposed. This frequently involves claimants who already face multiple barriers to work, including various disabilities.
Scope also believes that there is little to suggest that sanctioning such claimants in this way will actually do much to change behaviour when a claimant, perhaps with a learning disability, has not understood why they were sanctioned in the first place. Scope is concerned that conditionality requirements and sanctions, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords this afternoon, will not be applied to disabled people until there has been proper consideration of need. A thorough assessment of need and barriers to finding work must be carried out before any decision is taken to apply a sanction. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he responds to the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Meacher, and other noble Lords who have spoken.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I apologise. I should have put a couple of questions to the Minister. How will care leavers be treated in this system, and what additional support and flexibility might they expect to be shown? Perhaps he might prefer to write to me on those two points.
Lord Freud
Before I start on the amendment formally, it is worth making it crystal clear that the structure of the changes we have made bear in mind some of the real issues that we are talking about. I am particularly conscious of people with learning difficulties and fluctuating conditions, or a nest of other problems. I want to spend one minute on the design of the new welfare system, when it comes out like Aphrodite coming out of the sea near Paphos. The first point is the design of the work programme, where the rewards are not to get someone into a job and to keep them there, as it used to be, for 13 weeks. When you think about it, that is not what we want; we want someone to be in a long-term job. The structure, particularly for the hardest to help, is that the real rewards for the provider are when someone is in work for more than two years—it is two years and three months. You do not get someone into a job for two years and three months if it is inappropriate. That simply is not going to happen so when we are talking about the work programme, the incentive on the providers is to match people up with jobs that they can do in a way that the current system simply does not.
The second structural change that we are making, and which is really relevant in this area, is in how the universal credit works. By pulling together the two systems, the out-of-work benefits system and the in-work tax credit system, you do not have this desperate problem that we have today where if you take a risk and try to get a job and it did not work, you go back to go—and now try to get your benefits again. It is a nightmare but there have been bits of sticking plaster on it.
If you are in a fluctuating condition and this week you cannot work—let us say you have a job where there is a little flexibility—all that would happen would be that you would slide up the taper. Nothing would have changed in the nature of your benefit. There is just an adjustment in your universal credit payment and when you can work more, you get more. Those two things are big structural changes to bear in mind when we deal with these areas. They will help a lot because much of what people are rightly so concerned about are some of the incredible blocks that are in the current system and which make it so difficult for people to partake. It is why we have excluded so many people from having a full life, because in modern western society being part of the economy of the country is having a full life. They have been excluded and there is all the depression that results, so there are some really strong underlying changes that should help.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful. Would the system that he is describing take on board the fact that the claimant may not be in a position to express, have the confidence to express, or know how to express the reasons that he or she cannot make that case? Therefore there is the need for access to professional advice.
Lord Freud
As I said in the previous debate, taking on board advice from a claimant’s own medical practitioner and other sources is part of the process here. To pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for claimants in the work preparation group, we intend to carry forward the current system of home visits to claimants with mental health problems to ensure we understand why they fail to comply. Of course, all sanction decisions can be referred to an independent tribunal, helping ensure we get it right. But equally, we intend to move away from extensive—and ultimately incomplete—lists and regulations. It is impractical for legislation to catch all the relevant matters that may arise in every single case of non-compliance, and the lengthy JSA regulations—which have matters that must and may be taken into account in determining whether a claimant has good reason—are not actually helpful for decision-makers or claimants.
To pick up the point from the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollins, on the work capability assessment, we do rely on the WCA and therefore Professor Harrington’s review is critical to help us get it right. Claimants should be placed only in a work preparation or a work-related requirements group where they are capable of meeting these very basic requirements. Once in those groups, clients will need to take account of their health condition. They are designed to take on board all the available evidence on that individual.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked what happened with the Harrington review. As noble Lords know, we took on board the entirety of Malcolm Harrington’s first recommendations. The main thing was to empower decision makers to make the right decisions. In response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we have introduced a mental health co-ordinator in each district who has an outward-facing role working with mental health services and an inward-facing role developing the knowledge and confidence of advisers. The other area of Professor Harrington’s advice that was taken up was on improving our communications so that claimants understand the process and the result and are able to add additional evidence if they need to. In response, we have also made improvements in mental health with mental function champions across the network at Atos. Professor Harrington is currently undertaking his second independent review. We are waiting for it, and we will then look very hard at what to do with those recommendations. We will take them very seriously.
Turning to Amendment 51E on work-focused health-related assessments, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will know that these assessments have been suspended because they were not working as intended. We will re-evaluate, as I have already said. I have already offered to write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on care leavers, and I will add that topic to that letter.
I do not want noble Lords to feel that I am being negative in this area, and it is over-easy to think that I am. I have valued the contributions noble Lords have made. I do not see these things as appropriate for the Bill, but I am clearly going to consider deeply the points that have been made today with the aim of applying them appropriately as we implement the system. I value what noble Lords have said. It resonates. We need to get it right. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wilkins
I totally take the fact that the Minister is setting out a system in which claimants should be confident that they are being helped and that that is the purpose of the system. However, does he accept that existing claimants have to overcome an enormous amount of negative experience because of the Atos system so there is an enormous mountain to climb?
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, makes a point, which we have actually discussed in the Chamber in the past. She knows my concern about this. I think that the Atos and WCA process is genuinely improving now, with the changes that have been made. A lot of the stories that we have are of the system as it was, unreformed. It is gradually improving. That is not to say that it is now perfect—that is not my claim. We are committed to getting the process right, and we inherited that process. I know the concerns that there are, seeing them at first hand in many cases. It is a terrible balance between abandoning people and saying, “You’re out of the economic life of this country” and then trying to pull them in in a coherent way. Getting that balance right, as all noble Lords here today understand, is complicated and a path that we are moving down. But I am determined that we will get to a position where we are doing it with the right balance.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, particularly for saying that he is going to consider these amendments deeply as we move towards implementation. There were three things that the amendments were trying to do. One was to try to ensure that evidence from claimants’ own health professionals would be properly taken into account at an early enough stage to prevent some of the distress that is currently affecting some claimants. The second one was about reasonable adjustments, which are a requirement under the law but are perhaps not fully understood. It is about an individualised approach, is it not? The third one was ensuring that the impact of a health condition on a candidate’s ability to comply was properly assessed and understood. It is not about asking for a rigid list of things in the claimant commitment. What it is really about is asking for joined-up work between different departments with different responsibilities and joined-up care for people with health conditions with the NHS and the DWP. There is no reason why Jobcentre Plus staff and existing specialist NHS staff could not share some information for the benefit of the claimant, both at the assessment stage and during their progression into work, which is what we would all like to see.
Although decision makers are required to take information into account, there is evidence that they are not always doing that. Yes, of course people can appeal, but appeals are very distressing, not just for the individual but also for their families. These amendments were intended to make the system work better both for claimants, so that they are more likely to succeed, but also because it is much more satisfying for staff to work in a system that they know is working fairly. So I am hoping that the Minister will find a way to ensure that the spirit of the amendment is taken on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Introduction: Lord Curry of Kirkharle
Health: Cardiology
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in the development of paediatric cardiac services in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the review of children’s congenital heart services is a clinically led NHS review, independent of government. The consultation ended on 1 July and an independent analysis of the responses and interim health impact assessment was published in August. The joint committee of primary care trusts expects to make a decision later this year. This will be based on an independent analysis of the consultation, reports from overview and scrutiny committees, a health impact assessment and other evidence from the consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree with me that, especially where children from deprived backgrounds are concerned, it is crucial that social and personal issues are considered alongside the clinical? Will he ensure that geographical proximity of services to children’s homes is taken into account when the time comes to make final decisions in this matter?
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, given that the review of paediatric cardiac surgery services presented earlier this year suggested a requirement for 400 or 500 cases per year, which is a level that cannot be provided in Northern Ireland so the service there would not be allowed to continue, can my noble friend reassure me that the Department of Health has been in discussion with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland to see what the Department of Health here can do to ensure that paediatric cardiac surgery services are available to the children and young people of Northern Ireland?
Earl Howe
As my noble friend knows, the children’s heart surgery unit in Belfast is not part of the Safe and Sustainable review as it is the responsibility of the healthcare systems in the devolved Administration. It is for the Northern Irish health service to take a view on the safety and sustainability of those services and to consider the recommendations that flow out of the review in this country. We will, of course, share the learning from our experience in England, but I emphasise again that this is a matter for the NHS, and not Ministers, to resolve.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the north of England is a special case because of deprivation, long distances and cultural problems around the Bradford area? Does he agree that both Leeds and Newcastle need their children’s heart surgery units, and that deprivation is an important factor as far as travelling is concerned?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree that deprivation is an important consideration. The population density of the West Midlands conurbation and the very high case load of Birmingham Children’s Hospital suggested that the Birmingham service should be, as it were, a fixed point. However, I am afraid that the same cannot be applied to Leeds because although the Leeds catchment area has a high population it has a much lower case load than that of Birmingham. The analysis of the expert group suggested that there needed to be two centres in the north of England because of the population density; that was either Liverpool and Leeds or Liverpool and Newcastle. It was not possible to have a Leeds and Newcastle combination since Newcastle could not achieve a credible network.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, as a Bradfordian I have to say that that is a very great shame because I cannot see how the people in Bradford will find it easy to go to Newcastle to visit their children in hospital. When you add up the number of surgical cases performed on adults as well as children in England each year, you reach a figure which would require nine or 10 centres across England, not the six or seven proposed by the Safe and Sustainable review. Therefore, does the Minister share my concern that, by deciding the future of children’s heart services without reference to adult congenital heart services, the review is not looking at the full picture? Indeed, why are adult and children’s services subject to two reviews?
Earl Howe
My Lords, surgery for children with congenital heart disease is much more complex than surgery for adults with congenital heart disease. The focus of the review has been on paediatric services up to now. As the most immediate concerns were around the sustainability of the children’s services, the paediatric cardiac services standards include the need for links with adult services and for good transition services between the two.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
Will the Minister confirm that in Yorkshire and Humber, there are 5.5 million people—more than in Scotland—and that there are nearly 14 million people in the catchment area of the Leeds children’s heart unit? Does the Minister imply by his remarks that he rules out Leeds as continuing to have a heart surgery unit? Will the Minister play any role at all in bringing good sense to the need for a major unit in one of the largest regions in this country?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot rule anything out, because, as I emphasised, this is a matter for the NHS. In the final analysis, however, this could be a decision that falls on to the desk of the Secretary of State, so it would be unwise of me to be drawn into commenting in too much detail on particular centres of surgery. All I can say about the service at Leeds is that it received a very low score as an outcome of the assessment by the independent expert panel. It was ranked 10th out of 11 centres; that is one above the service at the John Radcliffe Hospital which, as noble Lords will know, was suspended over safety fears in February 2010.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Does the Minister accept that the lessons to be learned from Bristol represent an important critical mass for highly specialised services, and that a hub-and-spokes model allows families to access really high-quality, high-tech services, leaving the lower-tech services to be delivered nearer to home? That requires integration at all levels across providers, but the concern with the NHS reforms is that that integration will be threatened.
Earl Howe
I hope to persuade the noble Baroness in our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill that her fears on the Bill and its provisions in regard to integration are not well founded. However, I agree with her remarks in the first part of her question. It is very important that surgeons have sufficient clinical work to maintain and develop their skills and to train the next generation of surgeons. The need for change in this area is widely supported, and it is only by taking a national perspective that the optimum configuration of services can be effectively assessed.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Am I not right in thinking that this process of review is currently the subject of judicial review initiated by the Royal Brompton? What will the Minister do if the process is found to be flawed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. A judicial review has been launched by the Royal Brompton into the fairness of the process being followed. I am not in a position to comment on that. We expect a decision well before the end of the year and if that decision is not one that allows the process to continue, then clearly those in charge of it will have to look again at how to set about it.
Health: Healthcare Assistants
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to regulate healthcare assistants by establishing minimum standards and a code of conduct to ensure the protection of patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, there are provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill to enable the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence to establish a process for accrediting voluntary registers for healthcare workers. Assured voluntary registration for healthcare assistants would build on existing safeguards such as the Care Quality Commission’s registration requirements and the vetting and barring scheme, and would include setting national standards for training, conduct and competence for those on the register.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
I thank the noble Earl for his response, but is he aware of the worry and concern he has caused in his comments in the Times this morning? At my hospital, the director of nursing is very concerned that there are many reasons why nurses are reported to the statutory body and some of that can just be that they are not caring properly. The noble Earl’s remarks do not take that into account. Will he also accept, in a positive way, that many healthcare assistants would like to be regulated so that they can assure their patients and themselves that the skills they have and the service they are providing are of the very best?
Earl Howe
I agree with the latter part of the noble Baroness’s question in so far as I am quite sure that many healthcare assistants would like to be recognised for their skills. The question is whether statutory regulation or voluntary registration is the best and most proportionate route to achieve that. As regards the first part of her question, I regret the slant that the Times took on my remarks, because if a nurse has been struck off because they are considered to pose a risk to patients, then they must be referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which would have the power to bar them. On the other hand, if a nurse is struck off for, say, misprescribing drugs to patients but is still capable of performing care tasks such as washing and bathing, they could still work as a healthcare assistant under appropriate supervision—depending on the circumstances. So there is no blanket prescription in this area; one has to look at the competencies of the individual and whether they are safe to work with adults.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, the same article in the Times referred to people without any experience whatever being appointed as healthcare assistants. While that might be splendid in terms of more people helping in the hospital, is it not important to develop training standards of some level to replace the lost SENs—state-enrolled nurses—and to be sure that these care assistants are reasonably competent in what they are being asked to do?
Earl Howe
I agree with my noble friend and it is why we are proposing a system of assured voluntary registration that would provide those training standards. We need to bear it in mind that the health and social care sectors are already subject to numerous tiers of regulation, including the important requirement on employers who are providing regulated activities to use only people who are appropriately trained and qualified. That means taking up references, having proper induction processes and so on. No national set of arrangements absolves employers of their responsibility to ensure that the people they are employing are suitable for the roles that they are fulfilling.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, does not the problem lie with nursing having been made a wholly graduate profession, whereby nurses are taught nothing but theory and not how to nurse people at all? Indeed, I recently heard a nurse on the radio complaining that being asked to minister to the needs of patients was very inconvenient because it got in the way of completing their paperwork. Should it not be the case that nurses are taught the traditional skills of nursing that are directed at meeting patients’ needs, and that if nurses are to be helped by healthcare assistants it is important that the job of nurses is not simply delegated to the kind of untrained people that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was talking about?
Earl Howe
I can agree in part with what the noble Lord says. I do not agree that the training of nurses is skewed against what one might call the traditional caring activities that we associate with nursing, because my understanding is that the division is around 50:50 between the academic and practical elements of the training. We recognise the important contribution of nurses, not just in the new roles that they have taken on but in the fundamental aspects of care. They have the reach and relationships to improve outcomes and experiences for patients. We are doing our best to support them by various means.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I often take my lead from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. In an article in the Times today she said that a voluntary register was no cure. This, taken with the confusion created by, I am afraid, the noble Earl’s remarks about struck-off nurses, underlines the point at issue. I ask the Minister: is it really satisfactory that there is a chance that no one would know that a nurse was a struck-off nurse? Is it satisfactory that thousands of nursing care assistants are taking blood and carrying out procedures, but patients cannot know whether they are on a register and properly regulated? That is the problem. The noble Earl needs to think about the kind of juggernaut that is heading towards him on this one.
Earl Howe
No, it is not satisfactory that people should not know that a nurse has been struck off and is on the barred list. That is why it is incumbent on employers to make exactly those inquiries when taking on a new employee. As regards patients, the presence or absence of statutory regulation will not change one jot the responsibilities of employers or the responsibility of nurses to delegate appropriately on a ward or in a care home. Unsupervised, unregistered healthcare assistants should not be working without the proper authority and supervision.
Crime: Youth Justice
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have changed their policy regarding the abolition of the Youth Justice Board in the light of the public consultation and the board’s assistance in dealing with the aftermath of recent street riots.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
No, my Lords, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board and to carry out its main functions within the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I suppose I ought to thank the Minister for that reply, because he has the disadvantage of his department having lost some of the responses to the summer consultation. However, is he aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Magistrates’ Association have written trenchant letters to Mr Crispin Blunt, his colleague, saying that the Government have got this wrong and that the board should not be abolished? How many other organisations have written in similar terms in response to the consultation?
While he is about it, can the Minister explain to the House why it is right to abolish one commissioning board in order to improve ministerial accountability but in another department it is appropriate to install the daddy of all quangos at the same time—the National Commissioning Board, for the Minister's information—and can he assure the House, as the noble Earl will later, that that in no way affects ministerial accountability?
Lord McNally
My Lords, perhaps fortunately, I am responsible for the Ministry of Justice, and, there, we have come to the clear conclusion that we can operate the responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board better by creating a new youth justice division, which will be a dedicated part of the MoJ sitting outside NOMS, and maintaining continuity and expertise by agreeing that John Drew, the current chief executive of the YJB, will lead the division.
We have indeed received a number of responses—70 in all, I think—to the consultation, which closed on 11 October. The department is studying those responses and will report in due course.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, Mr Crispin Blunt, in his evidence to the Justice Committee in another place, said that there were complaints from youth offending team managers about the Youth Justice Board. How many complaints were there and what was the nature of those complaints?
Lord McNally
I have not seen in detail the evidence given by my honourable friend. I suspect that almost in the order of things there are occasional irritations between a central and a local body. Throughout the life of the YJB, there have been various debates about where the onus of responsibility should lie. We believe that by slimming down the central role of the YJB, we can give youth offending teams more responsibility, in keeping with the Government’s localism policy. I will investigate whether the exact exchanges that Mr Blunt was referring to are available on the public record and what they contain, and if I can reveal them to my noble friend, I will.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, will the Minister thank the Secretary of State for the care with which he has listened to your Lordships’ concern across the House at this change? Does he know of any chief police officers who support the change? Does he understand my concern, as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, and as treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, that this will not only be less safe for the public but will be a step back for those children in the criminal justice system and will mean fewer children going on to make a better life for themselves having had a bad start?
Lord McNally
I am well aware that the YJB is a much loved organisation and that a number of organisations have come to its aid. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has voiced a number of concerns about this. We will return to this when the Public Bodies Bill returns to the House. I do not see that creating a new youth justice division within the MoJ, maintaining continuity and expertise, retaining the expertise of the staff who have worked on the Youth Justice Board, strengthening its focus on youth justice by establishing an advisory board on youth justice, and agreeing that Dame Sue Street, a non-executive director of the MoJ who has experience and knowledge of the youth justice system, should take a direct interest in youth justice matters, is in any way a retreat from the kind of commitments that the noble Lord wishes for.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Minister has time after time from that Dispatch Box praised the work that the Youth Justice Board does. Everyone agrees that it has kept down the number of young people in custody and that it played a vital role in the aftermath of this summer’s riots. Why on earth are Her Majesty’s Government still determined to abolish it? Is it sensible or wise to abolish an organisation that everyone, including Ministers, thinks is doing a first-class job? How ridiculous is that? Would it not be sensible and rather more mature for the Government to drop these plans now?
Lord McNally
My Lords, we believe that the job can be done better. We have acknowledged—and I have certainly acknowledged from this Dispatch Box—that the YJB has overseen a considerable amount of success in treating young offenders. As I have just read out, the governance for youth justice within the Ministry of Justice will be better because it will have a more direct responsibility to Ministers. The buck will stop with the Minister responsible for justice, not with an arm’s-length body. We believe that that is an improvement.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the new youth justice division will work collaboratively and regularly with the Department of Health and the Department for Education?
Lord McNally
I can give that assurance absolutely. One of our key approaches across the criminal justice system is to make sure that we have an holistic approach to offending, which particularly applies in the youth justice system.
Schools: Sex and Relationships Education
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the teaching of sex and relationships education in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, we are reviewing personal, social, health and economic education, including sex and relationships education. The review is considering how to improve the quality of teaching, the core outcomes that we expect PSHE to achieve and the core of knowledge and awareness that the Government should expect pupils to acquire at school. It is looking at existing research and also welcomes submissions of evidence and good practice before 30 November.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am very pleased that we now have a date for the ending of the review, but it does seem to be taking rather a long time. Why, when all the evidence was already available, has it taken so long? He will appreciate that the majority of parents, teachers and school governors believe that PSHE and SRE should be taught in schools, and that advice should be given for use in the home as well. Can he elaborate on what support parents are receiving to give them the confidence to discuss the issue along with the school? Further, when the review is over, when will the teaching start?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I know that there has been a lot of eager anticipation about the review starting and that a number of noble Lords wish that we could have started sooner. We were keen to try to set up the review properly and I am glad that it is now going. We recently had a very useful meeting with a number of noble Lords in which they gave us a lot of helpful advice. I welcome contributions from all noble Lords in this House who have a range of different perspectives and who would like to contribute to the review. One important issue that the review is looking at is how to improve the quality of teaching. When Ofsted looked at PSHE, it found that it was good or outstanding in three-quarters of schools but that there were problems in some. That is important. Clearly, the role that parents play is vital as well. The guidance from the Secretary of State—it was issued by the previous Government and we have retained it—talks about that, and it is something that we will need to look at as the review progresses.
Baroness Sharples
Can my noble friend explain why children here go to school at the age of five when in virtually every other country they go to school at the age of six or seven?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am not sure that I can provide an easy answer to that, other than to say that practices vary from country to country in all sorts of different ways.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many parents are concerned about the teaching of sex and relationships education to very young children and that sometimes the children are too young to understand these subjects? Do the Government have any plans to force sex education on to the national curriculum, and does the Minister think that it is teachers who should decide whether such things are taught in their schools?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, of course I am aware of the sensitivities around this issue, and I agree with the noble Lord about the important role that parents play. Perhaps I may read from the guidance which the previous Government issued in 2000 and which is still in place. It is very clear on this matter:
“Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned. Governors and head teachers should discuss with parents and take on board concerns raised, both on materials which are offered to schools and on sensitive material to be used in the classroom”.
That seems very clear and it is absolutely right. We are not proposing any change to the current legislation on sex education or to make the whole of PSHE statutory.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, the Minister will know that teaching children how to avoid sexually transmitted disease and HIV/AIDS is a compulsory part of the curriculum. Can he explain to me, as a doctor, how you can teach children that without teaching them about sex and relationships?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend that children understanding STIs and HIV/AIDS is extremely important, and I am glad that the most recent figures show that there has been some improvement in that respect. I also take the point, which is often raised in this House, that, when we talk about sex education, the SRE or relationships bit, which I think is an important part of the process, often gets missed out.
Lord Elton
In his last reply but one, the Minister referred to the age of children. Can he tell us whether the regulations refer to calendar or biological age, which are often very different, and whether they take account of the views of the parents of the children being taught?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I tried to make it clear that they should indeed pay attention to the interests and views of the parents concerned. On the specific point about calendar age, I shall need to write to my noble friend.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the consistent evidence that the teaching of sex and relationships education reduces, rather than increases, sexual activity? Does he agree, as I think he indicated, that teaching young people about relationships, and in particular young girls about the nature of informed consent in sexual relationships, is vital? Does he also agree that that is best achieved by teaching sex and relationships as part of compulsory modules in statutory PSHE education?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think I was with the noble Baroness right until the very last bit of her question. I accept the thrust of her points but, as she will know because we have discussed it before, the overall aim in the Government’s plans is to slim down the curriculum, which we think has become overcrowded. Therefore, as she knows, we do not plan to make SRE a statutory part of it. The purpose of our review is to try to share best practice, to look at how we can raise the quality of teaching and to identify the core elements of PSHE which we think children should study.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
Can the information on the annunciator screen be changed? I am not Lord Gould of Brookwood.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Coinage (Measurement) Bill
Education Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Clause 18 abolishes the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, which was set up to design a national framework of pay and conditions for support staff in maintained schools in England. Its remit was to do so by combining,
“national consistency and local flexibility”,
to avoid a rigid pay structure that was not applicable to the needs of all schools.
As I reported in Grand Committee, the SSSNB has played a crucial role in preparing core documents setting out the range of non-teaching roles carried out in schools. This is an important personnel resource for employers. As we know, school support staff cover a wide range of functions and include teaching assistants, welfare support staff, specialist or technical staff and, for example, business management staff.
As colleagues from the Benches opposite acknowledged in Grand Committee, in abolishing the SSSNB now the Government are scrapping it before it has had time to deliver the job profiles that it was set up to produce and that would, in due course, reduce the bureaucratic load on schools as well as set the scene for fair employment practices and protect employers from equal value claims.
The abolition of the SSSNB is counter to the widespread support that it had from teachers, heads, governors and parents. Most employers welcomed the work being done. Many regarded it as long overdue, particularly as the job descriptions would have been recommendations and not prescriptions, and would therefore not have hindered schools or given rise to an unduly heavy administrative burden. Indeed, only last week, I received an e-mail from the Association of School and College Leaders urging me to put down an amendment to allow the SSSNB to stay.
In Grand Committee the Minister argued that to implement the scheme would have been too time-consuming for school leaders, who would have to re-evaluate their staff. On the contrary, having profiles that self-governing schools could use as benchmarks could cut the time and costs that they would otherwise have to spend creating their own job descriptions. They would be a tool for schools to use rather than a mandatory, new employment structure.
School support staff are an increasingly central feature of the education team in schools. They impact directly and indirectly on the success and achievement of schools. However, the abolition of the SSSNB is a clear signal from the Government that they do not value the contribution or status of support staff. It also sends a signal to the largely female staff carrying out these roles that they are somehow expendable and that it is okay for the gap in pay between teaching and non-teaching staff working side by side to widen while the differing levels of responsibilities narrow.
As we mentioned in Grand Committee, Ofsted argued for such an initiative. It recommended that the Government should,
“provide guidance on appropriate levels of pay and conditions for the increasingly diverse roles that have been introduced as a result of workforce reform”.
The work of the SSSNB is half complete. If we are concerned about value for money, what is the point of abandoning the project half way through? We are close to having a resource that employers would find useful and that would at last go some way to recognising the crucial role that support staff increasingly play in educational achievement. I hope that noble Lords will see the sense in the SSSNB completing the work in hand and will support the amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Jones. This will not be a surprise to the Minister, because when I was in his office it was my job to put together this negotiating body. I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships why we felt that that was important and why we legislated to do so. We were pleased to enjoy the support of all parties at the time, which was just a couple of years ago.
First, as we have heard, support staff perform increasingly important roles in our schools. They perform their roles in the school community as caretakers, catering assistants or dinner ladies—whatever one wants to call them—in a variety of roles outside the classroom, and also, increasingly, inside the classroom as teaching assistants and higher-level teaching assistants. That latter group of support staff do some of the hardest work educationally to support those with special educational needs. They free the qualified teachers to focus on the majority. There is a fair argument to say that, at times, the deployment is the wrong way around, and perhaps the professional expertise should be used on the hardest to teach, leaving those less qualified to focus on others.
As a demonstration, I will give an example of a member of staff in a school in south Wales. Her name is Bev Evans. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the declaration of interests about my work with TSL Education. Bev was a learning support assistant in a school in Pembrokeshire. As a parent of someone with cystic fibrosis, she was asked to come onto the school support staff as a learning assistant. I can inform Members of your Lordships' House who are not aware of the status of a learning support assistant that they are normally paid around £10,000 to £14,000 per year. These are very low-paid roles in schools. As a former community artist and a parent of someone with this condition, Bev looked after one child in a brilliant way, producing materials on a daily basis so that the child could be educated in a mainstream setting alongside children of her own age who did not have the condition from which she suffered. Bev was asked to publish her materials so that the whole school could use them; then so that other schools in the authority could use them; then so that schools across South Wales could use them. She then started uploading them onto TSL’s TES resources site. Now 1.2 million children have benefited from downloading resources from the learning support assistant. It is a demonstration of how much qualified teachers can value individuals doing that sort of work, motivated entirely by wanting to help children. These people deserve better recognition than will be given if this negotiating body is closed down before it has had a chance to get going.
The second reason why it was important to set it up was to protect schools and employers from equal pay claims. I am no employment lawyer and I certainly do not want to start getting into the ins and outs of equal pay claims, but schools were vulnerable if they were not acting fairly and using the job profiles that had been developed by the negotiating body. They were avoiding that risk around equal pay claims which was an important part of persuading employers to come to the negotiating body.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I hope that no one in this House would for a moment argue that the value of teaching assistants is in any way diminished by what is happening. Because we value so highly teaching assistants and the work that they do does not seem to lead directly to the need for a national negotiating body for their pay. In fact, I would have thought that because of the wide variety of work that teaching assistants perform, there is a very strong argument for their being allowed to have different terms and conditions of service and different rates of pay according to the job that their employer wants them to do. As the number of academies and free schools is increasing, employers of such people will not be subject to national negotiations. Their employers will be the immediate school in which they are working. Most teachers value the opportunity to have flexible conditions for their teaching assistants so that they can use them for a whole range of things. As the noble Lord has just said, in some cases they are highly professional and the work that they do has national recognition. Others perform much more lowly roles. That is the choice of the school, the teachers the assistants work for and the employers who employ them. I would hope very much that we would recognise the value of teaching assistants more by allowing flexibility than by any rigid national code.
Baroness Walmsley
I agree with what has been said about the importance and value of support staff. There are several such people in my own family and I know what a good and important job they do. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree with that when he responds. I am a little surprised that the Government are ignoring the recommendation of the ASCL. That is rather unusual. I hope that my noble friend will explain how the proposed system will be better.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, as we said in Grand Committee, a debate about the value of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body should not be confused with a debate on the value of support staff themselves. We all agree that support staff have a vital part to play in the life of their schools. There is no disagreement on that score with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, or the noble Lord, Lord Knight. However, we do disagree, as my noble friend Lady Perry set out, over whether we should set up a new piece of control machinery to determine the pay and conditions of school support staff or whether we should stick with local decision-making by employers, local authorities and schools which best know local conditions.
Organisations representing employers of support staff, such as the Local Government Group, take the latter view. The group draws its members from across the political spectrum and is a firm supporter of the Government’s decision to abolish the SSSNB. If we retain the SSSNB and act on any agreements it reaches, schools would be required to review the pay and conditions of more than half a million support staff, requiring a massive investment of time by schools. The impact assessment that accompanied the ASCL Bill suggested that this might take more than 200,000 hours of head teacher or senior leadership time alone—time that we think could be better spent on pupils and their learning.
We should also remember that for the majority of support staff working in community and voluntary controlled schools, there is already a national pay and conditions framework in place, the Green Book. This long-standing voluntary agreement negotiated by the Local Government Employers, UNISON, GMB and Unite is already used for those staff in all but three local authorities. Of course, in all schools, existing employment law ensures that individuals are treated equally with regard to their terms and conditions when assessed against their colleagues.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Walmsley asked whether the SSSNB could be allowed time to complete part of its work, believing that the results of its work would be useful if made available for schools to choose to use. In response to that and to her other point, the SSSNB process is not that flexible. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 sets out the process that must be followed once the SSSNB has reached an agreement. That process can involve many twists and turns, allowing the Secretary of State to request the SSSNB to reconsider agreements that it has submitted to him. However, ultimately it requires the Secretary of State to make an order that is binding on schools and local authorities in respect of how they determine the pay and conditions of their support staff. It is that rigid legislation that this clause seeks to abolish.
However, we agree with my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Perry that some of the materials the SSSNB has begun to develop could be a useful optional reference tool. We also know that the trade union members of the SSSNB are keen to continue to work with support staff employer organisations independently of government to complete a set of job role profiles for support staff. That is why we have already agreed to arrange for the intellectual property rights—in other words, the copyright—of all materials that are owned by the Department for Education to be reassigned to Local Government Employers. This means the materials can then be used freely by the unions and employers that made up the membership of the SSSNB.
When the Secretary of State met the three unions that represent school support staff—UNISON, Unite and GMB—on 12 October, he was able to confirm that unions, together with the other SSSNB member organisations that represent employers, already own the materials developed during the final months of the SSSNB activity. This means that they are free to work with employer organisations to finalise the job role profiles. This is the piece of work that unions and employers agree will be of most use to schools. Abolishing the SSSNB will spare schools from the burden of a wholesale review of support staff pay and allow them to keep the level of freedom they currently have in relation to support staff pay. It is right that we do all that we can to ensure that the good work that SSSNB member organisations have done so far is not wasted. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have reiterated the crucial role that support staff play in the classroom and the added value that they bring to the classroom. My noble friend Lord Knight made the particular point that they can often free up teachers to carry out other roles. Of course, they can also in themselves grow into and eventually qualify as teachers, so they do have a significant role in the classroom. My noble friend Lord Knight also pointed out the crucial work that the SSSNB was doing in protecting schools from equal pay claims. As he said, rightly, it is the luck of the draw as to how well people are paid from one school to another, from one local authority to another, and that cannot be right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others talked about the need for flexibility. I do not think that I was denying that need. This was never going to be something that was handed down from on high as a prescription. It was always meant to be a resource that schools could access. The Minister has said that there would have been a lot of time taken working through and implementing it. My answer to that is that that time is going to be taken anyway, and may even be duplicated over and over again if schools do not have this core resource.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, quite rightly picked up the point that the Minister seemed to quote whichever of the employers are in favour at the moment. I quoted the ASCL. The Government found another employer which is said to have a different view to quote back at us. I found that interesting. Without getting into a competition as to who is on top among the employers, there is nevertheless a need to complete this work. The Minister seems to me to be saying, “Okay, the copyright has been handed over to another group of people. If they want to, they can carry on that work”. My question is, why stop and start again? We are already half way on a journey, in a particular way of doing it. It seems unnecessary to stop and start again with a different group of people.
Nevertheless, I realise that I am not going to persuade a number of Members on this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Council
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps this might be an appropriate moment to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by the Prime Minister on the European Council. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Libya, and yesterday’s European Council.
Yesterday in Libya, after 42 years of tyranny and seven months of fighting, the National Transitional Council declared the formal liberation of its country. Everyone will have been moved by the pictures of joy and relief that we saw on our television screens last night. From Tripoli to Benghazi, from Misurata to Zawiyah, Libyans now dare to look forward, safe in the knowledge that the Gaddafi era is truly behind them.
This was Libya’s revolution. But Britain can be proud of the role we played. Our aim throughout has been to fulfil the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, to protect civilians and to give the Libyan people the chance to determine their own political future. With the death of Gaddafi, they now have that chance.
The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our Armed Forces for the role they have played—over 3,000 missions, some 2,000 strike sorties, with one-fifth of the total strike sorties missions flown by NATO. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has written this morning, it has been,
‘one of the most successful operations NATO has conducted in its 62-year history’,
and I believe it is something the whole country can take pride in. The decision to intervene militarily, to place our brave servicemen and women in the line of fire, is never an easy one. We were determined from the outset to conduct this campaign in the right way, and to learn the lessons of recent interventions. So we made sure this House was provided immediately with a summary of the legal advice authorising the action. We held a debate and a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We made sure that decisions were taken properly throughout the campaign, with the right people present, and in an orderly way.
The National Security Council on Libya met 68 times, formulated our policy, and drove forward the military and diplomatic campaign. We took great care to ensure that targeting decisions minimised the number of civilian casualties, and I want to pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Member for North Somerset for his work on this. It is a mark of the skill of the RAF, the British Army and other coalition pilots that the number of civilian casualties of the air attacks has been so low.
The military mission is now coming to an end, and in the next few days, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector will formally be concluded. It will now be for Libyans to chart their own destiny, and this country will stand ready to support them as they do so.
Many learned commentators have written about the lessons that can be learnt from the last seven months. For our part, the Government are conducting a rapid exercise while memories are still fresh, and we will publish its key findings. For my part, I am wary of drawing some grand, overarching lesson, and still less to claim that Libya offers some new template that we can apply the world over. I believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits and of thinking through carefully any decision to intervene in advance. But I hope it has also showed that this country has learnt not only the lessons of Iraq, but the lessons too of Bosnia. When it is necessary, legal and right to act, we should be ready to do so.
Let me turn to yesterday’s European Council. This European Council was about three things: sorting out the problems of the eurozone. promoting growth in the EU, and ensuring that as the eurozone develops new arrangements for governance, the interests of those outside the eurozone are protected. This latter point touches directly on the debate in the House of Commons later today, and I will say a word on this later in my Statement.
Resolving the problems in the eurozone is the urgent and overriding priority facing not only the eurozone members, but the EU as a whole, and indeed the rest of the world economy. Britain is playing a positive role proposing the three vital steps needed to deal with this crisis: the establishment of a financial firewall big enough to contain any contagion, the credible recapitalisation of European banks, and a decisive solution to the problems in Greece. We pushed this in the letter we co-ordinated to the G20 and in the video conference between me, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama last week. We did so again at the European Council this weekend and will continue to do so on Wednesday at an extra European Council meeting.
But ultimately the way to make the whole of the EU, including the eurozone, work better is to promote open markets, flexible economies and enterprise. This is an agenda which Britain has promoted under successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers, but it is now an agenda which the European Commission is promoting too. We have many differences with the European Commission, but the presentation made by the Commission at yesterday’s Council about economic growth was exactly what we have been pushing for. It drove home the importance of creating a single market in services, opening up our energy markets and scrapping the rules and bureaucracy that make it take so long to start a new business. Both coalition parties are pushing hard for these objectives. This may sound dry, but if we want to get Europe’s economies moving, to succeed in a competitive world, then these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. These are arguments which Margaret Thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place, and which every Prime Minister since has tried to push. I am no exception. If the countries of the EU were as productive as the US, if we had the same proportion of women participating in the economy and were as fast and flexible at setting up new businesses, then we would have the same per capita GDP as the US.
The remainder of the Council was spent on the safeguards needed to protect the interests of all 27 Members of the EU. The Council agreed that all matters relating to the single market must remain decisions for all 27 member states and that the European Commission must,
“safeguard a level playing field among all member states including those not participating in the euro”.
This leads me directly to the debate we are having in this House later today. Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things: stopping the passage of further powers to the EU, instituting a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for any such transfer of powers from this House, and bringing back powers from Brussels to Westminster. All three remain Conservative Party policy. All three are in the national interest. In 17 months in government, we have already achieved two of the three: we have yielded no more powers to Brussels—indeed, the bailout power has actually been returned—and, of course, the referendum lock is in place. I remain firmly committed to achieving the third, which is bringing back more powers from Brussels.
The question tonight is whether to add to that by passing legislation in the next Session of this Parliament to provide for a referendum, which would include a question on whether Britain should leave the EU altogether. This was not our policy at the election and it is not our policy now. Let me say why I continue to believe that this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong and how Britain can now best advance our national interests in Europe.
First, it is not right because our national interest is to be in the EU, helping to determine the rules governing the single market, our biggest export market, which consumes more than 50 per cent of our exports and which drives much of the investment into the UK. This is not an abstract, theoretical argument; it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families in our country. That is why successive Prime Ministers have advocated our membership of the EU.
Secondly, it is not the right time, at this moment of economic crisis, to launch legislation that includes an in/out referendum. When your neighbour's house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help him put out the flames, not least to stop the flames reaching your own house. This is not the time to argue about walking away, not just for their sakes but for ours. Legislating now for a referendum, including on whether Britain should leave the EU, could cause great uncertainty and would actually damage our prospects of growth.
Thirdly and crucially, there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum, including an in/out option, we miss the real opportunity to further our national interest. Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the eurozone, and therefore the shape of the EU itself. Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming more apparent. We should focus on how to make the most of this, not pursue a parliamentary process for a multiple-choice referendum.
Those are the reasons why I will not be supporting the Motion tonight. As yesterday's Council conclusions made clear, changes to the EU treaties need the agreement of all 27 member states. Every country can wield a veto until its needs are met. So I share the yearning for fundamental reform and I am determined to deliver it.
To those who are supporting today’s Motion but do not actually want to leave the EU, I say to you this: I respect your views. We disagree not about ends but about means. I support your aims. Like you, I want to see fundamental reform. Like you, I want to refashion our membership of the EU so that it better serves this nation's interest.
The time for reform is coming. That is the prize. Let us not be distracted from seizing it. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement by the Prime Minister.
On Libya, I join him in expressing deep and abiding gratitude to members of the British Armed Forces. Over the last seven months in Libya, once again our service men and women have been a credit to our nation. We take pride in their role and in the role of NATO. We on these Benches have maintained that, after UN Security Council Resolution 1973, there was not just a right but a responsibility to act—a responsibility to the Libyan people and a responsibility to uphold the will of the United Nations. That is why we have supported the Government in their actions.
If I may, through the Leader of the House, I commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played in taking the right and principled decisions on this issue. It is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but they must do it in the knowledge that the international community, including the European Union, stands ready to provide support. Do the Government agree that alongside the responsibility to protect is the responsibility to help rebuild and, in particular, to provide the expertise that the new Libya will require? We all have great hopes for the future of Libya, and its people rightly have high expectations and aspirations. Does the noble Lord agree, however, that embedding institutional and structural change in Libya will take time? We must not be too impatient.
I now turn to Europe. We in this House all know that the other place is today debating the question of a referendum on remaining in the European Union and on other related matters. It is not our job in this House to replicate either the arguments within the Conservative Party over Europe, which have sharply re-emerged, or the political arguments of the other place. However, we on these Benches are clear, and we have been consistently clear, that getting out of the European Union is not in our national interest. Does the noble Lord the Leader agree that cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes no sense for Britain? The overwhelming majority of British business, whatever their feelings may be about this or that aspect of the EU, knows that too. What is more, at this moment of all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from Britain turning inwards over the next two years to debate an in/out referendum is something that, frankly, our country cannot afford.
The context for the debate about Europe is the huge dangers facing the UK and eurozone economies. Growth has stalled in Britain since the autumn and is now stalling in Europe. Unemployment is rising—a particular concern is youth unemployment—and we now face the threat of a new banking crisis. That is why acting together is so important. We need to stop standing on the sidelines. I welcome the commitment in the Statement that all decisions relating to the single market should be taken by the 27 member states; that is right. It is important, though, that Britain should at least be present in all discussions pertaining to the European Union. My fear is that, with a strong inner core, Britain is going to be sidelined in discussions generally, not just those relating to economic policy.
We should have been arguing for weeks, probably for months, that the problems of Greece were not being met by the austerity solution. We should have been pointing out the need for the recapitalisation of the banks. We should have been arguing for a plan for growth in Europe. So I have some questions for the Leader of the House.
On banking, do the Government believe that the amount of recapitalisation being discussed is sufficient to ensure financial stability across the European banking systems? In particular, can the Government explain why the estimates of recapitalisation at €100 billion by the European authorities are half the €200 billion that the IMF suggested was needed?
On Greece, do the Government believe that the lessons of previously announced Greek bailouts are being learnt and that this bailout will provide a genuinely sustainable solution?
On growth, do the Government understand that Europe will not get to grips with its debt problems until it gets to grips with its crisis of growth? What actions will the Government be taking to work with colleagues across the European Union to ensure growth across our continent?
Jobs and growth must be our priorities in the EU. We do not believe that it is in Britain’s interests to see the Conservative Party—not, significantly, the coalition as a whole—trying to resurrect its old issues of trying to get out of the Social Chapter, to withdraw employment rights and to renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU. This matters because in December the Prime Minister is likely to be negotiating with our European allies on the nature of treaty change and what Britain wants out of this. We say that it is not in the interests of Britain for us to spend our political capital trying to water down employment rights by getting rid of four weeks’ paid holiday and maternity leave provision. That will not help jobs and growth in Britain.
Instead, the completion of the single market—CAP reform, budget reform, reform of state aids policy—should be our priority. The Government’s job is to act in the national interest and in the interests of Europe and the world economy. With globalisation, isolation cannot be the answer. Our national interests have to be considered in the wider economic context. As the debate in the other place is showing today, the Government are entangling these interests with the interests of the Conservative Party.
The issues facing Europe are serious—too serious to see Britain’s national interests being caught up in party interests. We on these Benches urge the Government to put their party interests aside and act in the national interest, because by working with and within the EU we will then be able to deal with our crisis of jobs and growth. We urge the Leader of the House now to make a clear statement that it will indeed be jobs and growth that will be the real priority for our Government in the European Union.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for the tribute she paid to the people of Libya who have fought so bravely over the course of the last seven months, and some for far longer, against the tyranny and dictatorship represented by Colonel Gaddafi. I also thank the noble Baroness for what she said about our Armed Forces and for commending the Prime Minister. I very much agree with what she said. I also agree that embedding change will take time and that the process will be long and difficult. We, the European Union and many others will be involved in that. Libya is an important country and we have been much involved with it. It is right that we should continue to help and support the National Transitional Council and the new regime, whenever that comes, for as long as they want us.
On the European Union, the noble Baroness began by saying there was no need for this House to replicate the debate happening today in the House of Commons. I agree with that, although I am sure that there will be an opportunity in the next 20 minutes or so of Back-Bench time to deal with some of these issues. The noble Baroness reminded us that the Labour Party is opposed to leaving the EU. She did not tell us about its line on joining the euro, but I am sure that that was an omission. The noble Baroness shakes her head, so I presume that means the Labour Party would not join at the moment. That is a good thing indeed.
The noble Baroness said that we needed to act together. I agree with that. It is the same reason why we are opposed to an in/out referendum. We need to act together. Major decisions are being taken about the single market—both this weekend and again on Wednesday—which is something that successive British Governments and British Prime Ministers have been championing since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The single market is an immensely important mechanism for us. The fact that the single market is not yet complete is something that should concern us; the fact that the European Commission now wishes to complete it is something that we should welcome enormously. I also agree that these decisions should be taken by the 27 member countries and not by a small group. The noble Baroness fears that we may be sidelined during the course of this process if there is a core eurozone caucus, for want of a better word. We would very much like to avoid that, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about.
The noble Baroness asked some specific questions, particularly about the amount of recapitalisation that has taken place in the banks and whether it is enough to ensure future stability. That was exactly what the ECOFIN meeting was about on Saturday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spent 10 hours in the meeting to ensure that the system in place was proper and correct. As far as whether lessons have been learnt from previous bailouts, decisive action has been taken and it was right to do so.
Where I agree most with the noble Baroness is on growth. This has slowed in Europe and there are a number of structural reasons for that, such as bureaucratic centralisation. We will not get to grips with many of the financial problems without addressing the growth issues. That is why we support what the European Commission is doing on growth, particularly on completing the single market. What is also required is real political leadership. I am pleased that in this country at least, in the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, we have a united leadership developing the way forward.
I will not join the noble Baroness in her praise of the Social Chapter. I take the view that all those things that the noble Baroness thinks are important are important, too, but they could just as well be decided in a British Parliament by British Members of Parliament and, indeed, British Peers.
The noble Baroness finished by saying that these are serious questions, which is right. The issue of Europe is always taken immensely seriously, not least in this House. I like to think that we always put the national interest first; that is one of the reasons why I am a member of this Government. These are extremely difficult and complicated times, and it is vital that we put the national interest first to get the solutions that we need.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the House’s question about the euro, I remind the House that it was my Government who decided not to go into the euro and that they did so in the national interest.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept my warm welcome for the extremely determined way in which the Prime Minister led this action with President Sarkozy? However, could he perhaps clear up one area that slightly baffles me—that is, the statement about not acting on the basis of any overarching principle? My understanding—perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this—is that we were in Libya, doing what we were, because we subscribed to the responsibility to protect people whose citizens cannot or will not be protected by their own Governments. That was something that we, with 191 other UN members, subscribed to in 2005. If that is correct but it is not an overarching principle, I am not sure that I would recognise one when I saw it.
Secondly, on Europe, it now sounds very likely—although the decision has not yet been formally taken—that there will be negotiations in an intergovernmental conference, and that this will probably be decided at the European Council in December. Is it not crucial that this country goes into such a conference with a positive agenda to secure all those points that the Prime Minister rightly made in his Statement about the primacy of the single market, the need to ensure that decisions are taken by the 27 member states and the need to protect our own position? A positive agenda will be needed to secure that, if action is also being taken to set up, for example, a restricted group of members in the eurozone to take certain decisions on economic and financial policy. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now drawing up some positive points to make at that intergovernmental conference, and not focusing on a long list of the sort of points that, in 1974 and 1975, led to a pretty humiliating negotiation and not a single word being changed in any European treaty?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his warm welcome to the Prime Minister’s discussions with the President of France on Libya. One can look at what happened in Libya in a variety of ways, including seeing it as following a great principle of defending the interests of civilians, which I regard as a noble principle. However, in his Statement this afternoon my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, “I am wary of drawing some grand, overarching lesson—still less to claim that Libya offers some new template that we can apply the world over. I believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits; of thinking through carefully any decision to intervene in advance”. That is right. There were other important principles at work in Libya: the passing of the United Nations Security Council resolutions; the support of the Arab League and the neighbours of Libya; and the immediacy with which civilians were likely to be murdered on the streets of Benghazi. All played a part, so the Prime Minister is right not to see it as a template. The noble Lord is also right in saying that it is important that where civilian life is endangered, we should move swiftly to ensure that that is not the case.
I also agree with the noble Lord about the Government having a positive agenda on Europe. They do have a positive agenda, particularly as regards what he called the primacy of the single market, to complete all the provisions of the single market, of which there are directives outstanding that have a direct effect on and implication for British financial services, commerce and industry, particularly some of the financial directives, and to maintain these and many other things to be decided by the 27 member states. We are in a process of discussion and negotiation against a background of volatility—indeed, some financial turmoil—in the markets. It is important to get these decisions right.
Lord Newby
My Lords, on Libya, does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that the important thing now is to secure the peace? Will he give an assurance to the House that the Government will give whatever support the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other bodies in the UK request in order to help the new Administration in Libya to draw up a new constitution and move towards elections? On the EU summit, does he agree with me that the most worrying event of the weekend was the spat between the Prime Minister and the French President, which demonstrated the danger to the UK of being seen as irrelevant to the major decisions being taken in the EU? Will he therefore give the House an assurance that the Government are giving systematic consideration to ensuring that any moves towards greater common activities in the eurozone which have an implication for the UK will take place with the UK at the very least sitting at the table during those discussions and when those decisions are being made?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question, of course we are delighted that we are seeing a semblance of peace in Libya, and long may that continue; and of course we will do everything we can to support the growth of that stability and, indeed, in the longer term, of democracy. I have answered questions before on the Westminster Foundation, whose aims and objectives we fully support. We wish to see that body continue to function and to work not just in Libya but in many other countries as well. As far as the EU and the French President are concerned, I am not sure whether “spat” is the right word, but we think that we are in a position to explain to some of our European colleagues our viewpoint on what is happening in the eurozone and to underline the seriousness of it. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that it is not in our interests for the euro to founder; it is very much in our interests for it to succeed. I do not think that we are being sidelined. We are doing everything we can to explain and to get our colleagues to understand that we are playing a full part and—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—a positive part in the development of the EU.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have just returned from the World Economic Forum in Jordan, where most of the Governments of the Arab League were represented. It is worth noting that they were all relieved and pleased that the Gaddafi era is over, as I am sure we all are. However, many of my interlocutors expressed concern—some publicly, some privately—about the way in which Gaddafi met his end. Their feeling was that if the changes in the Middle East are to become embedded, they have to be rooted in the rule of law. The rule of law would have meant that Gaddafi went on trial in an open trial which everybody could see, and was then subject to the sentence of a properly constituted court. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House assure us that this is also the Government’s position and that extrajudicial killing—in the heat of the moment people in many parts of the world may at times have sympathy with it—is wrong in principle and that standing up for the rule of law is important, whoever is the victim?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always good to hear from the noble Baroness first hand about her activities in Jordan and her discussing this with other Arab countries. I agree with the point that underlines her remarks. The UK was a strong supporter of the ICC and led the drive to refer the situation in Libya to the ICC in UNSCR 1970. We have always maintained that the ideal solution involved Gaddafi being arrested and standing trial in The Hague and getting to the truth of the many events that occurred over the course of the past 40 years. Ultimately, the fate of Gaddafi was in the hands of the Libyans. The process should have been rooted in the rule of law and we will certainly make sure that the NTC understands that. It is now for it to decide how it plans to investigate the events that led to Gaddafi’s death.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, will my noble friend assure me that he is aware of the proposal that the 17 members of the eurozone should meet outside the Council of Ministers and decide among themselves by a majority upon economic policies that would affect this country, which they would then support as a bloc in the Council? Would such an arrangement constitute a substantial transfer of powers from this country such as to trigger a referendum?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not think that, as my noble friend explained his scenario, it would, because it would not necessitate a treaty change. My noble friend raises a question that we would not necessarily like to face, and at this stage we are not sure that it is something that we necessarily need to beware of. On Wednesday there is another European Council—an emergency Council—which will draw conclusions, and we will be in a far better position to see the outcome of these talks at that stage.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I speak as someone who is a little wary of parliamentary procedures that lead directly from a petition to an automatic debate in Parliament, and would not have supported those procedures had I been in the Commons when they were decided. None the less, does the noble Lord agree that if a petition asks one House of Parliament to debate something and to express Parliament’s view, it rather destroys the point for all three party leaders to insist that Parliament should respond in a particular way? I would not have thought that that is the best way of discovering Parliament’s view. Secondly, in respect of a part of the Statement that I fully support and endorse, where the noble Lord reminds us that Parliament held a debate on the proposed conflict in Libya at the earliest opportunity, what does he think would happen if this were an elected House? Would this House—in the event of a proposition for armed conflict—also be required to express a view?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says that he is suspicious—he did not quite use the words “new-fangled parliamentary processes”, but he might have done—of the role of e-petitions and of the Back-Bench committee of the other place that decided on what should be debated. I do not think that there is any real tension between that and the three party leaders taking a view. It may be that the Back-Bench committee thought that something was important to debate and the three party leaders took a different view. It is certainly a less tidy process, but it may be that people feel that by joining in these petitions they have debates brought to the Floor of the House. Those who signed up to this e-petition will no doubt be very pleased with its results—at least I hope they will be.
It is very tempting to get into long debates with the noble Lord about the role of a directly elected second House. I have no view as to whether a directly elected senate would wish to vote on whether we went to war. What the noble Lord did not ask, but what he meant, was about what would happen if those two bodies disagreed in some fundamental way. Many of these questions would be ironed out once an elected senate were in place and in a position to negotiate these matters with the House of Commons.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Can the Leader of the House say whether Colonel Gaddafi’s second son and nominated heir is still alive and, if so, whether every effort will be made to capture him alive and to make him stand trial? Such a trial might cast a flood of light upon both the Lockerbie bombing and the murder of WPC Fletcher.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not know whether he is still alive but, on the basis that he is, our role would be to stick to UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and to protect civilians in Libya. We would certainly expect the Libyan regime—the NTC—to work within the rule of law; and if he were arrested he should be brought to trial so that we could find the answers to these questions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Perhaps we might hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and then move to UKIP.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, will the Leader of the House possibly correct the attempts of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to rewrite history? Will he perhaps remind her that the decisions on which countries joined the euro, and at which parities, were made well before the 1997 election? At that time, the decision by the Conservative Government not to join the euro was severely criticised by both John Smith and Gordon Brown.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always good to hear my noble friend, and he has of course put the record entirely right.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the talk in the Statement about scrapping EU rules and bureaucracy, bringing back powers to Westminster and reforming the EU generally is all just a dishonest red herring, because he will be aware of the requirement for unanimity among all 27 member states before a single comma can be retrieved from the treaties? Secondly, why does he yet again come up with the often-repeated propaganda that somehow millions of British jobs depend on our membership of the European Union? Can he tell us why a single job would be lost if we left the political construct of the EU? After all, EU countries sell us much more than we sell them, and Switzerland and 62 other countries have free-trade agreements with the European Union. If we are to continue these debates, can we please drop this obvious propaganda?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I usually admire the noble Lord’s questions but I cannot follow him on this occasion. On repatriating powers, we believe that an opportunity for the British Government to negotiate may well arise in a positive way. I say in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that repatriating powers to the United Kingdom may well strengthen the whole EU. There is a clear role for the nation state. However, at the moment, we are at a very early stage and we do not know whether there will be a treaty change and, if there is, how big it will be, exactly what it will refer to and so on. I do not think that anyone should get overexcited about this, but any future treaty change will—partly because of the rule of unanimity—give us the opportunity to advance our national interests, which is of course what the Prime Minister and the Government will always wish to do.
Secondly, I cannot join the noble Lord in his attack on what he called propaganda about the single market. The single market is an immensely important part of British interests and the British economy. I will not list all the figures now. One reason to be on the inside is that all the countries that he mentioned did not have a say in writing the rules of the single market. One of the greatest advantages of being a member of the EU is that we are part of the process under which these rules are made.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The Prime Minister stated only a couple weeks ago, much to the annoyance of President Sarkozy, about the crisis that they—presumably, the eurozone—ought to sort it out. In a sense, I am responding to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House think that that is what the Prime Minister meant?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I must say that I am not entirely certain that I followed the noble Lord’s views. The eurozone is in an immensely difficult situation. There is a huge problem which will impact not just on eurozone countries but on our economy and perhaps even wider than that. It is up to them, I suppose, to sort it out, but we can all play a part in sorting it out because it is so important to all of us.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are out of time and we should move to Report.
Education Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:35 - Division on Amendment 57C - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 233 - Amendment 57C disagreed.
17:51 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 225 - Amendment 58 disagreed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Enforcement powers
(1) Part 7 of ASCLA 2009 (the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In section 151 (power to give directions), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to Ofqual that a recognised body has failed or is likely to fail to comply with a condition to which the recognition is subject.”
(3) After section 151 insert—
“151A Power to impose monetary penalties
(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to Ofqual that a recognised body has failed to comply with a condition to which the recognition is subject.
(2) Ofqual may impose a monetary penalty on the recognised body.
(3) A “monetary penalty” is a requirement to pay to Ofqual a penalty of an amount determined by Ofqual in accordance with section 151B.
(4) Before imposing a monetary penalty on a recognised body, Ofqual must give notice to the body of its intention to do so.
(5) The notice must—
(a) set out Ofqual’s reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and(b) specify the period during which, and the way in which, the recognised body may make representations about the proposal.(6) The period specified under subsection (5)(b) must not be less than 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is received.
(7) Ofqual must have regard to any representations made by the recognised body during the period specified in the notice in deciding whether to impose a monetary penalty on the body.
(8) If Ofqual decides to impose a monetary penalty on the body, it must give the body a notice containing information as to—
(a) the grounds for imposing the penalty,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal,(e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.151B Monetary penalties: amount
(1) The amount of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised body under section 151A must not exceed 10% of the body’s turnover.
(2) The turnover of a body for the purposes of subsection (1) is to be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Subject to subsection (1), the amount may be whatever Ofqual decides is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
151C Monetary penalties: appeals
(1) A recognised body may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision to impose a monetary penalty on the body under section 151A;(b) a decision as to the amount of the penalty. (2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the penalty is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the penalty;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as Ofqual could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the penalty, or any matter relating to that decision, to Ofqual.151D Monetary penalties: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised body is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised body may make an appeal under section 151C in respect of the penalty, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 151C in respect of the penalty is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.(3) The unpaid amount of the penalty for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the penalty.
(5) Ofqual may recover from the body, as a civil debt due to it, the unpaid amount of the penalty and any unpaid interest.”
(4) In section 152 (power to withdraw recognition), for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Ofqual may withdraw recognition from the recognised body in respect of the award or authentication of—
(a) a specified qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the body is recognised, or(b) every qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the body is recognised.”(5) After section 152 insert—
“152A Costs recovery
(1) Ofqual may, by notice, require a recognised body on which a sanction has been imposed to pay the costs incurred by Ofqual in relation to imposing the sanction, up to the time it is imposed.
(2) The references in subsection (1) to imposing a sanction are to—
(a) giving a direction under section 151;(b) imposing a monetary penalty under section 151A;(c) withdrawing recognition under section 152.(3) “Costs” includes in particular—
(a) investigation costs;(b) administration costs;(c) costs of obtaining expert advice (including legal advice).(4) A notice given to a recognised body under subsection (1) must contain information as to—
(a) the amount required to be paid,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal, (e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.(5) The body may require Ofqual to provide a detailed breakdown of the amount specified in the notice.
152B Costs recovery: appeals
(1) A recognised body may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision under section 152A(1) to require the body to pay costs;(b) a decision as to the amount of those costs.(2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the costs is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the costs;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as Ofqual could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the costs, or any matter relating to that decision, to Ofqual.152C Costs: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of an amount of costs that a recognised body is required to pay under section 152A(1) is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised body may make an appeal under section 152B in respect of the costs, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 152B in respect of the costs is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.(3) The unpaid amount of the costs for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the costs.
(5) Ofqual may recover from the body, as a civil debt due to it, the unpaid amount of the costs and any unpaid interest.”
(6) In section 153 (qualifications regulatory framework), in subsection (8)(e), for “152” substitute “152C”.
(7) In section 262(6) of ASCLA 2009 (orders and regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) an order under section 151B(2);”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, government Amendments 56 and 57 are a response to concerns first raised by my noble friend Lord Lingfield and echoed by others of my noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, about whether Ofqual has a full range of effective and proportionate powers that it can use to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
The context of the concerns expressed was the events of this summer, where we saw numerous errors in awarding bodies’ exam papers; many of those appeared even after Ofqual had required awarding bodies to go back and check all their papers. We all know how hard most children work for their GCSEs, A-levels and vocational qualifications. After all that work, they should not be let down by exam boards’ mistakes; nor can we be sanguine about the credibility of our qualifications being brought into doubt.
The key point made by my noble friend Lord Lingfield and others in the Grand Committee debate on 13 July was that Ofqual currently has only two types of sanctions available to it: first, the power to direct an awarding body to comply with a condition; and, secondly, the ultimate—and rather nuclear—sanction of partial or full withdrawal of recognition, which in effect would prevent an awarding body from offering a qualification to maintained schools.
Obviously, those are strong powers. First, Ofqual can require awarding bodies to put things right by giving those bodies a direction; but that will often be only after they have gone wrong, so that is after the candidate has endured the two hours of stress that resulted from unsolvable problems in the paper they were sitting. Secondly, Ofqual can, in practice, strip an awarding body of the ability to offer its qualifications to the market. That certainly sounds like a strong incentive on awarding bodies not to make mistakes and to comply with Ofqual’s conditions, but taking such a step could have a very disruptive impact on the whole system, as schools and colleges would have to switch providers and the courses they are teaching. Ofqual is under a duty to act appropriately and proportionately, so, given this impact, it would be able to do that in practice only if faced with an extremely serious or extremely persistent breach of a condition.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Amendments 56A and 56B are in my name and both are amendments to Amendment 56. I tabled them because we, and I suspect other noble Lords, have received a fair amount of correspondence about this provision. Two issues arise from it. One, which is the subject of my amendments, relates to a very narrow issue—the 10 per cent of turnover to which the fine should be related and the question of whether that is the total turnover of the organisation or just that part of the organisation’s turnover that relates to its United Kingdom activities. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have effectively accepted these amendments, and I gather that the turnover will relate only to United Kingdom activities.
The other issue goes somewhat wider and relates to the whole process of consultation that took place. I understand that, as the Minister explained, the Government were anxious to get these powers on to the statute book because Ofqual had the choice of only either a fairly gentle reprimand or the nuclear option of withdrawing recognition of the examining board, and it wanted a further range of sanctions to apply, as is the case with other regulators. However, it is very unfortunate that the period of consultation was reduced to as little as 10 days and that the examination boards did not have a chance to respond to these proposals as fully as they would have liked. It is also unfortunate that a wider consultation with other people affected by the knock-on effects of this provision did not take place. Some of them may also have received a letter from the ASCL pointing out that a fine imposed on the examining boards is quite likely to be passed on to the schools, which pay considerable fees for their pupils to sit these examinations.
I recognise that we do not want our examining boards to make the serious errors in examinations that occurred this summer and that sanctions of some sort are not a bad idea. Nevertheless, the fact remains that an inquiry was set up to examine those errors and it is not going to report until the end of the year. Normally, one would expect to see some action taken after the inquiry reports, and I therefore ask the Minister whether it was really necessary to act as quickly as he did. Furthermore, I hope that full consultation will now take place with the examination boards. As the Government put flesh on the bones of the sanctions in this amendment, I hope that they will have proper discussions and consultations with all those concerned about how the sanctions should be imposed and implemented. This is not good practice and I hope that the coalition Government will not continue with the rapid pursuit of issues in the same way.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that, following my remarks, these clauses are to be inserted.
It is worth reminding noble Lords of the unedifying accounts in the newspapers a short time ago, when we saw complaints from parents, teachers and schools. A printing mistake by the AQA board led to some schools receiving GCSE maths papers, taken by 32,000 pupils, which included questions from a previous version of the examination. The OCR maths AS-level paper, with nearly 7,000 candidates, featured an impossible question worth a whole 11 per cent of the marks. OCR’s Latin paper mixed up a passage by Cicero and attributed it to Tacitus, and two characters were mixed up. Edexcel’s AS-level biology paper offered a selection of wrong answers to a multiple choice question, but the correct answer was not included. The OCR guide issued to staff marking the AS-level information communication and technology paper contained four errors—staff were required to mark down students who gave the correct answer. AQA’s AS-level business studies examination, taken by 41,000 students, asked about a fictitious company’s factory profits, but the adjoining profile information failed to show the profits, making the question completely unanswerable. Of course, there were other examples in earlier years. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who is in his place, carried out, as I am sure he will mention, a review that suggested that QCA was responsible for massive failures resulting in tens of thousands of children getting their SATs results late.
That is why I support these extra powers for Ofqual boards. I believe the penalties that are outlined seem a fair and useful way ahead, with the appropriate safeguards of notice and appeal that the Bill sets out. I hope that noble Lords will support them and they will lead to a diminution in the angst and difficulty caused earlier this year to pupils, parents and teachers after the examinations.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I warmly welcome the government amendment, and not only for the reason it means that one’s words do not always disappear into the ether for ever, although it is nice to see a bit of thought being given to them. Examining boards do an extremely difficult and complex job. Over the years, we have built for them a system that requires too much, and too much complexity. We are now rolling back from this, and that is the right direction. However, examination boards which, for the most part, have done this very well, do fail from time to time. They fail in ways that are serious and, as we have heard, are deeply upsetting to schools and candidates. It is therefore right that Ofqual should have the capacity to assert some discipline over them.
As has been suggested, I have seen in great detail—more than I ever want to see again—the complexity of the procurement process for a national set of examinations. If Ofqual were committed to its only sanction being to reset the process in motion, we would have the wrong system. Under this amendment, Ofqual will have different alternatives. I say to my noble friend Lady Sharp that this should have been in the original powers of Ofqual rather than being put through at this stage. I welcome the amendments and hope that the House will support them.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I do not object in principle to the proposals. They were consulted on in 2009 by my Government. We decided at that stage against moving in this direction. I agree that the impact on students when these errors occur is very bad. I agree, too, with measures in general to drive up performance, although it is interesting to contrast them with the approach of this Government to driving up performance in schools, which is to absolve them of every possible requirement, whereas in this instance further financial sanctions are being sought. It is a moot point whether Ofqual needs these powers or whether the existing powers that the Minister has referred to of withdrawing accreditation or giving a direction are both more appropriate and more effective. The Minister agreed that these are strong powers.
I will make three points and will be grateful if the Minister will respond to them. First, I echo some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the rushed nature of this publication. It begs the question of whether the detail has been properly thought through, with only eight days for providers to have any kind of discussion with Ofqual about how it might work. Consequently, no information is available on a number of important questions. For example, in what circumstances will the financial penalties be imposed? What level of apparent errors will be the threshold for financial penalties to kick in? What will be the levels of penalties and how will they be determined? What will the maximum penalty be? What will be the mechanism for an independent appeals process for providers, and what safeguards will there be that it will be a fair and transparent process? Will the Government issue guidance to Ofqual on how it should conduct itself? The Minister may say that Ofqual will have a full consultation for 12 weeks on some of these questions, but as noble Lords are being asked to consider the measures now, it would have been helpful to have had some indication of the Government's view about how this will work.
My second question is: are financial penalties appropriate? We have heard that Pearson has replied with some comments, but I am more concerned with the majority of exam boards, which are charitable, not-for-profit organisations. Seventy-five per cent of all GCSEs and A-levels are delivered by not-for-profit organisations. There is already in the system a degree of potential financial instability for the exam boards, because government policy decisions, for instance on changing the structures of GCSEs, have an immediate financial impact on them. Therefore, there is a danger to the not-for-profit organisations that this may further jeopardise their financial stability. As we have heard, schools, too, are concerned that if the not-for-profit organisations take any financial penalty, ultimately they will have to pass it on to schools; they will not necessarily be able to absorb it.
Finally, I am concerned that there are clear parameters and guidance on how Ofqual must use the powers in ways that will protect it from having to respond to what will inevitably be media pressure and perhaps the appearance of political pressure concerning the way it implements these decisions and applies financial penalties. What safeguards does the Minister envisage to ensure that protection? One not-for-profit exam board has suggested that Ofqual should deal with these matters through a more distant complaints procedure, so that it will be clearly separate from government and shielded to some extent from the barrage of perhaps understandable media pressure that will accompany these issues.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Lingfield and Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for their broad welcome for the measures, and the recognition that this responds to a need.
On the speed of the consultation, referred to by my noble friend Lady Sharp and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, we responded to the points that were raised in Grand Committee. A legislative opportunity presented itself with this Education Bill and we had before us the failures of this summer. I know that the previous Government consulted. Our case would be that, with the legislative opportunity there and the evidence of the failures that we had this summer, which the previous Government had not had, it was sensible to act while the opportunity presented itself, but I take my noble friend’s point about the importance of consultation. Ofqual will consult on the detailed implementation of its powers, which will be a full 12-week consultation.
In response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, Ofqual will publish a statement as part of its qualifications regulatory framework, which will set out how and in what circumstances its powers will be used. That will make clear Ofqual’s expectations that only serious or persistent breaches could lead to a fine.
On the question of appeals, there will be an appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal, in line with other regulators. I know that concerns were raised about fines being passed on to schools, effectively. Ofqual will have powers to cap those fees if it thinks that it is necessary to do so. I understand the point that obviously some of the big awarding bodies are charities, but some of them are charities with very large tens of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds of turnover. Our basic point is that a pupil or student on the wrong end of a duff examination paper is not too bothered whether that paper has been set by a charity or a commercial organisation. That is why we think that it is appropriate to give this extra power. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, is right that there are two powers but we feel that in essence they are not sufficiently nuanced. Giving this additional power we hope will lead not to large amounts of fining but to better and more accurate examination papers.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am reassured that there will be extensive consultation with the boards concerned on the implementation of these things. I just want to reiterate my general feeling that it is important for consultation to take place before rather than after legislation as a general principle. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Enforcement powers of Welsh Ministers
(1) Chapter 2 of Part 5 of EA 1997 (functions of Welsh Ministers: qualifications and the school curriculum) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In section 32A (power to give directions), for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
“(1) Subsection (1A) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person has failed or is likely to fail to comply with a condition subject to which the recognition has effect.
(1A) The Welsh Ministers may direct the recognised person to take or refrain from taking specified steps with a view to securing compliance with the conditions subject to which the recognition has effect.
(2) Subsection (2A) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person who awards or authenticates a qualification accredited by them has failed or is likely to fail to comply with a condition subject to which the accreditation has effect.
(2A) The Welsh Ministers may direct the recognised person to take or refrain from taking specified steps with a view to securing compliance with the conditions subject to which the accreditation has effect.”
(3) In section 32A(5), for “32B and” substitute “32AA to”.
(4) After section 32A insert—
“32AA Power of Welsh Ministers to impose monetary penalties
(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person has failed to comply with a condition subject to which the recognition has effect.
(2) The Welsh Ministers may impose a monetary penalty on the recognised person.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person who awards or authenticates a qualification accredited by them has failed to comply with a condition subject to which the accreditation has effect.
(4) The Welsh Ministers may impose a monetary penalty on the recognised person.
(5) A “monetary penalty” is a requirement to pay to the Welsh Ministers a penalty of an amount determined by them in accordance with section 32AB.
(6) Before imposing a monetary penalty on a recognised person, the Welsh Ministers must give notice to the person of their intention to do so.
(7) The notice must—
(a) set out their reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and (b) specify the period during which, and the way in which, the recognised person may make representations about the proposal.(8) The period specified under subsection (7)(b) must not be less than 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is received.
(9) The Welsh Ministers must have regard to any representations made by the recognised person during the period specified in the notice in deciding whether to impose a monetary penalty on the person.
(10) If the Welsh Ministers decide to impose a monetary penalty on the person, they must give the person a notice containing information as to—
(a) the grounds for imposing the penalty,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal,(e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.32AB Monetary penalties: amount
(1) The amount of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised person under section 32AA must not exceed 10% of the person’s turnover.
(2) The turnover of a person for the purposes of subsection (1) is to be determined in accordance with an order made by the Welsh Ministers.
(3) Subject to subsection (1), the amount may be whatever the Welsh Ministers decide is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
32AC Monetary penalties: appeals
(1) A recognised person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision to impose a monetary penalty on the person under section 32AA;(b) a decision as to the amount of the penalty.(2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the penalty is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the penalty;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as the Welsh Ministers could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the penalty, or any matter relating to that decision, to the Welsh Ministers.32AD Monetary penalties: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised person is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised person may make an appeal under section 32AC in respect of the penalty, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 32AC in respect of the penalty is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn. (3) The unpaid amount of the penalty for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the penalty.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may recover from the person, as a civil debt due to them, the unpaid amount of the penalty and any unpaid interest.”
(5) In section 32B (power to withdraw recognition)—
(a) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) The Welsh Ministers may withdraw recognition from the recognised person in respect of the award or authentication of—
(a) a specified qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised, or(b) every qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised.”;(b) for subsection (4) substitute—“(4) The Welsh Ministers may withdraw recognition from the recognised person in respect of the award or authentication of—
(a) the qualification or a specified description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised, or(b) every qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised.”(6) After section 32B insert—
“32BA Costs recovery
(1) The Welsh Ministers may, by notice, require a recognised person on whom a sanction has been imposed to pay the costs incurred by the Welsh Ministers in relation to imposing the sanction, up to the time it is imposed.
(2) The references in subsection (1) to imposing a sanction are to—
(a) giving a direction under section 32A;(b) imposing a monetary penalty under section 32AA;(c) withdrawing recognition under section 32B.(3) “Costs” includes in particular—
(a) investigation costs;(b) administration costs;(c) costs of obtaining expert advice (including legal advice).(4) A notice given to a recognised person under subsection (1) must contain information as to—
(a) the amount required to be paid,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal,(e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.(5) The person may require the Welsh Ministers to provide a detailed breakdown of the amount specified in the notice.
32BB Costs recovery: appeals
(1) A recognised person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision under section 32BA(1) to require the person to pay costs;(b) a decision as to the amount of those costs.(2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the costs is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the costs;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as the Welsh Ministers could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the costs, or any matter relating to that decision, to the Welsh Ministers.32BC Costs: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of an amount of costs that a recognised person is required to pay under section 32BA(1) is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised person may make an appeal under section 32BB in respect of the costs, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 32BB in respect of the costs is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.(3) The unpaid amount of the costs for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the costs.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may recover from the person, as a civil debt due to them, the unpaid amount of the costs and any unpaid interest.”
(7) In section 54 of EA 1997 (orders and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (2), after “section” insert “32AB(2) or”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provision) an order under section 32AB(2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.””
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, the amendments in this group aim to improve the careers advice to which young people would be entitled in the classroom. They cover different aspects of the provision that we think pupils have a right to expect. While each of our amendments has validity in its own right, they have also been consolidated into Amendment 57CA.
The Government’s proposals in Clause 27 amend the Education Act 1997 so that in the future maintained schools and pupil referral units would be required to secure independent, impartial careers advice for pupils aged 13 to 16. However, schools will be free to decide how best to fulfil this duty based on the needs of their pupils and as the Bill stands there is no guarantee that the advice would be from a trained professional, nor that it would be face to face. Our amendments would ensure that all pupils receive face-to-face careers advice from year 8 onwards. This is the year that the majority of pupils turn 14 and start to make decisions about their study options for GCSE, and it is vital that they understand the implications of those choices for their future careers.
Our amendments also require that advice is provided by a qualified provider, not a teacher to whom the responsibility has been given as an afterthought or someone employed by an accredited service provider who is none the less not personally qualified. This is vital to ensure a consistent quality of careers advice throughout the education system. We had an excellent debate on this subject in Grand Committee and noble Lords from all sides of the House recognised the need to drive up standards in careers advice for young people, and the need to influence them early enough to make wise choices about their course of study.
I acknowledge receipt, rather belatedly, of the Minister’s letter of 20 July, in which he tried to address those concerns. Regretfully, I do not think the letter goes far enough and I do not believe that his proposal of guidance to schools will give sufficient guarantees to young people who should have a right to these services. I do not believe that measuring outcomes via the destination of pupils or relying on a future Ofsted report, both of which would take time, gives pupils and parents sufficient reassurance about the provision that will take place now.
We all understand that careers decisions for young people are very complex these days, more so than when many of us were making our first career choices some time ago. There is increased competition for higher education places, a greater range of opportunities, including apprenticeships, and an awareness nowadays that jobs are less often jobs for life. Young people may need to equip themselves for a range of jobs and a degree of flexibility in their career plans. They also have to factor in the higher costs of staying on in education, which has not been made any easier by the cutting of EMA and the increase in tuition fees. Evidence shows that lack of information about the choices available is seen by young people as one of the main barriers to their participation post-16 and an even greater number see this lack of information as having placed constraints on their choices post-16. They need expert help and guidance on a regular basis to help them achieve their ambitions.
The Government believe it is sufficient to offer careers guidance by phone or online to the vast majority of pupils but we fundamentally disagree. Where a young person has access to a wide network of family and friends with a variety of careers, phone and internet advice might be helpful. Where a young person’s family is able to arrange internships and job trials for them, it might be helpful. However, phone or internet advice might be helpful but it is not enough. It does not meet the challenge of ensuring that young people get nuanced guidance, tailored to their talents, drive and ambitions. Of course, this is particularly true for young people who do not have access to a social network of people in a variety of jobs or who do not have role models in different careers, and even more so for young people from families where there is intergenerational worklessness.
Baroness Brinton
I shall speak to Amendments 58, 59, 60 and 61. I welcome the Minister’s letter of 20 October, which has given some helpful answers, but there are some further queries that I wish to raise in today’s debate.
With regard to Amendment 58, the letter from the Minister makes it clear that there will be robust standards and quality assurance—for that, we are pleased—through the Careers Profession Alliance and its proposed online register, which will also recognise those who have achieved a level 6 standard. This is very welcome, but I wish to ask the Minister for confirmation that statutory guidance will make it clear to schools that they must use this standard when commissioning.
Amendment 59 addresses the thorny issue of face-to-face advice, which we discussed at considerable length in Committee. In a perfect world, all schools would ensure that all pupils get at least one face-to-face interview, but the Minister’s letter makes it clear that that is not what the Government are looking for. Our amendment seeks to ensure that the most disadvantaged—the ones who were caught by the original inverted pyramid of the Connexions service proposals—would get face-to-face advice because it is extremely important that they do so. Let me explain why.
The Association of Colleges has recently surveyed pupils considering options for post-16, and while 64 per cent of young people considering their options know about A-levels, only a shocking 7 per cent can name apprenticeships as a qualification, just a quarter know about NVQs, and 19 per cent are able to name BTECs. Those pupils for whom A-levels are not the correct route will not know what they do not know. We have often talked about that in this House as a “Donald Rumsfeld moment”. On these Benches we remain very concerned that asking them to go on to a website and rootle around to find what might be appropriate for them is not going to be enough.
Schools will need to ensure that those most likely not to take A-levels or follow an academic route, some of whom may be at risk of becoming NEETs, should have access to face-to-face advice. Our amendment makes it clear that face-to-face advice must be offered to the disadvantaged. We have kept it as a fairly broad phrase, but for the avoidance of doubt we have included free school meals and those with SEN. But it is broadly inclusive so a school can look at its pupils and make its decision about where to draw those lines.
Amendments 60 and 61 cover the issue of when high-quality careers advice should start and end. I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had outside the Chamber about whether a 14 year-old, as stated in the Bill, is actually a rising 14. Our amendment would make it clear that young people should be getting advice when they are beginning to consider their options for years 10 and 11 at school. If it starts later than that, after they have chosen their options, whether they want to follow an academic or a vocational route, they could compromise their future pathway. That seems wrong to us, so I ask the Minister to be clear that this is for rising 14s; that is, that those in year 9 who start the year as 13 year-olds and probably end it as 14 years-olds will be covered.
We also want to ensure that some provision is made for post-16 advice, principally again—I repeat the point—for those who may not be taking an automatic route into A-levels at school and then on to university. An enormous breadth of vocational training is available, along with an enormous number of qualifications. I know from my own experience that when, as the chair of a learning and skills council, we tried to map out the vocational pathways in our county area alone, it was almost impossible to do so. How on earth we expect 15 and 16 year-olds to make headway on their own is, I think, unhelpful.
Finally, I welcome the Minister’s affirmation in his letter of 20 October that local authorities that are currently letting their careers staff go are continuing to deliver their responsibilities as regards careers advice until schools take this over next year. In particular, I welcome his comment that if local authorities prove not to be doing that at the moment, the Department for Education will take them to task.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments, in particular those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The whole business of giving advice to children early is, frankly, crucial—and it is not just advice, but a rather wider range of intelligence about the world in which they are going to emerge. I recall my experience in the early days at the Equal Opportunities Commission when girls’ schools were not very good at giving the full range of possibilities, not least the range of likely earnings in particular careers. I think that some degree of inheritance remains that probably needs coping with. I would particularly want to target girls’ schools in this respect. I notice that they have not really been mentioned in any of the briefings.
The country’s need for skills at a particular time needs stressing. After all, those are the areas where you are likely to get jobs, although, frankly, it is not going to be easy in these economic conditions, whatever your age is. I have another worry about this whole area. Although I appreciate this business of wanting to give as much discretion as possible to local government in how it distributes its resources, it is important to see that some degree of uniformity is continued. Yet UNISON, having done its research, says that, of the 144 local authorities, only 15 are likely to maintain substantially what they are doing at the moment. There seem to be cutbacks everywhere. I, too, welcome the letter from the Minister of 20 October, in which he set out very clearly the Government’s aims, particularly for those with special needs, for whom there must be a very early introduction to the kind of possibilities that are available. Indeed, a great deal of encouragement still needs to be given to employers to provide the flexibility that is going to be required in many of the job and skills opportunities for the future.
I think that is enough from me, but I certainly think that we are going in the right direction in many of the amendments that have already been tabled and accepted by the Minister.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I think there is agreement across the House about the importance of the careers advice and guidance service. It has always been important, but never more so than now, when the world is very complicated. The more you give young people choice, the more you have an obligation to assist them in making effective choices. That is just the world in which we live.
A lot has been said about giving impartial information and advice. I agree entirely. I know that, certainly in the past, some schools and colleges who had a vested interest in keeping young people have not acted as professionally as they ought to have done in that matter. I am absolutely on board about that. However, we have spoken less about how young people make decisions. For me, that is one of the most important things. My experience tells me that giving young people accurate information does not mean that they will make a wise decision. I accept, in this age, and especially with young people and their ability to deal online with information, that we could indeed get a system where the facts of the case—accurate information about the options available to them— could be effectively delivered online. What you cannot do online is work with a young person to make the appropriate decision for them. That bringing together of their attributes, their aspirations, their strengths and their weaknesses and matching them to the information that you have is the essence of guidance and of counselling. I do not see that in either the legislation or the extra information that the Minister has offered.
If truth be told, I do not think that the careers guidance service has ever been as strong as it ought to be. I think it has always struggled to have its voice heard alongside the voice of quite powerful and strong heads over many years. It has always struggled to get in there with schools and hold its own. When I was a teacher, I remember very many caring teachers who did their best and acted professionally to work with young people and help them reach the right conclusion for themselves. To be truthful, when the careers guidance officers came into school and worked face-to-face with these young people, the quality of work that was done was seismically different from what was done with even the best teachers. Working with people, not just to give them information but to help them reach an effective decision, is a skilled job. I do not see how it can be done other than face-to-face, and I worry about it being done by someone without an appropriate qualification. For those reasons, I support the amendments.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I add my name to those supporting the group of amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I do so because the current provision for face-to-face careers advice preceded one of the dates mentioned in this debate. If I am right, it goes back to the Education Act 1973. It was more than just a passing of an intent; it placed a duty on the local authority to provide support designed to match the needs of the individual student. One of the problems with the Bill in respect of the provision of careers advice is that this statutory right has been downgraded significantly to access, basically, in respect of needs. There is no real provision for quality or indeed quantity assurances. It is a one-size-fits-all provision, based in some instances on an online system.
I see some difficulties in future years. As I understand it, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also promoting an all-age service of advice and career guidance. Again, though, it is faceless and has no interaction because it is online. It is predicated on a one-size-fits-all culture. The current system is tried, tested and respected. It enthuses and inspires confidence and provides a two-way interaction; it is a critical friend that challenges and motivates. That is as it should be. It is a system that extends parental support to the student who needs that sort of guidance, particularly in circumstances of a one-parent family. That is crucial.
I want to raise a point about the transition. As I understand it, the arrangements currently provided by Connexions end in March 2012 and the new provisions being canvassed in the Bill would not come into force until September 2012. So my question is an obvious one: how will the gap be filled?
We have heard much about social mobility. The only way to ensure that all young people have opportunities to raise their aspirations is for them to receive a first-rate education that enables them to achieve academically and to have access to independent, impartial careers advice and guidance that supports them to make the best decisions and helps them to apply for appropriate post-16 learning opportunities. It is for those reasons that I add my name to the group of amendments so ably spoken to by my noble friend.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for this chance to return to the issue of careers guidance and the Government’s proposal to give schools greater responsibility for securing appropriate support, based on the needs and circumstances of pupils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, we had a good and extensive debate on this in Committee, and I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly to my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp of Guildford, for meeting me and my honourable friend John Hayes recently to discuss some of the areas of their concern.
Perhaps I may briefly set out the context in which we are implementing changes to the delivery of careers guidance. We know that the single most important factor in making sure that young people carry on and prosper in post-16 education—which is what we all want to encourage—is that they do well before they are 16. Only one in 40 students who get five good GCSEs is NEET at any point after the age of 16, compared to one in six of those who do not get five good GCSEs. Without that bedrock of achievement, the potential of adding to that, even with the best advice and guidance in the world, is quite limited. That is why our focus is on what goes on in schools.
I say that to demonstrate why we have chosen to focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning in our schools, and on introducing the pupil premium to help improve the attainment of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, about whom we have already spoken. At a time of economic difficulty, we are moving away from centrally-directed services and have protected school budgets as much as we can. We have given schools greater autonomy and the flexibility to determine the best use of resources for every pupil.
We disagree with the party opposite in seeking to move the focus away from—in the jargon—inputs to outcomes, because we think that it is more important to know how a school or college does by its students than to know precisely what it does. That is the thinking behind the development of new destinations measures. We think that these will show parents and pupils how well a school or college does in helping its students on to positive destinations, whether it is in further education, higher education, apprenticeships or work. We think that those will act as a powerful tool to help those institutions to make sure they look at everything that leads to positive outcomes, from education through to, and including, careers guidance.
A number of amendments in this group touch upon the important issue of the quality of careers guidance and how we can help to ensure that what is available to schools is good quality. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about the importance of that. There is no disagreement between us. Careers guidance should be of the highest standard and offered free from the influence of any particular organisation. That is a point that was raised by a number of noble Lords who, I know, have been concerned that sometimes schools have steered children in a particular direction and not towards apprenticeships or other rival institutions.
The national careers service will be required to meet a robust high-quality standard and all providers involved in the service will be expected to be accredited to the standard by April 2013. It was recently announced that this quality standard would be the revised matrix standard, and that will assist schools in making well informed decisions about which providers they want to work with.
Alongside this, the Careers Profession Alliance is taking forward work to increase the professionalism of the careers workforce in response to the recommendations of the Careers Profession Task Force. An online register for members who have reached a level 6 qualification, have agreed to uphold a code of ethics and have demonstrated a strong commitment to continuing professional development, is expected to be introduced in April 2012.
We spoke in Committee of the need to reduce generally the burden of guidance from the centre. There were previously 169 pages of guidance on careers for schools, and we want to reduce that. However, having listened to contributions in Committee, I recognise that it is sensible to allow scope for focused guidance to be issued to schools to support them in fulfilling their new duty. After considering the concerns raised by my noble friends Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Brinton at a recent meeting, I want to go further and ensure that the statutory guidance highlights to schools how they can be confident that the external support they are buying in is of the desired quality. The guidance will contain a clear description of the quality standard for careers guidance for schools in commissioning independent advice and support for their pupils. I will certainly commit to consulting on that guidance.
Baroness Brinton
Is the Minister talking about statutory guidance here? He did not use the phrase “statutory guidance” at the beginning of the debate on this clause.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, it is statutory guidance. I thought I had used the phrase; forgive me. I welcome the views of my noble friends and other noble Lords, who I know feel strongly about this issue. We have also confirmed that a thematic review of careers guidance will take place following the commencement of these provisions. That will look carefully at the quality of provision and the extent to which this has an effect on pupils’ understanding of the options available to them as they progress through school.
The second main area of debate has been the question of how careers guidance is delivered. While recognising that young people receive advice from many different sources, and the fact that many young people say that they prefer to get information online, I accept the case made this afternoon by my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Pupils can benefit enormously from support offered in person that raises their aspirations and guides them on to a successful path. This is particularly true of those young people who are disadvantaged and may not have access to a social network of people in a range of jobs, who come from a background of intergenerational unemployment, as has been mentioned, or who have special needs or are learners with learning difficulties or disabilities.
Given that, I am also happy to commit to highlighting this issue in statutory guidance and making it clear to schools that young people have much to gain from a face-to-face exploration of their skills, abilities and interests, which can help them think through the learning and career options available to them. I understand the point that was made about apprenticeships in particular, and the lack of knowledge about them. We are all keen, on all sides of this House, to encourage take-up of apprenticeships. We will place a clear expectation on schools that they should secure face-to-face careers guidance where it is the most suitable support, in particular for disadvantaged children and those who have special needs or are learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. These messages in the guidance will be further strengthened by the sharing of effective practice and evidence about what works. Underpinning both the quality assurance of careers guidance and our statutory guidance to schools will be a clear, outcome-based measure of the effectiveness of schools in meeting their new duty. Those are the destinations measures that I talked about earlier, which will provide a powerful incentive to provide high-quality advice.
We have also talked about the age range, which is important. Clause 27 requires schools to secure access to independent careers guidance for their pupils from the start of the academic year in which they turn 14— year 9—to the end of the year in which they turn 16, year 11. The case has been made by a number of noble Lords on all sides of the House that we should extend this age range upwards to include young people studying in school sixth forms and colleges. It has also been suggested that we should extend the age range down to year 8. There is a clear case for independent careers guidance for 16 to 18 year-olds in schools and the further education sector, particularly as we move towards the raising of the participation age. We have committed to consulting on extending the age range upwards. We can make that change through secondary legislation once the consultation is complete.
Similarly, I accept that an argument can be made for commencing the duty from year 8, when the first major decisions relating to post-14 options are taken. Again, I make it clear that we will consult fully on this issue and we will be able to make changes through secondary legislation once that consultation is complete. Just to be clear, that consultation will be complete in time to extend the age range of the duty by regulations from September 2012.
As regards the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, we are working with local authorities and others on the transitional arrangements. It is clear that we want them to carry on with those until the new duty is put in place in September 2012.
I know that I will not be able to convince all noble Lords about the course of action that the Government are taking, but I hope that I have reassured them about some of the steps we have taken to respond to those concerns. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he address the point I made that careers advice for girls should be as wide-ranging as possible?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for not responding to that point. We clearly want to see high-quality careers guidance for girls as well as for boys. We expect schools to want to do that. The noble Baroness’s particular concern may be to make sure that some of the career options that schools have not traditionally thought of as being suitable for girls get full consideration. I agree with her that one would very much want to see that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, once again we have had a very good debate on careers. I think that noble Lords from around the House have recognised the need for us to provide an improved careers service for young people, particularly in the current economic climate. However, we have some disagreements that the Minister has not fully addressed. The case was very well made about the great advantages of face-to-face counselling for young people. As my noble friend Lady Morris so ably said, that is very different from providing information, which you can, of course, do online. Guidance and counselling need to be done on a face-to-face basis. Regrettably, the Minister did not sufficiently address that issue. We argue that it is a fundamental right for all young people. It is very hard to differentiate and start picking out categories of those who are disadvantaged or at risk as being the only categories who are entitled to that face-to-face counselling, which is such a big issue in terms of young people’s future prospects. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that in a perfect world we would all have face-to-face provision. I do not think that we need to talk about a perfect world here; it is too big a fundamental right for young people. It seems to us that it is reasonable and necessary rather than something to which we are foolishly aspiring.
As regards qualifications, the case has been that the provision of careers advice should be regarded as a skilled job. I accept what the Minister has said about organisations being accredited in the future. However, he did not address the point that I made about the people employed by those organisations. If we do not require everyone who is providing the face-to-face careers advice to have a qualification, I very much fear that, as I said, this task will be tagged on to the duties of teachers or will be carried out by people employed at short notice or who are on temporary contracts, although the organisations which employ them are accredited. Again, I argue that the Minister has not addressed the fundamental issue of qualifications.
As regards the guidance to schools, the Minister has, as we have said, written to us about the advice that he is going to send out. He has said that he will consult on that. However, the letter asks schools to consider providing face-to-face guidance for pupils who are disadvantaged and talks about,
“working with local authorities to identify young people who are at risk”.
To my mind, that does not provide any guarantees for any of those categories. We are being asked to jump blindly into a careers guidance provision on which we do not have sufficient guarantees and which is not sufficiently robust.
There is too much at stake here. We feel that we have had too few guarantees. There is too much reliance on research and on data about how the new careers advice service will be monitored in the future, but young people need a provision and guarantees now. They need guarantees that they will have access to someone on a personalised basis and that they will be given advice by a qualified practitioner. We do not accept that the Minister has given sufficient guarantees. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 57C.
“( ) is provided by a person who attends the premises, and has a relevant qualification in careers guidance who meets such quality assurance standards as the Secretary of State shall require,”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend Lady Brinton is not moving this amendment, I should like to do so in her place. The amendment raises fundamental issues, which we debated previously, about the need for someone to be on the premises and to have a relevant qualification in careers guidance. We believe that those are both fundamental features and should be provided. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Avebury
“Collective worship
(1) Section 70 of SSFA 1998 (requirements relating to collective worship) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Subject to section 71—
(a) each pupil in attendance at a foundation or voluntary school of a religious character shall on each school day attend an act of collective worship;(b) community, foundation or voluntary schools which are not of a religious character and Academies that are not religiously designated may hold acts of collective worship at the discretion of the governors.(1A) Governors should be under an obligation to consider representations made to them by pupils and the parents of pupils as to whether or not schools or Academies hold acts of collective worship under subsection (1)(b).”
(3) In subsection (2) for “community, foundation or voluntary school” substitute “foundation or voluntary school of a religious character”.
(4) In subsection (3) for “required” substitute “permitted”.
(5) In paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 20 to SSFA 1998 (collective worship) for “required” substitute “permitted”.”
Lord Avebury
I declare an interest as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, to which I am greatly indebted for its advice on the amendments. First, I must thank the Minister and the Bill team for the time and efforts that they have devoted to correspondence and meetings on the collective worship issue since we discussed it in Committee three months ago—although there has been no meeting of minds since we began this process.
The Minister's main argument for the retention of this provision is that it is a long-standing school tradition. That is indeed so. It goes back at least as long as the Education Act 1944 and, as far as I know, even further than that. That underlines the fact that England is a very different society today from what it was towards the end of the Second World War. Eighteen per cent of the population now reports having no religion. Of the 72 per cent who identify themselves as Christians, fewer than one-third say that they actively practice their religion; that falls to just over one in five among those aged 16 to 29. The number of people who attend church at least once a month has declined every year from 2004 onwards. Even more telling, the number of confirmations has slumped from 140,000 in 1950 to 25,000 in 2009.
It is time for the long-standing tradition which no longer reflects the beliefs of more than a tiny fraction of the people to be jettisoned. The Minister goes on to say that the act of collective worship makes a valuable contribution to the spiritual and moral development of all young people and that that view is shared by many parents who still expect their children to understand the meaning of worship. That children should learn the moral and ethical standards which are common to mankind is unarguable, but that they should be linked to particular rituals based on obeisance to a supernatural being for which there is no scientific evidence lessens the respect and credibility of the standards themselves.
Humankind should have advanced to the stage where moral principles should be seen as essential in themselves, without the need to be reinforced by threats or rewards from above. We need kindness, compassion, toleration, right speech, action and livelihood so that we can live in harmony with each other and mitigate the unsatisfactoriness of the human condition. The ills that we suffer are the consequences of neglecting those truths, not because we have failed to pay respect to God or Allah.
That is not to say that if a majority of parents still want to have an act of worship at the beginning of the school day, their wishes should be ignored, but the converse is also true. If the majority would prefer that morals be taught without an accompanying religious ritual, they should be allowed to have their way.
In a poll commissioned by the BBC in September, 64 per cent of parents questioned said that their children did not attend daily worship and 70 per cent of them said that they were not in favour of enforcing the law which prescribes that act. The most recent Ofsted report on collective worship eight years ago found that 40 per cent of the schools inspected did not comply with the legal requirements and that in the remainder there were tensions and difficulties. It states that few secondary schools met fully the legal requirements for collective worship. Indeed, detailed examination of the evidence from 96 full inspections revealed that not a single school complied fully with the letter of the law. Revealingly, one school in Greater London was highlighted where, instead of having to exercise their legal right to withdraw their children from worship, parents were asked to opt in, resulting in 800 of the 900 pupils withdrawing from collective worship.
It is no wonder that Ofsted has not returned to the subject since then. It was already embarrassing enough to have to reveal such widespread non-compliance with the law, and if a similar inquiry was conducted today, no doubt the finding would be even more remarkable. In 2004, David Bell, then head of Ofsted, abandoned asking inspectors to take provision for worship into account in their reports after running into what he called a firestorm of protest from schools over the issue. He claimed that 76 per cent of secondary schools were failing to provide the daily worship. The Minister said that where schools’ non-compliance with a statutory duty is considered to be having a negative impact on pupils' spiritual or moral, social and cultural development, inspectors will reflect this in their assessment of the school. The fact that none has done so in the last eight years must indicate that inspectors are unanimous in concluding that the absence of worship has not had a negative effect on pupils’ development.
An analysis of SACRE reports undertaken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in 2004 similarly found that compliance with legal requirements for the daily act of collective worship was “a significant problem” for secondary schools. They reported a sense of impotence, as there appeared to be neither any way of ensuring compliance nor of changing the law. There was a common concern that having unworkable statutory requirements puts schools in an impossible position.
We have ignored this situation for too long. As far back as 1994, a National Association of Head Teachers survey of 2,346 schools found that seven out of 10 heads said that they were unable to satisfy a requirement to hold a daily act of Christian worship in their schools. The NAHT stated that,
“schools cannot be expected to accept responsibility for promoting daily religious observance when parents themselves do not practise it” .
A member of the association’s executive went further, saying:
“The law is being flouted. We are living a lie and the nation is living a lie”.
Without the ability to opt out of worship head teachers, acting in the best interests of their pupils, are being forced to act outside the law. Despite this, obviously there has been a high level of non-compliance, particularly in community secondary schools, for the best part of 20 years.
Such widespread flouting of these outdated and discriminatory obligations brings the law itself into disrepute. The first of these amendments proposes therefore that governors should be free not to hold acts of collective worship, taking into account representations made to them on the matter by pupils and their parents. This will enable us to comply with the spirit of both Article 18 ICCPR and Article 9 ECHR on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which are violated by ramming worship down the throats of non-deist pupils in community schools.
There would still be acts of collective worship in schools where the majority of parents and pupils want them. And the second amendment—Amendment 61B—makes these acts optional so that the minority of pupils who do not believe in worship are not forced to attend them. The legal requirement for pupils to take part in collective worship on every school day is a clear breach of young people’s rights under not only the ICCPR and the ECHR but also under Article 14.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If my noble friend cannot defend the imposition of religious behaviour on a child who disagrees with it, he has no option but to accept this amendment.
The third amendment, Amendment 61C, is an alternative to the second, and less satisfactory in that it extends the opt-out from collective worship available to sixth-form pupils at mainstream schools and maintained special schools only to pupils with sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence to make an informed decision about whether to withdraw themselves. That was the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which pointed out that the UK is under an obligation to assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting him or her and to give those views due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
This obligation finds expression in UK law in the concept of Gillick competence, according to which a child should be treated as legally competent to make their own decisions if they have “sufficient maturity and intelligence” to understand the nature and implications of their decision.
I do not imagine for a moment that the Minister will be able to accept any of these amendments, knowing from our correspondence that he is not prepared to give an inch. In any case he will be on a tight rein from the Secretary of State, who showed his colours when he wrote in the Catholic Herald that Catholic schools should avoid “unsympathetic meddling” by secularists if they converted to academies. So even if he was convinced by the arguments, my noble friend could not make the smallest concession. Recognising this, but respecting my noble friend as someone who is fair-minded and rational, I ask him to seek the views of teachers, parents and pupils on the reforms that we are debating today, and to come back with amendments of his own at Third Reading if he finds that my arguments are overwhelmingly endorsed by those who are being forced to take part in rituals they do not agree with.
By all means continue the valuable tradition that assembly is a time for considering the moral and ethical values of our civilisation—and for emphasising in particular the values of inclusion, tolerance and respect mentioned by my noble friend in his letter. Let us do that in a way that is itself inclusive and not one that requires children and teachers to participate in behaviour that excludes many of them at the beginning of the school day. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury in the amendment he has just moved. As he has pointed out, the law as it stands is the legacy of a society unrecognisable from the pluralistic Britain today where citizens hold a wide variety of religious beliefs—including no religious belief. This Bill presents an opportunity to reform an outdated and overly prescriptive law. The amendments, which I think are reasonable and moderate, are intended to offer greater freedom and choice in regard to worship in schools.
While parents have the right to withdraw their child from collective worship, for many parents this is not a satisfactory option as they feel it is unfair to exclude and separate their children from classmates; children often do not realise while they are being excluded, so it is not always a very good solution. Children themselves have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under both Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is not for the state to impose worship on children, regardless of whether the school they are attending has a religious ethos or not—particularly if it does not have a religious ethos. The amendments would at least ensure that conducting an act of worship was made optional for schools without a religious designation. Amendment 61B would make the attendance at worship optional for children.
Amendment 61C would lower the age at which pupils may withdraw themselves from collective worship—from the sixth form as it is now to a default age of 15. That would at least bring the law closer to the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our arguments for older pupils’ self-withdrawal were accepted in principle by the previous Government, but they set the age limit at sixth-form pupils. The amendment uses age 15 as a default age, but does allow this to be overridden in exceptional cases. That seems to me to be a more reasonable age than sticking to the sixth form as provided for in current legislation.
Particularly in multicultural areas, the holding of any kind of religious activity is bound to upset someone. We have been informed of at least one head teacher who resigned because of being unable to reconcile the demands of the parents of many religions on the one hand and the law on the other. The amendments would not impinge on schools of a religious character. We are simply seeking in the amendments of the noble Lord to try to ensure that there is in future a proper and reasonable choice in regard to worship in schools. I commend these amendments to the House.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I was married to the headmaster of a Methodist boarding school for many years, including during the 1960s, which was not exactly an easy time for any teacher to be associated with boys—or girls for that matter. There was daily chapel for all the pupils and I remember that, following a governors meeting, to which of course I was not invited, some of the governors came up to me and asked whether I favoured having non-compulsory chapel every day. I replied—and I have not changed my view since—that it did not matter if pupils were bored, did not like going to chapel or were not interested in religious matters at the age of 15, 16 or perhaps even 17. That daily event gave each pupil a background to which they could return in later life. It was very important to have that little base of knowledge of which they could make use when they had really grown up, and I hold that view today.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for their characteristic clarity in putting their arguments. However, as someone who frequently attends collective worship in both religious foundations and community schools, I have to say that the picture they have presented of our education system today is simply not one that I recognise.
These amendments, were we to pass them, would create a rift between schools with a religious foundation and those which do not have such a foundation, and that is inimical to the whole way in which the maintained education system in this country has been established. Indeed, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 61A seems to withdraw the right of parents to remove their children from worship within a school with a religious background, and I would deeply regret the withdrawal of that right. I believe that there should be a right to withdraw pupils from collective worship and, if that right were removed, Church of England schools might be less able to encourage local community integration—something on which I believe they have a very good record.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke about how our society has become much more multicultural over the last generation. One way in which that has been encouraged and supported has been through the work of faith schools. Many Church of England schools have significant numbers of Muslim pupils. Indeed, in hundreds of them more than 80 per cent of the pupils are Muslim. Through the constructive and positive use of the law as it stands, they have been able to integrate those pupils with pupils from Christian backgrounds and pupils from families with no faith background. The danger is that, if we split community schools from those with a religious foundation, we shall create a more segregated system within our country. Most Church of England schools are not in any way segregated; they are primary schools which work with their local village. The fact that a very small number of children are withdrawn from worship seems to indicate that parents, including those who do not themselves take part in Christian worship or worship in the tradition of other faiths, are willing for their children to be present at worship. They see it as being important to the life, development and growth of their children.
So far as worship in community schools is concerned, Ofsted reports high levels of compliance with the law and high levels of quality of worship, particularly in the primary sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that is less the case in the secondary sector, and the Church of England stands ready to provide whatever help it can to improve the quality of acts of worship within that sector. There is a good deal of excellent practice that can be pointed to, although it is certainly true that secondary schools find the situation more difficult than do primary schools.
We do not want to marginalise worship or spirituality within the life of our schools. We recognise the need for, and place of, worship within our own proceedings at the beginning of each day here in this House. When the nation faces a time of crisis or indeed of joy and delight, it tends to do so in terms of prayer. Children need to know what prayer is about, and one of the best ways for that to happen is through the worship that takes place in both church schools and community schools.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that Amendment 61C was undesirable. It seems to speak of an extraordinary decision which someone has to take regarding whether a 15 year-old has the maturity to decide whether he or she should attend worship. That seems to be completely unworkable and we should certainly not go in that direction.
Lord Avebury
I am sorry to interrupt the right reverend Prelate. I said that Amendment 61C was less preferable than Amendment 61B but the reason for tabling it was that it was in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
I still think that the amendment is undesirable and I think that the noble Lord does so, too.
The main point is that within the maintained sector we have a dual system in a country where more than 70 per cent of people describe themselves as Christian, and it serves very well the duality of purpose in terms of the whole development of the child. It is a system that has led to significant degrees of integration within our communities, and much of that has been led by faith schools. I hope that we shall reject these amendments and that we shall do so in the cause of community integration.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, I should like to make a few points on this subject. I think that we should turn the issue round a bit and ask ourselves what the 15 year-old derives from morning collective worship. I heard what the right reverend Prelate said about primary schools. It is much more likely that children at primary school will accept whatever is said to them, but these days in secondary school children are open to a lot of experiences, which was not the case, say, 20 or 30 years ago. I think that we need to see whether morning collective worship is still relevant to children. The question regarding these amendments is: are they relevant to young people? They are of course relevant to a Christian country but at the moment the practice of Christianity in this country is not really in your face. Falling levels of church attendance and so on are happening all around us.
From my days at school I remember that we always met for assembly in the morning. Everyone had to go. We did not have worship. We had something that taught us about life, behaviour, ethics, and right and wrong, but it was not geared to a particular faith. I still believe it would be far more useful if all the young people in a secondary school came together and discussed issues that are relevant to their everyday life, not something that is many steps away from them.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we seem to be repeating the arguments we had in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has taken the argument a little further. His description of forcing worship down throats was exaggerated and perhaps, on reflection, the noble Lord might think it was not worthy of him.
Currently, it is a legal requirement that all schools should have a collective act of broadly Christian worship. Parents who wish to withdraw their children from this collective act of worship have a legal right to do so if they wish. I can speak only from the perspective of Catholic schools in this country. Thirty per cent of pupils in Catholic schools are not Catholic, yet only 0.05 per cent of the parents of these children ask for them to be withdrawn from the collective act of worship in school.
I remember at Committee stage saying that the collective act of worship was a visual recognition of the Christian heritage of this country. It enables children, whether of faith or not, to engage and understand the history of this country because, whatever we might say, the history of this country is very much connected with our Christian heritage. That is a fact whether you are a Christian or not. England remains a multifaith, mainly Christian, country. Imposing a secularised approach to assemblies would mean a minority would now decide on these matters. With great respect to the noble Lord, who told us at Committee that he is a confirmed secularist, we all have to co-exist—those of faith and those not of faith. It seems to me that the best way to do that is to allow the existing law to continue, and people who do not wish their children to take part in the collective act of worship need not let them do so.
The right reverend Prelate made a point in his speech about the fact that in this House we have an act of worship—we had one at 2.30 pm. If it is good enough for Members of this House to take part in a collective act of worship, why should the children of this country not take part in a collective act of worship? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also said that no one should be forced to take part in rituals they do not agree with. We had two new Members introduced to the House this afternoon. Afterwards I heard a few comments from people who said, “Isn’t that awful? Shouldn’t we get rid of this old ritual?”. Yet we all take part in that ritual in order to get into this House. We have to maintain our standards here. If a collective act of worship, from which you can absent yourself if you wish, is acceptable for Members of your Lordships’ House, then it is certainly acceptable for schoolchildren in this country.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I would like briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, just said. We had a very interesting debate in this House last week on the teaching of history in schools. There were divergent views, but there was a general consensus that we owe it to our children to ensure that they have a reasonable grasp of the history of their country. We also owe it to our children that they should have a reasonable grasp of the literature of their country and the civilisation of their country. Ours is a Christian civilisation, which has moulded so much of our literature and our art and which is, indeed, the very fabric of the soul of the nation. In the 2001 census, over 70 per cent of people in the country said that they considered themselves to be Christian, whereas fewer than 20,000 said that they were atheists.
We do have a duty to expose our young people to what I consider to be the truths of the Christian religion but what we must all consider to be the bedrock of our civilisation. If when they leave school they choose to reject that, that is, of course, entirely up to them. They can do so on the basis of mature judgment and of knowledge; one cannot make a decision on the basis of mature judgment and ignorance. Therefore, it is crucial that we give our children the opportunity to know what living in a Christian country is like—a Christian country, the hallmark of which is, and always must be, tolerance and understanding of others who take a different point of view.
We would be moving in a very dangerous direction if we were to accept the amendments, which were so mellifluously moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for whom I have considerable respect, as I have for the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Lord Touhig made a point about our own act of worship. What was interesting, when we briefly debated this a few months ago, was that sitting by me was one of our Members who is a Hindu, and he particularly said that he felt this was a most important part of the parliamentary day.
I do not like to take the name of a Member who is not present, but there is no more staunch defender of the establishment in this country than the Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, who on many occasions has put it on record that he believes that the maintenance of the Church of England and the established church is very important to this country. He believes, as I do, that the teaching of certain truths, certain values, and certain issues is of equal importance. We would be taking a wrong step if we were to be seduced by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, while I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, I cannot think that in state-funded schools to have a collective act of worship of one faith is the way to implement that. It seems wrong that, again in state-funded schools, the collective assembly should be so devised that some children will be excluded. Worship is not inclusive: it is different for different faiths. Morality can be inclusive. Ethics can be inclusive. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, the way we live our lives must be included and must reach all children. It seems to me wrong that we should have arrangements that automatically exclude some children. Therefore I support the noble Lord’s amendments.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships’ House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I want to make a few remarks in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
No one is suggesting that the teaching of Christianity should be banned from school. That is not the point at all. The question is whether people should be required to take part in worship. It is all very well for the right reverend Prelate to say that pupils can be excluded, but being excluded puts them aside, apart from everyone else, and makes them feel outcasts. That surely cannot be the intention. One final point is that all sorts of things are taught in school—Greek mythology, for example—but nobody expects people to believe it.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can help me. In his speech he mentioned the universal values that are common to mankind, and also the moral values of our civilisation. Can he tell me where I can find those values set down clearly? This is a very relevant issue. The various revealed religions of the world set out a set of values, whether you like them or not. I have been trying to find a clear definition of the responsibilities of parenthood. I cannot find it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, I, too, apologise for arriving late through inadvertence. I adopt everything that my noble friend Lord Touhig and the right reverend Prelate said. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that it is not the teaching of one faith but of the faith that has run like a thread through our history, literature and language. To deprive our children of what may be their only opportunity to learn about that faith—
Baroness Whitaker
I agree with everything that my noble friend says. I have nothing against the teaching of faith. My remarks were directed solely at an act of worship.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Perhaps I misunderstood my noble friend. I thought I heard her refer to the teaching of “one faith” as if it were just one among many. Surely the key point is that it is essential for us as British people to learn about our civilisation and history and about the intertwining of the religion that has been sometimes a cause of internecine conflict but always of late something that promotes tolerance and makes us perhaps some of the most tolerant peoples in the world. I hope that it will be recognised by the House that if children were to be deprived of what may be their only opportunity to learn an essential part of their history and of their very being as British people, it would be a very sad day.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
I do not know why my noble friend repeats the story that we are trying to stop people understanding the background, history and traditions of this country. Nothing is further from the truth. We are saying that of course one should be able to teach all faiths at any time; we have no problem with that. However, we should not insist on collective worship from which some people are excluded.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the rules on Report. Members may speak only once to an amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I will say one thing briefly. It is important that we all remember that the Church of England is the established church of this country. That is why we have the Prayers that we have every day. It is appropriate that that should be recognised in schools.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, surely those who regard religion as an infectious and dangerous condition should, in the modern idiom, wish to immunise their children with the mildest possible form of the disease.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I will intervene briefly. I, too, apologise for arriving late. I was bending my energies to limit and eventually, I hope, rub out the use of cluster munitions—of which by far the greatest number of victims are children of the age we are talking about, so it was very germane. I understand that the amendment is not designed to stop the teaching of religion but to stop the demonstration of religion as part of the organisation of an institution; namely, the school in which the children are. That is a very valuable practice. The development of habit in early life can be enormously important in later life. I was carried through the most difficult patch of my life by the habit of going to church every Sunday. The impetus of that was enormously valuable. The institution of regular corporate worship, properly conducted, is enormously beneficial to the young. I deplore any attempt either to discontinue it or, as some of these amendments would do, make it impractical.
Baroness Paisley of St George's
My Lords, there are thousands of parents in our country today who do not have a Bible in their homes and who do not read it to their children. School is the only place where these children are given any light at all into the word of God. This is the 400th anniversary of the printing of the King James version of the Holy Bible in the English language. We are a Christian country and it is our duty and responsibility to see that the word of God is placed in schools for the benefit of the children. The Psalmist David said:
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”.
If people want proper guidelines for life, they are to be found in the word of God. I leave that with your Lordships tonight.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I will clarify one point if I may. I have not spoken before. We on the Bishops’ Benches sometimes look alike; I promise that it goes no further. There is a very clear distinction between collective and corporate worship. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to corporate worship. That is not what is provided in schools. The act of collective worship is appropriate to the collection of people who are there. It needs to be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. In practice, schools with significant numbers of members of other faith communities have managed to work within the degree of flexibility that the law allows, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds suggested. It is very important to realise that this is not ramming worship down people’s throats. That is not what school worship is like. It is part of an educational experience and preparation for life. You never know when you will go to a Remembrance Day service, a wedding or to many other places. When the regiment based in Chester came back from Afghanistan for the presentation of medals, the soldiers wanted an act of worship. It was collective worship in the context of the Armed Forces. There are many contexts in life where some experience of collective worship earlier in life is an important preparation.
My second point is that the amendments are too tarred with secularist intent. Probably there is a case at some point for a cool, considered look at the provisions of collective worship. However, it must be done in a way that enhances the spiritual experience of education. This goes much further than religious experience, but religious experience is part of it. The amendments push too quickly in a particular direction. There is a case for a proper review and full consultation in due course. However, let us not be misled. Collective worship is exactly that: worship appropriate to the collection of people who are present.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for coming to see me and talk about this and other issues that we will come to later on Report. I thank my noble friend also for setting out the issues and his position with his customary clarity and from a position that we all recognise is one of high principle. He knows from the conversation that we had where the Government stand on these issues, which is pretty much where the previous Government stood. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, our starting point is that the requirement is long-standing. It is difficult to dissociate that from the history of the country and the role that the church has played over a long period in individual schools and also collectively in society.
The Government believe that the experience of collective worship makes a contribution to the spiritual and moral development of young people, not just for those who attend religious schools. Collective worship in schools is different from the worship people choose to attend in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship. The purpose of this requirement is not to force pupils or school staff to worship a deity but rather to understand and experience the benefits that joining together, inspired by the positive values found in Christianity and other religions, can bring to the individual and to the community. The guiding principle is that these arrangements should be flexible and fair to pupils and parents, as well as manageable for schools.
It is a matter of historical fact, as argued by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Anderson of Swansea, and by my noble friend Lord Cormack, that the Christian traditions of our country have influenced and underpin our systems of law, justice and democracy. It is true, as has been said, that they have inspired and supported a tolerant and inclusive culture that welcomes and celebrates diversity. In the British Household Survey of 2010, more than 70 per cent of people said that their religion was Christian, and we think it right, therefore, that these values should underpin the ethos of our schools.
The law requires schools to provide collective worship that is relevant to all pupils, no matter what their background or beliefs, which should ensure that collective worship is presented in a way that benefits the spiritual, moral and cultural development of all children and young people. The requirement is for “broadly Christian” provision. It does not preclude the inclusion of other religions or consideration of the values that inform the practice of worship, which are common to many religions, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, rightly pointed out. Schools have the freedom, under the Education Act 1996, to apply for a determination from the local authority if they judge that it is not appropriate for the requirement for collective worship to be of a broadly Christian nature to apply to their school. That safeguard is in place. The Government respect the right of parents—
Lord Avebury
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but can he confirm that there cannot be a determination to have no act of collective worship at all where the majority of parents would wish to have that?
Lord Hill of Oareford
It is the case. I probably will not get the precise words right but my noble friend Lord Avebury accurately sums up the clause; they could make arrangements for provision to encompass a different religious belief. Parents can withdraw their children—
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Are there precedents for a majority of parents asking that there be no collective act of worship?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am afraid that I do not know specific figures. I understand that overall there appear to be few cases of parents triggering such a thing. If we have better particulars I will send them to the noble Lord.
Parents can withdraw their children from collective worship if they wish to do so. Sixth-form pupils, as we have discussed, have this right. We think that the balance in allowing sixth-formers to decide for themselves whether to attend in line with their increasing maturity and independence is about right. We think that parents should be able to exercise those rights on behalf of children of compulsory school age. We would expect that, in exercising this right, parents would take their child’s views into account.
It is a sensitive area in which schools have to balance the rights of parents to have their children educated according to their religious or philosophical belief and those of children who have the right to manifest their own religious belief. They also have the right to express their views on matters that affect them. In practice, we think that schools are able to balance those competing rights and we would expect both parents and schools to take account of the views of children in making such decisions. We believe that schools can and do use the current system for collective worship to make provision for a variety of different perspectives. The situation we have arrived at, which I recognise is unsatisfactory to my noble friend Lord Avebury, is one that successive Governments have considered fair and flexible, and this Government continue to take that view. With that, I hope that my noble friend Lord Avebury will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, it would be quite impossible to do justice to the extensive discussion that we have just been having, but it would be remiss of me not to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, with whom we had a similar discussion in Committee. Noble Lords have raised many different questions related to the collective worship issue, which has enabled us to make it clear that we are not talking about teaching about religions and the knowledge that children should have of the history of this country and the Christian background that we all share. That is part of religious education and we are not arguing that that should not be continued in the same way as it always has been and that it should not be underlined as part of the heritage of this country.
We are talking about a specific issue: whether people should be asked to pray to or worship a particular god at the time of the assembly that takes place at the beginning of the school day. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I would say that most schools—probably a majority—already have discussions on moral and ethical issues at assembly that do not involve prayer or worship. They are breaking the law and do so in a way that conforms to the spirit of the legislation in that children can imbibe knowledge of the background of moral and ethical issues that underline our civilisation. I shall not give a sermon on what those moral and ethical issues are but it is fairly obvious that they include tolerance, kindness, compassion, respect for others and inclusiveness. By imposing the act of worship on children who do not believe in God or who do not wish to take part, we are not being inclusive but are deliberately excluding all those pupils who have a conscientious objection to acts of subjection to a supreme being.
I know that we have not reached the end of this discussion but we are at an intermediate stage when it would be proper for me to ask to test the opinion of the House on this subject. I beg to move.
“Technology in schools
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a plan detailing the delivery of the use of technology to aid teaching across all subjects in the curriculum, for pupils of all ages, in all maintained schools and Academies.
(2) The plan must be published and laid before Parliament by July 2012.”
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I thought we were voting. I wish to speak to Amendment 61D standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight.
It is rather odd that we have just had a debate about an issue that has divided opinion since the establishment of early state education with the Forster’s Act of 1870 and we still have an enormous amount of confusion as to whether the debate on this amendment is beginning.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
For the sake of clarification, the last vote was nullified because no one called “Content” at the three-minute point, and the Not Contents have it. We are now moving on to Amendment 61D, which my noble friend Lord Willis is moving.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, the history of moving amendments on technology is fraught with danger. It seems rather odd in your Lordships’ House that we can have an hour-long debate about whether we should have collective worship and yet in the most technologically advanced nation on earth we cannot decide whether we have had a vote. Nevertheless, we will move on.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise again to my noble friend, but there is so much noise in the Chamber that it is quite difficult to hear what he is saying. I invite noble Lords either to come in and listen to the debate or perhaps to leave quietly so that we can continue with Amendment 61D.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I am very grateful to my noble friend. The fact that the House is so packed to hear this amendment on technology brightens my soul.
When the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight, and I raised this amendment in Committee, we were hopeful that the Minister would reflect on the issues raised and the importance of technology in our schools, and bring back government amendments on Report that indicated that this Government listened to one of the most important technologies driving our education system, our society and our economy. However, there is not a word in this piece of legislation about how we empower our young people to enter a technological society where they can take full advantage of all that pertains.
In responding to the debate in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said:
“We are talking to a number of interested parties—school leaders, professional bodies, educational charities, industry, academics and other experts—about how the department should take forward its thinking about technology”.—[Official Report, 13/7/11; col. GC 306.]
Sadly we have not had a single word about where those discussions have led. We have not had a single idea from the Government as to whether technology has a place in a modern UK education system in the 21st century. It is enormously disappointing that we still have from the Government a view that technology, particularly information communications technology, is a distraction from the central aim of raising standards. It is absolutely essential to the raising of standards to have proper technology and technology policies in our schools.
We are not promoting the case for ICT as an alternative to conventional subject matter or pedagogy but as an integral part of delivering a world-class, 21st century curriculum. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, recently reminded us that,
“Lewis Carroll didn't just write one of the classic fairytales of all time. He was also a mathematics tutor at Oxford. James Clerk Maxwell was described by Einstein as among the best physicists since Newton—but was also a published poet”.
Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, who sadly died very recently, said:
“The Macintosh turned out so well because the people working on it were musicians, artists, poets and historians who also happened to be excellent computer scientists”.
This amendment is about digital inclusion. It is about encouraging schools to meet their responsibilities to generations of young people who access ICT as both a tool and a discipline, and not to disadvantage themselves—or indeed the nation—as they move forward. However, it is so much more than just a pious and well-meaning amendment. All the evidence from studies from the Royal Society, the EPSRC, the Times Educational Supplement, the Government’s own department, major corporations, and charities such as futurelab and the e-Learning Foundation, of which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and I are privileged to be the respective chairs, emphasise the link between the use of ICT, educational motivation and achievement and future economic success and well-being. Not a single reputable study points to our young people or our society being disadvantaged as a result of access to high-quality ICT. You have to go to parts of the United States to get that view.
However, some 4 million people in Britain today are not online and are usually the most disadvantaged. Forty-nine per cent of those without access come from the lowest socioeconomic groups, and 70 per cent are in social housing. Thirty-eight per cent of those who are currently unemployed are not online, despite the fact that 70 per cent of all jobs are advertised online. That is a very cruel deception. Ministers must understand that the majority of those households will have children, who, without our support, will be part of tomorrow’s statistics.
One million children in our schools today cannot get online at home. Yet so much of the work they are being set in schools, and so many of the projects which they are being asked to complete, rely upon them being able to get online and do their work in that way. By encouraging schools to be proactive—particularly in recognising that an IT policy must extend into the home, where often the greatest disparity exists—the Government can make children and their schools part of a solution to support a wide range of government objectives.
This amendment is not a plea for special funding. I have not mentioned funding once, and nor have my noble friends. Encouraging schools to use their pupil premium would go a long way to meet both school and home access requirements. However, it requires the statutory authority of this amendment to say to schools, “Technology should be at the heart of what you do, and you need to report every year on that to the Secretary of State, as well as to your pupils’ parents and to your governors”.
Finally, this amendment would also address one of the real challenges facing our schools and colleges: that of addressing the shortfall in the number of students studying computing across the UK. According to the current Royal Society study, from 2006 to 2009 we saw a fall of 33 per cent in the number of students studying ICT at GCSE level. There has been a similar fall since 2003 of one-third of students studying ICT at A2-level. We have also seen a 57 per cent reduction in A2 level students studying computer science. Such dramatic falls in numbers of students going into our universities to study computer science are having a seriously detrimental effect on our ability to produce the sort of graduates we need for our modern economy. That alone is a reason for us to put ICT and technology at the heart of delivering the 21st century curriculum.
I hope that, as this will not cost the Minister anything but will win him friends throughout the nation, this is one amendment about which the Minister can simply say to the House, “I accept the wisdom of your words”. I beg to move.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for keeping this ball on the park. Like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, I have a number of interests in the education sector, all of which appear in the register of interests.
The omission of a clause such as this in the completed Bill in my judgment—and I put this to the Minister—would be literally mind-blowing: not a small omission, not something that has just slipped by, but a truly mind-blowing omission. That is why I support what I think is a very modest, simple and very easily deliverable objective, as laid out marvellously by the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
My contribution will concern the very serious issue of employability, possibly pre-empting one or two debates that will come up later on Report about jobs. During the summer break, I read a book by Jim Clifton, the chair of Gallup, entitled The Coming Jobs War. It is drawn from the largest survey Gallup had ever undertaken in its history. The view expressed in the book, and the conclusion that Mr Clifton comes to, is that the relationship between ICT skills and jobs in the developed world is absolutely everything. There will be winners and losers, and unless this Government —this was to an extent true of the Government previously—get a real grip on this issue, we can only be among the losers in the next 10 to 20 years.
I would like to offer a few statistics that may alarm the Government. If they have different statistics, I would be very happy to hear from the Minister. Only 9 per cent of ICT classes in this country are taught by teachers with any relevant qualifications. That means that 91 per cent of young people in this country are being taught so-called ICT by teachers with no qualifications whatever in the subject. I am not sure what other subjects fall into this category. I cannot believe that there are very many, and I cannot believe that a civilised nation would let this go on for very long when it knows that its entire employability framework for the next 10 to 20 years is reliant upon success in this area.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment. I have a six year-old American grandson, and I have read his kindergarten report. He was making good progress with the computer and the iPad when he was not yet six. We have to keep in touch, and we have to be there. It is very important that this amendment should be supported.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I support this amendment. In doing so, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests, as I have a number of clients who work in this area.
We are world leaders in this country in the use of technology in education. That is why more than 70 education Ministers from around the world come to the largest conference of education Ministers that happens annually anywhere in the world, held in London, alongside the BETT fair. It is hugely important that we sustain that position, as others are catching up, and are catching up very fast.
I welcome some of the comments made recently by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, around technology, in particular what he said about iTunes U and the Khan Academy and how they are, in his words, transforming what is going on in the classroom. That is welcome because over the past year or so, those working in the field of technology in education have been worried that the Government have taken their eye off the ball and want to see some leadership. What this amendment is calling for in respect of a plan from the Secretary of State will give, not a formal direction but a lead, to schools about how they use the money that has now devolved to them in this area.
As we have heard, ICT is hugely important. We managed to justify the £300 million the Treasury needed to part with on the country’s behalf for programmes such as the Home Access Programme that I was responsible for in government by using data from, for example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That showed that access to a computer at home increases performance in science GCSEs by two grades. PISA did some analysis on the use of technology which shows that over time it has increased maths scores in countries around the world. As a result of the Home Access Programme and the evaluation that the department quietly published a few months ago, we have seen the impact in terms of extended learning at home. By having access to technology at home, people are spending longer on their homework and find doing their homework more engaging. I would point noble Lords who are interested in this towards the example of the Essa Academy in Bolton, which has now got every child an iPod Touch and is rolling out more iPads. The learning that is going on in that academy has led to its results over the two years it has been in place for five GCSEs at A* to C rise from around 40 per cent to 100 per cent, and if you include English and Maths, from 28 per cent to 56 per cent. So some significant gains have been delivered in part thanks to technology. The academy certainly attributes technology to its success.
It is important that the Government should continue to extend their activities around the training of teachers and leaders because we know that if they are not in place, any investment in technology does not get you anywhere. You absolutely have to have them in place. The development of resources, home access and how best practice and next practice are spread are also important. Currently, we have a vacuum. Very early on, Michael Gove decided to abolish Becta, the agenda that provided a lead in this area in securing significant savings. That is his prerogative and fine if he wants to do it. But it meant that there was a hiatus in which people felt that there was no leadership in the area, although we may be beginning to see it now. At the same time, the role of local authorities has diminished and their funding to provide a lead on this locally has also fallen. Authorities have largely let all their IT specialists go, which means that they have now all become self-employed IT consultants. A profusion of people are knocking on headteachers’ doors offering advice, but often with vested interests around particular technology solutions. It is difficult for heads to get through the confusion that follows, and certainly to secure the procurement savings that Becta was able to deliver.
A plan is also necessary not just to fill that vacuum, but to point us towards the potential new ways of working which technology has delivered efficiently in so many different industries. In a challenging fiscal environment, if we can deliver more efficiencies in education, I am sure that that is to be welcomed. Assessment takes up a significant part of any school’s budget, and all sorts of innovations in this area can be secured through technology. As I mentioned, in procurement we are seeing the expansion of digital educational publishing. That can be encouraged or not, depending on whether we see some leadership. My noble friend Lord Puttnam talked about resources that are freely available through the TSL Education site, and there are other sources too. A rapid explosion is taking place that is rooted in this country. We are exporting our education around the world, but we really need to take advantage of it here.
There are all sorts of things that can be done in terms of school system improvement on the supply side, and that is what the Government feel comfortable with because that is what they control, but we can also stimulate much more self-sustaining school improvement through a demand-side set of reforms. It is not just about choice and the decision about which school your child will go to, made once or twice in their school career, it is also about giving parents a voice. You do that by giving them information and data that keep them in touch in real time with what is going on in the school. That can only be done on a viable basis using technology, and if that technology is fairly distributed with inclusion across the range of homes.
In respect of new ways of working, we are at the tipping point on this in schools. We can move away from IT suites and trolleys of laptops and towards people bringing in personal devices that their parents are already buying them. A recent Ofcom study showed that 100 per cent of teenagers, who they defined as 12 to 15 year-olds, had access to a computer somewhere, although as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, told us, many do not have access at home. We are also seeing a rapid rise in the ownership of smartphones, while 10 per cent have tablets, and those figures are changing all the time. There will come a point when we embrace these personal devices, even if it means mobile phones with rules about how they are used. That is because in children’s hands, they are very powerful computers which can aid learning. In turn, it means that schools will spend less on IT, less on recharging devices overnight, less on paper and less on textbooks. They can deliver an educational case around the use of data for performance and differentiation of learning, delivering more learning at home, delivering the softer skills of collaboration and communication that employers need, and the pupil engagement between home and school that we know is so important.
I strongly endorse what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said in respect of the economic case. If noble Lords are interested in how it might work, I recommend that they look at Apps for Good that CDI Europe has been delivering in schools and which young people find hugely engaging. That engages them in the world of work as well as in the world of technology. I also endorse what my noble friend said about coding and the need for more programming being learnt earlier on in school. I tried that, against a lot of push from officials. I even had to write it into the galley proofs before they were sent to the printers and they were not looking. I tried to get ICT as a basic skill at the primary level so that we could make sure that children were plug-in-and-play ready when they started secondary school. They should be able to use technology across the curriculum. Unfortunately, while the Rose review did deliver on what that might look like, it was pulled during the wash-up between Administrations. We never managed to get that shift of IT learning into the primary sector, which I think would have been extremely valuable. There are challenges in this. It will need an evolving pedagogy. It will need someone, ideally the Government, to offer guidance around the interoperability of devices in classrooms, along with procurement advice and possibly the curriculum changes that I have talked about. But the prize is a great one.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned the death of Steve Jobs. I ask noble Lords to think about what a Steve Jobs school would have looked like. For the staff, certainly it would have been one with a hero head model, someone solidly leading the school and delivering not what the children wanted, but what they needed. There would probably be a fairly flat staffing structure, but to the world outside it would not be the Steve Jobs school, it would be an Apple school: beautifully designed and one in which people just wanted to learn. It probably would not even have school rules, just as the iPad does not have any instructions, because it would be so engaging. That is what technology can give us: really engaging education that sucks learners in and makes them want to find out more and educate themselves more rather than just the flat, didactic one-way learning that is the tradition which some would like to see revived. I think it belongs in the Dark Ages.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I also declare an interest in that I work with a Malaysian company, YTL, in a plan to take ICT provision into every Malaysian school. That background gives me a little insight into what is happening here. Their Ministers and senior civil servants wanted to come here to see what we were doing. I can assure the noble Lord that his officials were very helpful in showing what Britain can and does do in this area. I cannot match their eloquence, but I stress one point that I think has not been stressed sufficiently. This is not simply enabling people to look something up in Wikipedia or whatever and get a few quotes for their essays. This transforms schools completely.
I took these Malaysian visitors—Secretaries of State and so on—to schools here in Britain to see what was happening. It transformed whole schools, not simply the teaching patterns, but all the relationships—with the parents, with the governing body, between the pupils and between the pupils and the teachers. It changed discipline. It took a failing school to one now where there are five applicants for every place. There were other factors, but the headmistress—am I allowed to say that these days?—or the lady who is in charge of the school, the principal, told us that ICT, properly used, was one of the key ingredients. So I think it is important that the Government have a policy that becomes a strategy.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am enormously supportive of everything that has been said so far. I am greatly encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said about the TES. Government after Government have tried to find ways of spreading good practice in education. I was looking at an example the other day—the Harkness table, which is a way of teaching. It started in America in 1930. It is still trickling into schools over here, because information and experience do not move until teachers move between schools, and it is a very slow process. ICT has made it possible to do this better and at a greater speed, but I have not seen it happening yet. I did not know it was happening in the TES and I am very pleased to hear it. It ought to be the sort of thing that the Government are grabbing at ways of supporting.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, about personal devices. An element of this Bill is about enabling schools to ban them more effectively. Actually, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, they ought to be finding ways of using them more effectively, of incorporating them and of enabling those children who do not have access to a good enough device to participate. That takes the kind of transformation that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has seen in only a few schools, but they have done it, they have done it successfully, and it shows what is possible. Clearly this is going to challenge the whole way of teaching. Everybody can now have the best teacher in the world, or at least for a substantial part of the time. The transformation of teachers from people who are supposed to know everything, however inadequate they are, to people who are going to be good guides and really do know everything, is one to which I look forward with great excitement. It is going to take some getting right. I am looking forward to a very supportive speech from my noble friend on the Front Bench because I am a great supporter of what this Government are doing.
In the bits of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, with which I did not agree, he was celebrating his role as a great frog sitting in the middle of the department, croaking while everybody else listened to his croaks. Now we have ponds all over England full of tadpoles and no great frog. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, may claim to be the father of the tadpoles, but this Government have liberated education and have made things possible that, under the Stalinist bureaucracy of the QCA and its successors, was never possible. All the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is looking for would not have been possible under his way of doing things because the centre insisted on having things done its way and reaching its own decisions before it allowed other people to take action. That has been done away with. I meet people who used to work for Becta who are out there now doing wonderful things. They no longer have to wait for Becta to take decisions. They are out there spreading the word individually and making businesses and lives out of it. I think it is part of the transformation that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, celebrates that we have been through a period when there has been a dispersal of ideas. Now, instead of one great oak, we have a lot of acorns sprouting, and I think that is the right place to be when it comes to technology.
I celebrate the particular acorn that this Government have allowed me to sprout, something called Behind the Screen, which, to my great surprise, was adopted as government policy with the help of David Willetts, who must have briefly reincarnated himself as the Minister for Education. The idea is to take computing—in particular, coding—back into school in a serious way, to work with industry in doing that and to work on real-world projects with real-world software. The aim is to have no limits as to how wide it goes, to be able to invade other bits of the curriculum, to have no limits as to how far it goes, indeed to be able to involve oneself in university-distance learning, if that is where a particular idea takes you, to work collaboratively within and between schools, to research, to problem-solve, and for teachers and their partners in industry to be pupils’ guides rather than their instructors. Furthermore, it should get going immediately; the first projects start in November. We are going to write the whole curriculum—to the extent that you can write a curriculum for something that changes every six months—around the schools and industries involved. The whole thing is being generated from the grass roots and not from the middle. The way to tackle technology in education is to let all that expertise and interest and involvement, which is out there around the country, be the source of enlightenment for those of us who sit in the middle.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, celebrates Apple. I curse my iPad every day for its limitations and for the rules that have been imposed on it from the centre. It will not get Flash. I try and do things with the iPad and it kills me half way through because the website has chosen to do something in Flash and Mr Jobs has said no. I do not want that to happen. I do not want monopolies to spring up and one voice to be the controlling voice when it comes to getting technology into schools. I want diversity. I want lots of different people to try to do it, and I want to see who does it best. That is the way that I think we will come through to a successful technology education system.
So I celebrate what this Government are doing for me and for many others. I celebrate, too, Nick Gibb in the middle of that. This may not be his natural style but he knows that, at the end of the day, anything I do has to come up to his standards. That is an Olympic-level challenge and I welcome it. Where you are allowing a lot of different systems to compete to see which is best, the important role for the Government is to be in the middle making sure that what you have is rigour and quality and is not subservient to fashion and ideas of the moment. I know that I can rely on my honourable friend for that.
Baroness Paisley of St George's
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I had two wonderful experiences recently. One was on board a ship that was visiting Belfast. On a tour of that ship we were shown an operating theatre. The captain said to us, “There is the theatre”. It was a beautiful operating theatre, and the captain explained, “There is a computer in the wall, and in mid-ocean we can perform life-saving operations on board this ship directed from shore hundreds of miles away”. I thought it was wonderful to see how technology had advanced to this degree. In other times this could not have happened.
The other experience I had was in my own family. My great-grandson, who is two and a half, went to the computer, put in a DVD and waited until it came up on the screen. He knew which buttons to push to fast-forward it to pass the adverts to the part that he wanted to see, and of course he knew how to reverse it back if he missed something. If a two and a half year-old is able to do that, I think there is great hope for the future for technology and I support this amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Willis and those who have spoken in favour of this amendment. There are two issues that are important. One is that this is not just about access to hardware. Yes, we are going to move to a situation where you no longer have a suite of computers within a classroom but instead young people have iPads and technology that is mobile around the classroom and around the whole school, and that will make for a much more flexible atmosphere within the school. Access to the technology is important. I think it was my noble friend Lord Willis, or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who made the point that many of the disadvantaged do not currently have access to broadband or to mobile technologies, both of which are quite expensive. For those existing on a weekly jobseeker’s allowance of £90, it is one of the items that they have to forgo. It is vital, therefore, that our public libraries are open and available to such people so that they can have access through the public library system.
My second point is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, the pedagogy is changing rapidly. The technology is interactive and when you use this interaction, because the learner can respond, you get a different and much more motivational form of learning. It is vital that our teachers are trained to use this pedagogy, recognise its development and move forward with it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we had a very good debate on this issue in Grand Committee, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight for distilling our earlier debates into what we might label a call for action that can be included in the Bill and would ensure that the Government took some of these important issues forward.
Before I go on, though, I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is completely wrong on the previous Government’s record on this. A lot of the groundwork and preparation for what now gives us a launching pad was laid down by the previous Government. We have been given mixed messages so far by the current Government: they do not have technology or ICT in the English Bacc or in their plans for the core curriculum. I understand that Michael Gove has been saying some warm words on the issue, but the gauntlet has now been thrown down to the Government to actually follow this up and act upon it.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam has faced us with the challenge of employability for the next generation if we do not get this right, while both he and my noble friend Lord Knight have once again inspired us with what is possible in terms of revolutionising teaching if we do get it right. The fact is that some schools are already way ahead of the game, and our challenge is to make sure that every child has access to the advantages that technology can bring to the classroom. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who said in Committee that,
“to deliver a 21st century curriculum we have to have 21st century methodology and 21st century equipment”.—[Official Report, 11/7/11; col. GC236.]
There is a massive range of benefits. The most obvious one is that if you have sophisticated equipment as a teaching aid, children’s knowledge of technology applications is enhanced. However, it goes much further than that. Children’s research skills are improved and their access to information multiplied. Homework becomes easier and quicker. They no longer have to rely on the availability of often scarce books in the library. As we have heard, it is transformative, engaging and enthusing. Even the most isolated schools can be linked up with others to share learning experience and to interact. Teachers can be linked together to share best practice, swap teaching modules and experiment with and improve materials. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam rightly pointed out, this change can be delivered at scale across the sector.
When we last debated this, and indeed in the debate we have had today, the importance of computer access for all was a strong theme, and I am sure that we can all agree with that. There is still a worryingly high percentage of families that do not have access to a computer at home and are therefore becoming more isolated and excluded. It is also true that we need to address the training of technology teachers if we are to reap the potential benefits that could come from all this.
There is a tendency to look at this problem in terms of narrow unit cost, whereas we should really apply a much broader cost-benefit analysis that compares the advantages of providing high-quality technology in the classroom and in the home with the damage done if a generation of young people is outsmarted in the global information and communication race. I very much support the amendment and hope that the Minister is able to give the simple commitment to delivering the technology plan by 2012 that the amendment requests.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Willis for raising this important issue. We agree entirely with him, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that the effective use of technology is critical to education in the 21st century and indeed to employment.
In his speech to the Royal Society on 29 June, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State outlined the importance of technological innovation in supporting good teaching and how successful ideas need to spread rapidly through the system. The role of Government in this area is to encourage schools to take better advantage of opportunities presented by digital technologies to engage pupils, improve teaching and deliver education more effectively and efficiently—and, from the messages in this debate, more excitingly as well. The Secretary of State will say more on this later in the year and I cannot pre-empt what he plans to say in that speech.
We know that many schools and teachers are already making excellent use of technology to help deliver their educational aims, and we need to learn from them. As noble Lords have set out so eloquently today, though, there is room for more widespread and innovative use across the system. Some teachers also need more knowledge about how to use technology effectively to support their practice, and we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Paisley, how the very young are often far more proficient in technology than their teachers, parents or, dare I say, grandparents.
However, we should not seek to dictate how schools use technology or seek to plan this centrally. We should allow schools to innovate, working in partnership with industry and other experts. Schools need to respond to these opportunities, making informed decisions about whether and how to adopt new approaches in the best interests of their pupils.
We have spoken to many interested parties including school leaders, professional bodies, educational charities, industry, academics and other experts about technology in schools. The department is also taking forward work to help ensure that schools can get best value when purchasing technology—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned procurement as one of the issues here—and we are working with industry to agree data standards for educational systems. It is at this level that we feel the department should be involved in supporting schools to make best use of technology.
There is no doubt that the effective use of technology can support good teaching and help to raise standards. We welcome the noble Lord’s commitment to the potential of technology to improve education and are grateful for all the ideas that have come forward in this debate and in previous ones.
Lord Puttnam
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I have a question before she sits down. Do the Government conceive it possible that a school might be considered successful that was unsuccessfully delivering ICT, coding and all the other things that this debate has thrown up as being fundamental? Again, my experience of education, having worked in the department, is that heads will react and respond to what they consider will win them brownie points, and the ultimate brownie point is to be deemed a successful school. Could she possibly give us a firm commitment that schools that fail in this area could not be deemed successful?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
It would be almost impossible to deliver the curriculum successfully in a 21st-century school without the effective use of technology. I would have to come back to him on chapter and verse, but I cannot think that it would be possible for a school to deliver the curriculum successfully without a good use of technology.
The ideas in today’s debate and previous debates will be passed back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As I said, later this year he is planning to say more about technology in schools and the role and work of government in this area. We have had a typically constructive and diverse debate today that has taken in acorns, tadpoles and apples. These issues are under active consideration and I hope, in the light of this, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the contributions of noble Lords on all sides of the House in what has been a fascinating 45-minute debate on a subject which your Lordships clearly feel incredibly strongly about. In his question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, put his finger on the pulse of this issue: can a school be successful if it does not have ICT and technology at the heart of delivering a 21st century curriculum? The Minister was generous enough to admit that she did not believe that it was possible. In spite of all the research that she might do, she will not be able to point to a single school in the whole of the United Kingdom that is successful without using technology to deliver its curriculum.
I was interested in the short speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It was telling. She said that her grandson was making good progress with his computer and iPad. Sadly, a million children do not have access to either an iPad or a computer, and they are the ones who are the most disadvantaged. The great sadness about the Minister’s response to this debate is that these children will remain disadvantaged unless a benevolent head teacher in a benevolent school decides that ICT is going to be a priority for that school. Unless it is part of the league table culture it will not be part of it at all.
I am not worried about whether or not it is part of the English baccalaureate. I am much more interested in ICT being the electricity—the energy—that delivers, motivates and turns youngsters on to a high-performing education system.
I leave the House with three comments. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, quite rightly talked about employability and I mentioned that most jobs are advertised on line, yet those that need them most cannot access them online. The educational case was made strongly by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and by my noble friend Lord Lucas, whose passion for technology and ICT knows no bounds. I loved his description of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, sitting on a toadstool somewhere, with frogs all around him spawning. It was a wonderful analogy.
However, my noble friend was fundamentally wrong when he talked about there being only two ideologies: Stalinist or laissez-faire. There is another way and this amendment was neither Stalinist nor laissez-faire. It says to the Secretary of State, “Please take your duties seriously about creating the sorts of framework that allow schools to operate and on which we will judge you”.
This has been an interesting debate. I believe that we will not get much further on this occasion. We have been told that the Secretary of State will make an announcement from on high later. Perhaps he will become the Steve Jobs of government. Or perhaps he will become part of the Amish sect. We will see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Animals: Experimentation
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the regulations governing experiments on animals.
Lord Wills
My Lords, over the past 50 years there has been a profound shift in the way we view our relationship with animals. The ethical framework for that relationship has been changing and that process has become highly contentious and a matter of deep concern for millions of people in this country. At the most extreme, it has led to lawbreaking and violence.
The impact on public policy has been far reaching, as recent debates over hunting with dogs and over circus animals have shown. Perhaps the most important and difficult area is the use of non-human primates in research because it is the area with the most serious and far reaching consequences and because of these animals' evolutionary closeness to us.
There are many who believe that research involving experiments on animals is not justifiable in any circumstances. Others believe that it can be justified only if specifically directed towards medical need, while some believe it can also be justified in the investigation of more basic scientific research. However, it is now widely accepted that scientific and medical research should be carried out only if there is a clear potential benefit and if there is no other means of achieving it. So, for example, following bans introduced by the previous Government on the use of animals to test cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients in 1997 and 1998, the use of animals to test cosmetics or their ingredients is now banned throughout the European Union. This remains a deeply contentious area of public policy, with a wide range of ethical and philosophical considerations in play, passionately held beliefs on all sides, and in a scientific field which is developing at an extraordinary rate.
In these circumstances, it is the Government who hold the ring, balancing these competing views, and it is important that they do so. If the public believe that animals are being cruelly treated or that there is no measurable benefit from the experiments being carried out on them, then public consent is likely to be withdrawn from the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, and potentially valuable research will be lost.
Clearly, the Government's task is not an easy one. The Bateson review, published in July this year, found that in most cases research involving animals was now generally productive and of good scientific quality which may lead to the understanding and treatment of a wide range of human diseases. It also found that in 9 per cent of the research programmes reviewed, no clear scientific, medical or social benefit had emerged. The Minister will be aware that there is growing unease now on all sides about what might lie ahead.
Scientists feel beleaguered, as the Minister will have detected, for example, from a recent question from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in your Lordships' House. I see the noble Lord is due to speak later in this debate and perhaps we will hear more from him then. Those who advocate higher standards of animal welfare and the cessation of experiments using non-human primates are also worried. It is these concerns that I now wish to address in the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers and reassurance to all sides.
Immediate concern is being caused by the implementation of the new EU directive on animal experiments. The Minister will be aware, for example, of the RSPCA's lobbying on this issue and that it is generally accepted that in many ways the EU directive requires standards weaker than current UK ones. I recognise that the Home Office consultation on how to implement the directive has only just closed so the Minister will not yet be able to set out any firm conclusions. However, his department took a 25 per cent cut in its budget in the spending review, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that the Government will not use implementing the EU directive to reduce the number of Home Office inspectors and the number of inspections they carry out each year.
The Minister will be aware how important these inspectors and their inspections are to maintaining and improving standards of animal welfare in experiments. These are not unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; they are vital guarantors of high standards of animal welfare in experiments. While the great majority of scientists carrying out such experiments act ethically and with scrupulous regard to the highest standards of animal welfare, the Minister will have been briefed that there have been notorious cases where distinguished scientists have ignored such concerns and argued they were entitled to do so in pursuit of their research. Given the closed and hierarchical nature of some universities, it can be difficult for those charged with upholding animal welfare standards on site to stand up to such academics. This is particularly important as around 70 per cent of scientific research involving animals is carried out in non-commercial academic institutions, which are self-regulating apart from the role of the Home Office. So Home Office inspectors and inspections represent a crucial protection against such concerns for animal welfare being ridden over roughshod.
There have also been concerns that the ethical review process should not be scrapped but retained and improved; concerns that the EU directive should not permit higher levels of animal suffering; and concerns about newly permitted methods of killing animals which are likely to cause public concern. I should welcome any reassurance the Minister can give on these issues.
Transparency is a crucial aid to good governance. I understand that the Government have accepted that the EU directive requires reconsideration of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Amending the section so that it does not apply to disclosures in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act would increase transparency. That would mean that someone leaking information for commercial gain or to assist extremists would still commit an offence. However, if an FOI request went to the Home Office, the Home Office could then release information provided other relevant exemptions did not apply. Those exemptions should be sufficient to protect legitimate interests, such as health and safety, the locations of animal experimentation, the privacy of the names and addresses of researchers, breach of confidence and any genuinely commercially sensitive information. I should be grateful if the Minister could set out what consideration the Government have given to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.
Looking beyond the EU directive and its implementation, there remain fundamental questions about the use of non-human primates in experiments. Last year, I understand that some 2,649 non-human primates were used in scientific and medical research in the UK, under strictly regulated conditions. While there may be no immediate substitute for the carefully regulated conditions that I have described, that should not be an argument for not continuing to seek such substitutes in the future. The Weatherall report, which was published five years ago in 2006, noted:
“There is an impressive body of work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in research. There have been remarkable advances in recent years in molecular and cell biology, non-invasive imaging, computer modelling and systems biology approaches, as well as techniques for human studies”.
I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships tonight that the Government will encourage and support such work continuing. In the long term, this can be done, and broad public support for the use of such animals in experiments maintained, only in the context of the national strategic plan called for by the Weatherall report five years ago. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships what progress is being made in drawing up such a plan and when he expects a draft to be published and put out to consultation.
In maintaining such public support, it is also crucial that there should be a clear potential benefit from such experiments. As I mentioned earlier, it is now generally accepted that their use in testing cosmetics does not result in such benefits. Therefore, the European Commission is now consulting on a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. I understand that while other European countries have supported such a ban, the UK Government have still to make their views known. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships’ House whether the UK Government will support such a ban and, if not, why not.
As long as it is accepted that animals may be used in experiments, questions will arise about the acceptable limits of such experiments. Here it is becoming accepted that it is the lifetime experience of the animal that is of paramount importance. Project licences detail only individual procedures that cover only direct suffering and ignore contingent suffering, such as conditions of housing, husbandry and transport, and the period of time over which such direct and contingent suffering occurs. If the Government are to maintain a broad public consensus on the use of animals in experiments, this must include maintaining a broad consensus on acceptable levels of cumulative severity of suffering. This cannot be left to self-regulation. The maintenance of public consensus is a job for government. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to address this issue in the context of the new world into which we are now moving.
Finally, the coalition agreement pledged that the Government will,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”.
The Minister will be aware that there are many who wait anxiously to see some practical results from this pledge. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, for example, has submitted more than 30 proposals for ways to make progress in fulfilling this pledge. I should be grateful if the Minister could say when the Government will respond to these suggestions. This is a particularly difficult and contentious area of public policy, involving as it does profound ethical issues, potentially invaluable research into the treatment and cure of human disease, valuable commercial and economic interests and the passionately held beliefs of millions of people in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions of distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House to this debate, informed as they will be by their extensive experience in this field. I also look forward to answers from the Minister to the questions that I have asked tonight.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing this debate, even though there has been a great deal of time between his proposing the debate and our having it in the dinner hour.
I say to your Lordships how important it is that, in using animals in science, whether medical science or elsewhere, the highest levels of transparency are always maintained over how animals of all species—not just non-human primates—are used. It is important across the whole spectrum in the furthering of scientific knowledge. I declare an interest as the chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, which represents some 126 medical charities that are involved in medical research. I make it clear that AMRC is a member of the UK bioscience sector coalition, which has made a co-ordinated response to EU directive 2010/63, which governs animal research. However, several of our members have made separate responses to the directive because of their own interests.
Our starting point as a coalition was to ask the following questions. Will the directive improve standards of welfare for laboratory animals across the whole of the EU? Will it improve the quality for procedures permitted on animals across the EU? Will it drive down the requirement for animal procedures in line with the world-leading NC3Rs initiative? Will it help to maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading bio and medical science destination? The answer to all four questions was an emphatic yes. We believe that it will. However, given the high standards that exist in the UK, the question rightly being asked by several organisations—the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made reference to this—is: will the directive reduce standards in UK laboratories and open the way for less acceptable procedures, as is claimed by many of the opponents to the directive? I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord did not raise this in his opening speech.
The response from the coalition could not be clearer. As we said in our evidence, our priorities are: to promote high-quality science and patient benefits; to ensure high standards of animal welfare; to apply the principles of the three Rs; to harmonise EU regulatory requirements so that we do not have different levels in different countries; and to promote public confidence in humane animal research, which can be done only through openness and transparency. The idea that such a wide range of organisations as are part of the coalition, of which only two represent commercial interests, should wish to see standards lowered is quite offensive. Indeed, it would be counterproductive. You cannot achieve world-class research unless you treat your animal models with respect and care.
Seeking to strip away needless bureaucracy that does little for science or animal welfare is a positive, rather than negative, move. We are convinced that giving a greater emphasis to inspection, and making recommendations from inspections the basis for improvement, is far better for science, patients and the interests of animals than sheaves of paper-based accountancy, which is what we have at the moment. Transparency is about what goes on in the breeding centres, animal houses and laboratories; ensuring that research programmes are carried out to the letter of their remit; and, where there are changes, that those changes are themselves transparent and approved. Let me make clear that the myths and distortions spread by Animal Aid and others do little to encourage the quality of debate to which we have grown accustomed over the past 10 years when discussing animal procedures and science.
Let me take a number of those myths and distortions head-on. Animal Aid claims that the coalition wishes to scrap the ban on the use of great apes. That is completely untrue. The UK bioscience sector coalition can see absolutely no circumstances in which there would be a requirement to use great apes in medical research. They have not been used in the UK for the past 25 years and there is no reason that they should be in the future. However, it was stressed in our response to the directive that recent deaths in wild gorillas due to human viruses mean that there is a serious threat posed to that species. It would be quite wrong for us to say that we would not do any work on great apes or any other species that was endangered. That would be a nonsense, and yet that is exactly what we are being accused of doing.
The second area of concern is about stray cats and dogs. It is claimed that we,
“wish to lift the prohibition on the use of stray cats and dogs”,
and that we could re-establish the historical link between UK pet thieves and animal researchers. This does not only a huge disservice to medical science but makes the whole proposal laughable. The idea that you would use feral animals for experiments to get reliable results is utter nonsense and needs to be quashed. What does this directive aim to do? Certainly, harmonisation is at the centre of it. We do not deny that there has been an increase in the number of animals used in procedures, particularly in the past couple of years, with some 3.7 million being used in 2010. However, 47 per cent of those include animals that are bred to be used in laboratories, particularly transgender mice. It also includes the production of zebrafish on which to experiment. When you look at the figures more closely, you see that the use of dogs has gone down by 2 per cent, rabbits by 10 per cent, cats by 32 per cent and guinea pigs by 29 per cent. We need to have a rational debate on this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, rightly said, without clear transparency, openness and the sorts of response he rightly seeks from Ministers, people who have a genuine interest in medical science and who want to see animals treated well during these procedures will not get the answers they deserve. However, frankly, those who scaremonger should get the results that they deserve.
Lord Winston
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Wills on securing this debate I declare an interest. I have held a licence to carry out animal research for more than 40 years. I may be the only Member of this House to do so. I still have an active licence and, indeed, went to see the Home Office inspector only two weeks ago. I am also chairman of a company that is involved in transplantation work using pig organs. I recently had to go to the Home Office for revalidation. I have a certificate from the Institute of Biology hanging up in my lavatory. Unfortunately, that institute does not have a typewriter that works terribly well. The certificate states:
“This is to certify that Professor Robert Winston is licensed to operate on mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster and rabbi”.
No rabbi has visited my house to inspect the certificate, which is probably just as well. I replied using a typewriter which had all the “t”s missing; I felt that was the only way in which I could reply.
I am not sure that this matter is as deeply contentious as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, says it is. Let us face it: 95 per cent of us perfectly happily wear leather shoes. We should put the animal rights lobby into some kind of focus. I regularly speak at all sorts of public meetings around the country and I do not get the impression that animal research is so contentious. Of course, various issues still need to be addressed, but I fear that we might exaggerate the public response to this, which serves no good purpose.
My field has largely been that of in vitro fertilisation and reproductive biology. It is interesting to consider that more than 1 million babies could not have existed without the research that has been carried out on rodents. That is true of my work in the screening of embryos for genetic disorders. This has been a revolution in reproductive medicine. It means that women can embark on a pregnancy knowing for certain that they will be free from having a baby which will die in the first few years of life. That was made possible purely through extensive animal research. Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field, whether it be the liver, heart, brain or kidneys, or neuroscience or any major discipline. Last year’s Nobel prize in my field was won as a result of medical research on animals, as has often been the case with many Nobel prize winners.
I am now involved in the field of transplantation. One of the interesting issues is that organ failure is extremely common. Around the world every 15 minutes or so a new person is put on an organ transplant waiting list. I work at Imperial College London. Using mice initially but also pigs, we are trying to modify the cell surface antigens of the pig so that they are not recognised by the human immune system, so that when an organ is transplanted—a kidney, heart or liver—it may not be rejected. That is an ethical imperative. It saves human life in a way that no artificial organ appears to be capable of doing. We may talk about bionics in our society but I think that it will be at least 20 or 30 years before an artificially made organ is remotely possible. However, xenotransplantation now has a real possibility of saving vast numbers of lives and improving medical care.
I do not think we can argue that there is any substitute for animal research. Of course, reduction is possible but I do not think that substitution is. I give an example. Much has been made of the use of cell culture to replace animal research. I speak with some knowledge of cell culture, having worked in that field for a very long time with my embryos and with other tissues. However, the problem with cell cultures is that they produce huge numbers of aberrations which are not produced in the intact animal. In the intact rodent we are able to study cell signalling in a way that goes completely awry in a cell culture. The epigenetic changes that occur in cell culture mean that genes often do not express in the way that they would do normally in the intact animal. Of course, even organ culture will not do that either. It is a very technical issue.
I have worked with animals in the United States, in Belgium for a year, in France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. In Britain, the overall standard of inspection, control and regulation as it stands—with or without the European directive—is remarkably high. We should, however, try to improve our animal houses; that would be a great help. The problem, of course, is that universities often do not have enough money to do that.
We need to say very clearly that it would be unthinkable to take any drug which has not been tested on an intact animal. In fact, there is a case for having legislation to make it clear that a particular drug has only been possible for human consumption because of animal testing. This could be stamped on the packet, rather like a cigarette packet. With the medical advances, and the advances in animal well-being which have resulted from animal research, we should not lose focus on the overall picture. I urge the Minister to consider those in his deliberations in Europe.
Finally, one of the key issues is public engagement. It is a matter of great disappointment to many of us that, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, which has so much at stake in this country, and which contributes so enormously to our economy, has not been much more forward in trying to point out that it uses animal research. It is quite shocking that every university in this country does not admit that we have an animal house where we do animal experiments. If we do not say this very clearly to the public, if we do not make that message clear, then of course people will start to think there is something clandestine or something to be ashamed of in our research programmes. I really do not think that is true. Overall, from what I have seen in 40 years, the standards in animal care, improving as they are, are remarkably better than in almost any other jurisdiction, except for the circumstances in animal houses, which are sometimes not as good as they should be because of the financial limits in what we can provide for their housing.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are having a great debate, but can we please watch the clock?
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I want to make three points. First, the United Kingdom has a very good record on concern about animal welfare in animal experiments. However, the process has in the past been bureaucratic. In 2002, the Select Committee of this House, of which I was a member, observed that the best form of regulation was not necessarily the most bureaucratic form of regulation. We had an example of one very eminent scientist, who was very experienced in the use of animals, who had to fill in a form in order to obtain a project licence of some 300 pages. The situation has improved—I understand that a good new form for project licence applications was introduced at the end of 2010—but there is a variation in the attitudes of the inspectors. Some inspectors are very niggling in their requirements for information and others are very helpful. I hope that the Home Office will see to it that there is some sort of uniformity and a respect for best practice.
The second point I want to make, very briefly, is about the European directive. I gather that its origins lie in the fact that some of the European countries do not have proper regulations. It is very welcome for that reason. It is welcome also because it simplifies applications for licences. However, I am told by my scientific friends that there is one thing that has to be watched—there is more emphasis on checks and reports. It is a somewhat prescriptive directive and could become onerous; or it could be perfectly tolerable, depending on how it is translated into UK law. Our record in translating EU directives into UK law is not always exemplary. In many cases, a very bureaucratic interpretation is given to it, with details that are not insisted on by other countries, which places this country at a disadvantage. I am sure that the Government will consult very carefully and widely and will listen to the observations which are made.
My third point is a more general one. There is no doubt that there is an increase in the public understanding of the need for animal research, and I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that one exaggerates the degree of the concern these days. I think that something like three-quarters of all people, when asked by opinion polls, say that they have no objection to animal research if it is for the benefit of medicine and science. However, it is claimed that the situation is deteriorating and that there has been an increase in the use of animals. This has mainly been an increase in the use of mice, and mainly—as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has pointed out—because of the breeding of mice. Since the increase in knowledge of the genome, there has been more breeding of mice with changed genes, which enables more focused and productive research.
It also has to be realised that another recommendation in the committee’s 2002 report, for a special emphasis on the three Rs, has been successful. I was somewhat sceptical about this because there has always been a huge incentive for scientists not to use animals unnecessarily or cruelly, because stress is a great disadvantage in experiments. However, I understand that there has been success in the promotion of replacement, reduction and refinement. For example, the Ames test to determine whether a chemical has potential to cause cancer now uses bacteria instead of rodents. Some tests now use less complex animals than previously. In the case of pyrogens, blood cells from the horseshoe crab replace tests on rabbits.
Public support is of course important—as many previous speakers have pointed out. The progress made in the three Rs also plays a part in this, and there is no doubt that there has been better education, but it could still be improved. I would add to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that it would be beneficial if every general practice surgery displayed a notice stating, “All the drugs used or recommended in this surgery have been tested on animals”. It has also been true that the activities of animal rights terrorists have been countered by much more effective police action and by some severe sentences imposed by the courts. This is one instance in which severity in sentencing can be proved to be effective.
It is for the sake not only of the health of human beings but of the welfare of animals that we continue to be vigilant to ensure that animal research proceeds effectively and with due care for the animals affected.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Wills for initiating this debate. It is good that there is so much agreement across the House on such an important topic. Like others, I start from the premise that medical research has saved or improved the lives of millions of people and that we should do everything possible to avoid harming its progress.
From my previous experience in the university world, where a substantial proportion of medical research is conducted, I know that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are required and adhered to. That is as true in research involving animals as in other areas. Research using animals has been the fundamental basis for many of the medical advances that we now rely on. I do not think that I can do better than quote the Wellcome Trust, one of the most important funding charities in this field. It said:
“The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice”.
There is a long list of diseases and treatments where these advances have had an impact—tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, stroke, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and anaesthetics. In the area of organ transplants, in which I have an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, heart and kidney transplant techniques, together with vital anti-rejection medication, were developed using animals—as my noble friend Lord Winston described so vividly. In the financial year 2009-10, 3,706 people received major organ transplants through the NHS.
Using sentient animals in research places a huge responsibility on researchers and Governments. Regulation is therefore essential. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to protect research animals by law, in 1876. The UK is now widely regarded as having the tightest legislative control on medical research in the world, together with a reputation for high animal welfare standards. Perhaps even more telling, in order to obtain a license to experiment on animals, researchers must demonstrate to the Home Office that their research cannot be done using alternative non-animal methods.
This nevertheless remains a highly controversial area—as has emerged from each contribution to the debate. Certainly I recall that university campuses experience more publicity, campaigns and sometimes violent protests about animal rights than they do over any other activity or difference of opinion. The moral debate on this issue continues, and I would argue that there is a need and a responsibility for those involved in research, and even more those funding it, to explain their methods and to constantly reaffirm to the public the benefits of their work. As others have said, although that is clearly desirable, it is not always easy. The protests on campus can be targeted at individual scientists and sometimes their families. Identifying individuals or promoting their work could make them vulnerable to attack. There have been sufficient of these incidents in the past to make universities wary of opening up this work to a wider audience through the media.
Although the level of activity has reduced in recent years, the methods have changed. Communication technologies mean that universities can be disrupted more easily with no notice and for longer periods. Indeed, Universities UK, an organisation of which until recently I was chief executive, is one of several bodies supporting an organisation called support4rs, which provides advice and support to individuals and organisations who use animals in biological and medical research to help them deal with animal rights extremism. There is always the concern that those activities could have a chilling effect on legitimate university research.
However, universities are becoming much more open about the use of animal experimentation, which is an important step towards ensuring that there is a well informed and healthy debate. The Minister, in a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, earlier this month, referred to the three Rs: replacement of animal use, refinement of the procedures used, and reduction of the numbers used. This policy approach has certainly gained support in the university sector and, most importantly, is becoming embedded in research training.
I said that this area is controversial, but people in the UK have positive views about animal research. Surveys show that about three-quarters of them accept the need to use animals in research to make medical progress, and nine out of 10 do so as long as certain regulatory conditions are met. So the UK's commitment to regulation has paid off handsomely in terms of public confidence.
Within the research community, however, a major concern is that the UK's controls are too complex and bureaucratic . In an excellent briefing that I received from the UK Bioscience Sector Coalition, it expressed the hope that the new European directive governing animal research, to which other noble Lords have referred, could be an opportunity to remove some of the unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy, which, I agree, benefits neither science nor animal welfare.
Every speaker in this debate has emphasised both the importance and the benefits of research using animals, alongside the rigour of its regulation. The Minister himself did the same only recently in this House. In conclusion, therefore, I simply ask him to confirm that the new regulations will be transposed in a way that will maintain the UK's high reputation and enable the UK to become a world leader in the biosciences sector.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I also express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for enabling us to discuss this important and, on some occasions, emotive issue. We are a nation of animal lovers, and if we believe, rightly or wrongly, that animals are suffering as a result of the deliberate actions of humans, including carrying out experiments on animals, we tend to react.
In the light of the revised EU directive governing animal research being adopted, the regulation of animal research in the United Kingdom is under review, as the directive must be transposed into UK law by November 2012, with the majority of the provisions of the revised directive implemented in UK legislation from 1 January 2013. As I understand it, the mandatory standards of care and accommodation will not have to be implemented until 1 January 2017.
It was of course an earlier European directive that led to the current regulations on animal research, which have statutory force under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The 1986 Act states that animal research or testing procedures can take place only in research facilities that have been granted a certificate of designation, where the procedures are part of an approved programme that has been given a project licence, and where they are carried out by experienced and trained people who have a personal licence to undertake such activity.
The revised European directive appears to have been received with rather more enthusiasm by those who believe that our controls are too complex and strict than by those who are concerned that harmonisation on the basis of the revised directive could lead to a watering down of some of our standards on animal research and testing—to the detriment, not least, of the animals involved.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Wills sought a number of assurances from the Government. Included among those were: an assurance, in the light of the financial cuts, that the Government will not reduce the number of Home Office inspectors or the number of inspections; an assurance that the ethical review process will not be abolished; and an assurance that the revised EU directive will not be allowed to weaken our existing standards and lead to an increase in animal suffering, including the cumulative severity of suffering. He also asked whether the Government had given consideration to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act to increase transparency, and for an assurance that the Government is giving support for work on developing alternatives—in particular, to non-human primates—in research.
My noble friend referred to the Bateson review, which I believe was published in the summer, and its finding that, while in most cases the use of non-human primates was justifiable, in just under 10 per cent of cases there appeared to be no significant scientific, medical or social benefit. Among other things, the Bateson review proposed: that all applications for funding to use non-human primates should be subject to rigorous review; that there should be a full examination of the justification for choosing primates as the test species, including whether human subjects could be used as an alternative; and that the potential for using alternative approaches should be pursued. The review also stressed the ethical imperative that maximum benefit should be derived from experiments using primates and that all data should be shared, even if the results are negative, to prevent unnecessary duplication of work.
My noble friend also asked whether the Government would support the proposal in a European Commission consultation for a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. He also referred to the Government's own commitment to,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”,
and in effect asked what decisions had been taken, and were likely to be taken, towards fulfilling that pledge.
I am sure that the Minister in his reply will be seeking to respond to the many direct questions asked by my noble friend. This is not an easy issue and no one wants to pretend that it is. Many important advances to the benefit of mankind have been achieved as a result of experiments on animals, and no doubt further much-needed advances will be achieved in the future. There is, however, a natural revulsion against any inhumane treatment of animals and there is an objection to experiments being carried out if they appear to have little or no obvious benefit. There is also a feeling that advances in science and in knowledge should result in the need to use living animals less for research; that surely should continue to be an objective.
Changes in a European directive should not lead to any lowering of our standards covering the use of animals in research. Where our standards and procedures are higher than those called for in the directive, we should, as we are entitled to do, retain those higher standards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances on that point and on the other issues raised by my noble friend, on a subject matter which we all accept is not straightforward but which, if not addressed by government—any Government—in a humane and careful manner is likely to increase hostile feelings. If that happens on any significant scale, as my noble friend said, we could risk losing the consent of the public for the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, with potentially valuable research being lost. No one would want us to end up in that position.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for reminding us that this is not an easy issue. That is almost the most important point he made in the course of his address. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing this debate and attracting such a wide range of expertise to speak in it. I thank my noble friend Lord Willis, who is the chairman of the Association of Medical Research Charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who has held the licence from the Home Office for some 40 years—I apologise to him on behalf of Home Office Ministers some 40 years ago who had a typewriter that did not have any “t”s in it. I will make sure that is corrected in due course and the appropriate licence is issued, but no doubt the noble Lord has the appropriate licence. I will say a little more about what the noble Lord had to say later on; he made some very important points.
We also heard my noble friend Lord Taverne, who again has a great record in this area. I was very encouraged that he reminded the House that we have a very good record in this country and it is something that we should be proud of. However, it is obviously something that we must get right. Again, I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, with her experience as a former chief executive of Universities UK, talk about the importance of research in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke about the need for the Government to hold the ring to provide balance. I am not sure that “holding the ring” is necessarily the right analogy—I cannot remember quite where it comes from—but let us just talk about providing balance, because I think that balance is important.
I start by saying—here I echo the expert remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston—that animal experimentation continues to be absolutely vital both in developing the improvements in healthcare that we have seen over the past hundred or however many years it is and in ensuring that all our health services continue to function effectively with the gains that have been provided to us over the years. I was very grateful for everything that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said about IVF and the number of Nobel prize winners whose research had been involved and so on. I was also grateful for what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said about the need to ensure that there is appropriate public engagement in these matters. Again, it is very important that the right message about what we are doing is put across to everyone.
Having said all that—this is where I add my “but”—we have a moral obligation to ensure that effective arrangements are made for the protection of animals used in that work. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was right to talk about a balance. I have used the word “balance” virtually every day that I have spoken for the Home Office in this House, but this is one area where balance is absolutely vital—a balance between the need for research and the need for effective protection.
The regulation of animal experiments and testing is of significant public interest—a point emphasised by all noble Lords. The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare and protection for animals used for scientific purposes.
That brings me to the transposition of the new European directive, mentioned particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but also by my noble friend Lord Taverne. We believe that getting the transposition of the directive is absolutely vital. It provides a valuable and timely opportunity for the United Kingdom to review all its legislation governing experiments on animals. It also provides an opportunity to confirm the best aspects of current regulation and to make improvements where we can do better. We believe that the new directive will help us to promote the further development of alternatives to the use of animals. It will also allow us further to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—where it exists and to streamline our existing processes where this will not adversely affect animal welfare, building on the significant improvements that we have already made in the day-to-day implementation of current regulations.
Concerns have been expressed that the transposition of the new directive will lead to a weakening of United Kingdom standards. I emphasise that my understanding was that the Commission looked to this country more than any other to check the standards because we are the model. However, I give an assurance that we will certainly not be looking to reduce our standards in any way whatever. Further to that, Article 2 of the directive provides a mechanism that we can use to retain current higher UK standards, and we intend to use that mechanism wherever necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked a number of questions. I hope to address them more or less in the order that he put them and, in the process, to deal with some of the other points raised by other noble Lords. I start with the inspectorate. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Rosser, that we will maintain a strong and properly resourced inspectorate. The relationship among inspectors, establishments and licence holders is crucial to the effective implementation of the regulatory framework and we will not jeopardise that. The inspectorate will continue to carry out a comprehensive programme of inspections.
In their present form, local ethical review processes in licensed establishments—which have made a very significant contribution to animal welfare and the reduction, replacement and refinement of animal welfare procedures—will continue. Again, I was grateful that noble Lords stressed those three Rs. The new European directive requires each breeder, supplier and user to set up an animal welfare body with similar functions but less extensive membership. The recent public consultation has shown that there is widespread support from all sectors in the United Kingdom for animal welfare bodies to have a broader membership and a more extensive role than that set out in the directive. I assure the House that we will take full account of those views when we conclude our transposition of that aspect of the new directive.
Turning to the question of transparency raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, we will also continue to encourage the full publication of a range of information about animal research to assist public understanding of its purpose and value. That was something that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was concerned about. To this end we will aim to publish non-technical summaries for all licensed projects. We will also consider how we might adapt Section 24 of the 1986 Act—the statutory bar to disclosure—to enable more information to be disclosed, again ensuring that proper safeguards are included.
I turn now to the use of non-human primates. First, I can assure my noble friend Lord Willis that we do intend to continue the current ban on the use of great apes and likewise we will continue the ban on the use of stray animals that he asked about. There are particular concerns about the use of non-human primates. Research using non-human primates is a small but currently vital part of work to protect and improve human lives. I assure the House that the Government will continue to be supportive of all work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in scientific research.
The Weatherall report provided a valuable contribution to this issue. I would like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on one aspect. It did not actually call for a national strategic plan, but made 16 valuable recommendations, which are being taken forward by their respective constituencies. In terms of public support for the use of animals in scientific research, the most relevant recommendation was for scientific journals to incorporate details of animal welfare and the steps taken to ameliorate suffering, when publishing papers that involved non-human primate research.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research—the national centre for the 3Rs—has developed guidelines for the publication of research using animals, which specifically include the requirement to describe husbandry and welfare associated measures. These guidelines have since been taken up by a large number of journals, including Nature and associated publications. Although we know from the most recent RSPCA survey of journal policies that there is more the sector could do, we are pleased with the direction of travel.
Following the Weatherall report, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, will be aware, we had the report of Professor Bateson, which reviewed medical research projects conducted over the last 10 years using non-human primates. His report noted that the research under review was generally of good quality and was highly cited, while some was of outstanding quality. The review panel was, however, concerned about the small proportion—about 9 per cent of research programmes—from which no clear scientific, medical or social benefit emerged. The Medical Research Council has responded that all research involves testing new ideas and that it is inevitable that some of it does not work out. The MRC will continue to work to ensure that all grant recipients using non-human primates are clear about the expected scientific, medical or social benefits and, if these are not realised, that the reasons why are explored to ensure that lessons are learnt for the future.
I am beginning to run low on time. I will move on to the points raised about a cosmetics marketing ban, which is a much more complex matter than it first appears. The marketing ban is being phased in and took effect in 2009 for all cosmetics and ingredients except for those used in tests for the most complex human health effects. The full marketing ban was always conditional on there being full and validated replacement tests in place. We know that such tests will not be available by the 2013 deadline referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact were the ban to go ahead in 2013. We take the issue very seriously and will work with the Commission and others ahead of an expected decision at the end of the year. We will take into account all available evidence before reaching a United Kingdom position.
I have two minutes to touch on the comments that the noble Lord made about the coalition commitments. The coalition agreed to include a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. We will look closely at all suggestions to deliver on that commitment, including those from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and others, and will respond in due course. The commitment will be delivered through a science-led programme led by the national centre for the three Rs. The national centre was selected because it has provided exceptional leadership and is internationally recognised as a world leader in this area. It will closely involve all government departments and agencies, including the Home Office inspectorate, research communities in both academia and industry and others with relevant animal welfare interests.
This has been a very useful and thought-provoking debate. The transposition of the new directive and the revision of current UK legislation is a complex task, and in the course of the debate it has been possible to cover only a small fraction of the issues involved. However, it has been useful and I hope that it will help us to prepare for the task ahead. I thank all noble Lords who spoke.
Education Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:44 - Division on Amendment 63A - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 118 - Amendment 63A disagreed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, in Grand Committee we debated at some length the merits of Clause 30, which covers the duty to co-operate. Following the debate, I undertook to reflect further with my ministerial colleagues on the issues that noble Lords had raised. I also had an opportunity to discuss things further with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and others over the summer. I am grateful to them for their time and advice. As a result, we tabled amendments to the effect that Clauses 30 and 31, which were linked, should not stand part of the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, accepted that the Government were in favour of schools working together, that we felt that they did not need a duty to do so, and that a number of schools had made that case strongly to us. However, I also accept the point that he and my noble friend Lady Walmsley made that at a time when the Government have recently announced pathfinders to test and work through our SEN Green Paper proposals, which seek to encourage greater partnership working, we should not risk sending to this sector any confusing messages about the importance of partnerships. I took their advice and decided that the simplest thing to do was to delete the relevant clauses. I believe that that move will be welcomed by many noble Lords, including those on the Front Bench opposite, who I know shared the concerns that were raised. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have worked with me over the summer. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for listening to our views and responding in the way that he has. It is quite rare in our proceedings to find a government amendment that has names from those on all other Benches attached to it. In this case the accolades and plaudits that the Minister will get from all noble Lords are well deserved.
In the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, of 6 October, the Minister said:
“While we work through with interested parties as to how the proposals in the Green Paper on SEN and disability will promote better collaboration, we are happy that the duty to co-operate should remain”.
When the legislation comes before us, which will result from the SEN Green Paper undoubtedly—I assume that will be some time next year—can my noble friend assure us that the duty to co-operate will not be deleted in that legislation without consultation with those of us who have expressed the wish to keep it in this legislation?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
The Minister knows how much I welcome the amendment. I have not been part of the formal consultation but have managed to speak to him on a number of occasions informally and impressed on him the importance of local authorities and schools working together, simply because in doing so they learn each other’s minds. One area that has always improved is the safeguarding element between them because of working together. I thank the Minister for what he has done and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I hope that he will maintain that co-operation in the legislation throughout our future debates.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment—or everybody’s amendment, really. It clearly is right and proper that schools and children’s services play their part within the broader community. In a recent survey of almost 1,000 governors, carried out by the National Governors Association and the TES, a significant majority of governors agreed that schools should play a key role in the provision of children’s services in the area. Indeed, that makes sense, and is surely what the Government were aiming to do—to get everybody involved in children’s education to work together for their benefit.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the government amendments not to repeal the duties in Clauses 30 and 31. The Minister probably had to do some convincing back at the ranch, so to speak. It would be rather surprising if he did not, but I am certainly glad that those provisions will remain on the statute book.
I have a few questions about the situation now. Despite the measures in the government amendments, there is some confusion about the Government’s commitment. I perhaps echo something of where the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is coming from. Amendment 62 restores Section 10 of the Child Care Act 2000—the duty to co-operate to improve well-being. That Section 10 refers to “academy” as one of the schools on which the duty is imposed, but as we know, Clause 52 of the Bill creates three different types of academies: academy schools; 16 to 19 academies; and alternative provision academies. First, for the avoidance of doubt, is it the Minister’s understanding that the duty to co-operate will apply to those three types of new academies, as well as the generic term in the Child Care Act?
Secondly, there has been a revocation of regulations that were introduced some time ago to apply the duty to pupil referral units. The Government have already revoked that requirement. Can the Minister assure us that he will now overturn this revocation and bring pupil referral units back into the duty to co-operate, as was originally the case before the Government acted?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for the response from noble Lords. The accolades predicted by my noble friend Lady Walmsley were not heaped on me in quite the numbers I might have hoped for, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, but I am grateful for the ones that I received. I am grateful to noble Lords for helping me get to this position.
In response to the point made my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which also picks up on one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, yes, with regard to future legislation to do with SEN and trying to bring about greater partnership, there clearly would be consultation with noble Lords in the way that my noble friend suggested were any future change to be proposed. Whether it is or not, I do not know. Time will tell, in the context—which I think noble Lords welcomed—that we should look at this issue in the round, in terms of our plans for trying to encourage greater partnership working. That is something we are keen to do.
On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about academies, I can assure her that it will apply to all the types of academies. On the guidance, it was our view that the 100 or so pages of statutory guidance, and, indeed, the regulations around the children and young people’s plan, were overly proscriptive. Those requirements went last August, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said. I am not certain that their departure has been enormously noted. The key point is that, with the duty now in place, local authorities will be able to develop effective plans with partners that reflect local priorities. The Children Act 2004 sets out the overarching requirement for the local authority, schools and other partners to co-operate to improve children’s life chances—through joined-up planning, for example. We think that local areas will be able best to judge what should be in their plans.
I know that there were a couple of other important points that the noble Baroness raised. As I do not want to get anything wrong, I will, if I may, follow that up with her in correspondence.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“( ) In section 84 (code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “requirements” insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.
( ) In section 84 (code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “other matters” insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 63A and 66A, which relate to Clause 34, on the subject of admissions. Amendment 63A would require the code on school admissions to have a duty to ensure fair access to opportunity for education. Amendment 66A would require the Secretary of State to promote fair access to education and training. We regard those two amendments as consequential, one on another.
Let us remind ourselves briefly of the very important debate we had in Grand Committee. Many concerns were expressed about the provisions in the Bill, and the way the Government were changing the arrangements on admissions. As it stands, the Bill introduces a number of changes to admissions. These include reductions in the powers of the school adjudicator. The Bill removes the power of the adjudicator to direct a school or a local authority to change those of its admissions policies which breach the code. It removes the power of the adjudicator to look more widely at school admissions and practices when they receive a specific complaint. It also abolishes local admissions forums, which can resolve parents’ issues locally and avoid complaints going to the adjudicator.
The Government have brought forward some minor amendments, which we will discuss after this group. I thank the Minister now, as I will later, for his Keeling schedule, and the efforts he has made to explain those amendments. They are important, but they do not address the subject of the amendments in the current group. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to promote fair access to education, and to ensure that the admissions code also required fair access to opportunity for education.
So why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because academies are their own admissions authorities and as the number of academies grows, which is the Government’s intention, to a point where most or all of our 20,000-odd schools are academies, parents making applications will face a bewildering and inconsistent patchwork of different admission arrangements at different schools.
In fact, there is already information that this is the case in some boroughs where the majority of secondary schools are academies. For example, someone might live very close to a school, but that school does not have as one of its admission criteria proximity of the pupil’s home to the school, so the pupil could not satisfy that criterion. But the same child may live too far away from the next nearest school which does admit pupils on the basis of proximity. There is a real problem for parents in the future as more schools become academies. Schools that are highly performing are often very popular and it is crucial to ensure that access is fair so that children from all backgrounds can benefit. Even the most articulate parents and those who know the system best might struggle in a borough in which every single school operates a different set of admissions criteria, but for those for whom English is a second language or who feel they can navigate the system less well, the risk must surely be that their children simply end up in those schools that are undersubscribed and where others choose not to apply. However, since it is not yet the case that every school is an outstanding school, parents’ ability to choose a school in a transparent way within a fair and consistent admissions system is even more important.
In Grand Committee, I noted that the new draft admissions code contains the word “fair” 26 times, including in the line:
“The purpose of the Code is to ensure that all school places for maintained schools … and Academies are allocated and offered in an open and fair way”.
But using the word “fair” so many times does not give the code the duty to ensure that fairness, and that is what these amendments would achieve. They would also hold the Secretary of State accountable for ensuring that access is fair. This goes to the crux of the debate in Grand Committee because, leaving aside the detail of the Government’s arrangements, there is a great deal of concern that responsibility for ensuring fair access should be built into the arrangements on admissions. Some similar amendments to those I am putting forward today were tabled in Grand Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that what concerned her was that someone should have oversight as to whether fair access is going on. I agree with her, and I note that the noble Baroness and her colleagues have tabled similar amendments.
In Grand Committee the Minister told us that the draft admissions code is designed to ensure fair access and local authorities are under a duty to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring fair access to opportunity for education and training. But in an increasing number of cases, particularly at secondary level, whereas I have already said that there are no or few schools in which the local authority is the admissions authority, because they are all academies, it is difficult to see how this will protect parents and children. That is because so far as admissions are concerned, the local authority is irrelevant. So Amendment 66A would give the Secretary of State a duty to promote fair access, while Amendment 63A would ensure that all admissions authorities, when setting their criteria, would have to set them so as to ensure fairness of access. The Liberal Democrat amendment also tabled in this group would have the same effect as our Amendment 66A, but we have used the term “promote fair access” while they have used the words,
“to ensure fair access … as far as is reasonably practicable”.
I do not think that there is much to choose between them.
This is not a debate about the detail of the Government’s proposals. It is an argument that says: given the changes the Government are making—dismantling to some extent the checks and balances in the current system on admissions—and the ambition that every school should be an academy and therefore its own admissions authority, it is vital, in our view, that there is an overarching obligation on the admissions code to ensure fair access and that the Secretary of State has an overarching duty to be accountable for promoting fair access overall.
As I said in Committee, it is not that we are not in favour of more freedom and autonomy for schools, but we believe in trying to achieve a balance between the interests of schools on the one hand and the interests of parents and children on the other. There should be a duty outside the school system itself—that is, in the admissions code and with the Secretary of State—to ensure that that fairness is really built into the system and that the system is really operating in that way. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I hear the expression “fair access”, but it is possible to develop arguments for different kinds of fairness. Is “fair access” clearly defined anywhere? We are turning this legislation on the assumption that we all agree about fair access. However, fair access might be for the poorest children, or for the children with the greatest educational need, or for the cleverest children, as they are the children who are most likely to profit from an excellent education. Can we have a definition of “fair access”?
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is exercised by his inability to define what a parent’s responsibilities are. Along the same lines, he is looking for us to define what “fair access” is tonight.
I would like to speak to my Amendment 70 in this group. It is identical, I think, to the one that I tabled in Grand Committee when I raised this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said, we are making some changes in this legislation to the powers of the adjudicator. I was concerned that, since the adjudicator cannot look at wider issues but only at the complaints put before him or her, there was nobody who could take a view across the piece and see whether injustices were arising in different places in the country. Indeed, if one could see a pattern emerging, somebody ought to do something about it.
I followed up our debates in Grand Committee by raising the issue with the Secretary of State. I pointed out that we on these Benches do not usually want to give additional powers to the Secretary of State, but in this case we thought that it was necessary, partly because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, the schools landscape is becoming more and more complex and diverse and many schools are now their own admissions authorities. So I am pleased to say that, along with my noble friend the Minister, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of the view, as I understand it, that he already has these powers and duties. The only reason I tabled my amendment again was to give my noble friend the opportunity to put it on the record under which statutes the Secretary of State already has these duties. If that is perfectly clear, I see no reason to press my amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I support the amendments and I, too, look forward to the Minister’s reply. I learnt last week that I cannot speak after him, so I may as well speak now in anticipation of what he might say.
I think that this is a really tricky issue. My noble friend was right to say that if more schools are becoming their own admissions authorities, that is when the problem sets in. The system can just about cope with one or two schools being their own admissions authorities, but, to recall a bit of history, the reason why the legislation that is now being repealed and changed got on the statute book in the first place was that some London boroughs were already in a position, mainly through the predominance of church schools, to make their own admissions arrangements. The sort of situation that my noble friend described of some children always missing out on the oversubscription criteria, through no fault of their own, is not something that he imagined; it actually happened in some of the London boroughs. That is why what I can see might look like a fairly complicated system of controlling admissions came about. It could be even worse if we move to a situation where nearly every school is its own admissions authority.
I have two or three points on this. I do not speak for my party on this because I know that this is not my party’s position but, frankly, I have never seen why being your own admissions authority is a freedom that one should have. Heads need freedom to run their schools but not to select the students who should go through the gates and enrol on the register in the first place. That has always been my view, even when my party was in power. Maybe one could live with it then because there were not as many schools with their own admissions arrangements, but I really cannot see the point of it. I cannot see what advantage there is to a child or a child’s parent.
The reason why this is so important is that we all know the trauma that some parents and children go through when unable to secure an appropriate place at the age of 11. We have all seen children whose start at secondary school is blighted by the fact that they did not get the place that they wanted. We have to live with that; life is not fair and not everyone can have their first choice. Imagine this, though: we create a situation where some child gets to the age of 11 and cannot get a suitable place because they do not fit the rules. That is not the same thing as not getting your first choice. No one wants you, and you end up getting your fifth or sixth choice, all because of this contradictory oversubscription criterion.
I come to the same conclusion as others, despite my relatively strong views on this. I do not say that this is a freedom that schools ought to be granted but, if I accept for a moment that that is to happen, I honestly cannot see how the system will work unless there is a referee in the middle putting down some ground rules. The amendments, containing an overarching duty to ensure fair access, are right.
My last point is this. Let us be clear: schools will play these rules for all they are worth. All the history of schools being their own admissions authorities shows that some of them—not all, but a good number—will seek to admit the children who they want to admit, and they are not usually the poor, the dispossessed and those who do not like turning up to school. I am not just making this up. There is no greater advocate or defender of teachers than me in almost all ways but all the evidence shows that, when the admissions arrangements can be controlled, the schools tend to do so in the schools’ favour and not in the pupils’ favour. We are not on a level playing field here. Schools will not play fair without some overriding principle, and the one that is in the amendment would suit the purpose very well. I support it.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, in some ways there is not much more to add, but I want to reinforce this point. I understand and have sympathy with a model of school system improvement that builds on the international evidence by the likes of Michael Barber, through his work at McKinsey and elsewhere, on the importance of school autonomy, even if it is autonomy collaborating with others, as part of driving forward school improvement. If you go for that big time, as this Government have done with the rapid expansion of autonomous schooling through academies and free schools, there are certain fundamentals that we have to be clear about the Government retaining responsibility for.
I suggest that the core functions that the Secretary of State has to hang on to and be held accountable for in this Palace are fair funding, fair admissions and objective inspection. We can argue about some of the other stuff, such as how much of a curriculum there should be and the teaching of history in school—we debate that beautifully and with much erudition. At the core, though, it is those three things that the Government should be concerned about in order to ensure that the operation of the market, which is almost what autonomous schools become, does not disadvantage those who are least articulate, least advantaged and least able to help themselves. It is a struggle for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to define fairness in this context but for me fairness is ensuring that no child or family is disadvantaged by who they are, where they live and what their income is, and that they have equal opportunity to access good schooling.
As has been said, the growth of autonomy leads to growth in the number of schools that are their own admissions authorities. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lady Morris; some co-ordination by local authorities in administering admissions makes it much easier for parents. However, I recall that in my day it was the schools, rather than the local authorities that were admissions authorities, that were most likely to fall foul of the admissions code. I do not think that it was anything to do with the fact that they were largely faith schools or with their faith foundation; it was the fact that they were their own admissions authorities. Some aspects of the code were quite complex and they did not have the expertise in-house or within the school to ensure that they were compliant with the code. We found some gross non-compliance with the code, which is why things were toughened up.
In many ways, I do not have a problem with the Government’s code. What I have a problem with is ensuring that there is proper regulation of the code, with teeth. To remove the admissions adjudicator’s ability to direct schools and the adjudicator’s power to look at the admissions arrangements is to remove teeth. The Government are still unable to answer this through their amendments which we will discuss later. The code has to be independent to protect the Government from charges of political interference, because sometimes these issues become quite political at a local level and Members of Parliament are asked to be involved.
This amendment is the minimum that the Government could get away with. If they are not minded to accept this amendment, we should think again about introducing something tougher at Third Reading and, if we need to, restoring some of the adjudicator’s powers.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I agree with the three definitions that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, came up with: fair funding, fair inspection and fair access. These are the three principles that we need to uphold as we develop our academy policy. I will return to that in a moment. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am told that, perhaps not surprisingly, there is not a statutory definition of fair access. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, came up with a definition, and I suspect that it is like the elephant—we know it when we see it.
I take issue with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the extent to which the Government are seeking to change the admissions arrangements. The changes which we are proposing are relatively modest. I accept entirely the need for strong and effective safeguards and these are in place. As I go on to explain what some of them are, I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords that that is the case.
As I said when we discussed similar amendments in Committee, and reiterate now, we see our commitment in favour of fair access, and protecting and promoting the opportunities of the disadvantaged and vulnerable, as part of our broader agenda. We talked earlier about extending early years education to disadvantaged two year-olds, the funding we have put behind the pupil premium and our efforts to tackle underperforming schools. I would also argue that this commitment can be seen in the changes that we are making on admissions. We have revised the statutory admissions code, which we think over the years—in a well-intentioned attempt to cover every eventuality—had become a bit unwieldy. In revising the code, although we have retained the key safeguards for looked-after children and children with statements of special needs, we have also added new measures to improve access to good schools. These will, for example, allow academies to prioritise children receiving the pupil premium. We have expanded infant class size exceptions to include twins, multiple births and children from our Armed Forces families. I should add that much of the feedback that we have had from the consultation is that, in making it simpler, more concise and more focused on the things that admission authorities must do, parents and their associations who have responded feel that it would be easier to hold schools and local authorities to account.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
I see that the Minister is trying to be helpful and I entirely accept what he said about the Secretary of State having powers to take action to ensure that a school’s admission arrangements are fair. I accept that and I think that the Minister has made that point on a number of occasions. However, the problem arises as regards co-ordinating different schools with different oversubscription criteria. In a local authority area each school could be applying the admissions criteria fairly but a child could still be unfairly ignored by the system because of the way in which each of the separate rules apply to him. In that case, who has the power to go in and sort it out?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point. One way to tackle this might be to ask the chief adjudicator to look at the concern that has been raised about what happens where there is a range of admissions authorities. The chief adjudicator would be the right person to look at that, report on it and comment on it in his annual report so that people can see what is going on. I will follow up that point with my right honourable friend to see whether that might be a way of addressing those concerns.
As I said, local authorities have a duty to refer any arrangements that they suspect may be unfair to the adjudicator. That role gives them oversight of all arrangements, be they at maintained or academy schools. In carrying out all of their functions in the provision of education local authorities have a duty under Section 13A of the Education Act 1996 to ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training. We think that the duty should be at that level.
Ensuring fair access was the reason for the introduction of the admissions code and is central in its current revision. We hope that the new revised code, which was consulted on over the summer and will be laid before Parliament shortly, makes the code easier to understand while protecting and extending safeguards for vulnerable groups. The changes in this Bill extending the adjudicator’s remit to include academies and free schools, and the government amendments which will allow anyone to object to the adjudicator, are aimed at achieving and promoting fair access. We think that sufficient safeguards are in place to make sure that the oversight to which noble Lords have referred is in place. The changes we have made will help the admissions arrangements, not weaken them as the noble Baroness suggests. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, he was trying to be helpful. However, a number of issues are still outstanding. I also thank other noble Baronesses and my noble friends for contributing to the debate as well. It is somewhat disappointing that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that she tabled her amendment to enable the Minister to say what he had to say, as she spoke with great conviction in Committee about the necessity for an overarching duty precisely for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out; namely, that this issue—
Baroness Walmsley
Perhaps I may clarify the situation for the benefit of the noble Baroness. I have been convinced by my noble friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the duty is there and that it is no longer necessary for me to press my amendment. I have been satisfied on the issue.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
As I hope to point out, I did not hear the Minister say anything which suggested that that duty already exists in statute. He said that it is not strictly necessary. I will try to unpick what I think he said. I am surprised that the noble Baroness is satisfied by that.
Lord Avebury
Perhaps the noble Baroness did not hear the Minister say that he will write to my noble friend giving her the statutory reference. Is not that enough?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I do not have a statutory reference. I am just responding to the words that the Minister himself chose to use. If I might get to that point, I will perhaps explain what I mean.
My noble friend Lady Morris rightly said that, even in the context of trying to free head teachers to run schools, it really does not make sense to enable each school to decide which pupils to admit and which to reject. In a local system, this atomisation of admission decisions by individual schools means that some children will be left out and that the interests of children as a whole will not be protected. My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth gave some good examples from his experience of how some schools will not abide by the admission codes and will not comply. The examples we have seen of that confirm the need for a duty or power outwith the system. That is the point that we were trying to get across to noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Morris said it should be a referee; I would say a guardian of the rights of children and parents in this system. The Minister said that the duty on the Secretary of State was not strictly necessary, but when he went on to talk about what powers and duties the Secretary of State has in law, he said that the Secretary of State had full oversight of admissions through the school adjudicator. This gets to the principle of the role of government. We are seeking an active agency within government to make sure that admissions are fair across all children—not to have oversight through the adjudicator only. That is not an active requirement on the Secretary of State, either through the admissions code or directly on the Secretary of State himself. Yes, the Secretary of State has the power to ask the adjudicator to investigate, but that is not the same as the Secretary of State having the duty to satisfy Parliament that he is pursuing by every means possible the principle of fair access.
The Minister also said that he thought that the right level for that duty was the local authority. As I said in my opening remarks, local authorities will have a co-ordinating role on the admissions code, but that is a co-ordination in relation to the administration of the admissions, not to the actual decisions that schools will make. That is not where the qualitative decision lies; the local authorities have no power at all under the proposed arrangements to challenge. They will have a power to refer to the adjudicator if they think a school is not in compliance, but they do not have that overall duty, at least where most schools are academies, to ensure fair access. There is nobody actually holding that ring in the system at the local level or nationally. That is why we feel very strongly, on a point of principle, that it is the responsibility of government to protect the rights of children and parents. That is where democratic accountability lies in this regard, in our view—to protect) the interests of citizens who are, in this case, children and parents. Given the ambition of the Government that every school should be an academy and be its own admissions authority, and given the other changes that the Government are making to the system, we feel that these amendments are necessary. I wish to press the amendment.