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
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
1. What recent progress he has made on securing private sector investment in Royal Mail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
As I made clear during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2011, we are taking a staged approach to its implementation. Before decisions can be taken on private sector investment, the regulatory regime must be reformed and the Government must secure approval to take on Royal Mail’s historical pension deficit and restructure its balance sheet. Progress is being made in these areas, alongside Royal Mail’s progress with its modernisation plan.
Michael Connarty
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he therefore tell the House exactly how much the Government value the assets in the Post Office pension fund at this moment, how much will be transferred to the Treasury and what will be left in the assets of the pension fund thereafter?
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
As part of the deregulation process prior to the sale, we can expect a reasonable rise in stamp prices, which are currently the second lowest in Europe, despite the fact that we have the highest delivery specification. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the Labour party now criticises us for remedying the problems that it created through its regulation procedures?
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to support manufacturing.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
14. What steps he is taking to support manufacturing.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
15. What steps he is taking to support manufacturing.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
As part of rebalancing the British economy, we are taking steps to support manufacturing in the UK by encouraging high levels of business, innovation, investment, exports and technical skills. I set out our strategy for achieving that in a talk to Policy Exchange yesterday.
Mr Jones
From recent discussions with several representatives of our largest manufacturing companies, it is apparent that they are now looking actively to bring more UK supply manufacture back to our country, but they seem to question whether some of our small and medium-sized enterprises have sufficient capacity or investment to meet the growth in demand in this area. What can the Government do to help facilitate the right conditions to help some of our SMEs meet this increasing demand?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a supply chain issue. We are hearing good news from the automobile and aerospace sectors, with the large primes, such as Tata, Rolls-Royce and Airbus, making large investments. However, we also need to attract back the supply chains, which is already happening, particularly in the car industry. We have bodies that co-operate with industry in both those sectors: the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) chairs one of them and I chair the other. We are therefore working actively with industry to attract the supply chains back to the UK.
Nigel Mills
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work of the high-value manufacturing technology and innovation centre, which has had a display in Parliament for the past two days, and especially a business in my constituency, Advanced Composites, on the work that it does as part of that? Does he agree with the strategy and aims that it has set out, especially on having a strategy for how we can get manufacturing back to being 20% of gross domestic product by 2020?
Vince Cable
Yes, we are fighting a historical trend, because, under the previous Government, and certainly over the past decade, manufacturing contracted as a share of the economy more rapidly than in any other western country and we lost a third of the work force. We have to retrieve that, and one of the main ways of doing so is through promoting innovation. The first innovation centre, as my colleague rightly points out, is the manufacturing technology innovation centre, which has seven campuses. Composites is one of those core technologies being developed, which I very much welcome.
Graham Evans
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are effectively to support manufacturing, we need to ensure that our future work force have the necessary skills? Will he join me in welcoming the approval of Sandymoor free school in my constituency, which is receiving support from the nearby Daresbury science and innovation campus and which will help to achieve this goal?
Vince Cable
Skills are obviously critical, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will say more about the big increase in the number of apprenticeships shortly. I am sure that the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency will contribute to this at an early stage of development. Apprentices are a real success story and we are certainly going to build on it.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
One way to increase manufacturing growth would undoubtedly be for the Business Secretary to turn his attention to Markham Vale. I cadged about £32 million off the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government to flatten the pit tips and build a vast industrial estate straight off junction 29A on the M1, and what has happened? There have been grey, miserable clouds hanging over Markham Vale ever since this tin-pot Government came to power. Why don’t you pull your finger out? We were spending money while the sun was shining; there is none being spent now.
Vince Cable
I would certainly be happy to visit Markham Vale at some point and talk those things through with the hon. Gentleman. His area has a local enterprise partnership and has had an opportunity to put in a bid for an enterprise zone or the regional growth fund. I do not know what it has done, but I am certainly happy to talk to him.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member and I am sure that he has followed the changes in attitudes towards manufacturing in this House under different Governments. He will be interested in the leader of the Labour party’s new distinction between “predators” and “producers”. What is troubling a lot of us on the Government Benches is why a party of dinosaurs is so opposed to predators. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Companies in my constituency that manufacture construction products, quarry materials for concrete or build materials for the construction industry have very much welcomed the plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) to bring forward infrastructure projects in order to increase employment and build manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom. Given falling growth and rising unemployment, would it not be prudent for the Business Secretary to support that plan?
Vince Cable
Infrastructure is certainly a key to recovery, and it is absolutely right to put it on a sustainable basis. The Chief Secretary announced a programme for urgent modest-scale infrastructure projects a few weeks ago, and other infrastructure projects will be announced in the regional growth fund imminently.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In answer to questions to his Department in June, the Secretary of State said:
“There is rapid growth now beginning to take place in manufacturing and exports.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 276.]
Given that figures from the Office for National Statistics confirm that manufacturing output fell last quarter and given that yesterday’s CBI industrial trends survey showed sentiment from manufacturers deteriorating, order books emptying and export prospects sharply declining for a second successive quarter, will the Minister update his assessment of four months ago? Does he think that any aspect of Government policy needs to change to ensure that manufacturing drives forward economic recovery and growth?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that business conditions are difficult, but over the last two years manufacturing has increased significantly faster than the rest of the economy, as have exports. That is the direction that we need to pursue. Given that manufacturing is predominately an export-based industry, he will understand that the difficulties facing our major export markets in the European Union are creating problems for manufacturers and manufacturing confidence, but we will hit our way through them.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting SABIC Petrochemicals in my constituency to hear about the cost issues for energy-intensive manufacturing industries. When can those industries expect an announcement about a mitigation package?
Vince Cable
I think they expect an announcement very soon. The visit was extremely constructive, and my colleague and others have rightly emphasised to us that energy-intensive industries are a key part of manufacturing recovery. It would be totally counter-productive economically and environmentally if they were driven overseas. We are determined that that should not happen, and a package of measures will be announced soon.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the level of science funding over the comprehensive spending review period.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Funding for science and research programmes has been protected with a flat cash ring-fenced settlement of £4.6 billion for each of the next four years. We can be proud of our scientific research, and that is why the coalition is backing it.
Phil Wilson
Although I welcome the investment in the technology and innovation centres, one of which is in my constituency, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have continued to cut the science budget by 12% overall when Germany, one of our main competitors, has increased its budget by 8%?
Mr Willetts
No party at the last election promised complete protection for the BIS budget. In fact, in its last economic statement in December 2009, the hon. Gentleman’s party committed itself to cutting £600 million from the higher education and science and research budgets. We, by contrast, are offering complete cash protection for that budget.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The scientists to whom I speak are concerned not only about the amount of money available now but about the levels of capital funding and the long-term security of funding running many years into the future. While I welcome the announcement of funding for companies such as Babraham, what assurances can the Minister provide that he will try to get more capital funding from the Treasury and to ensure good, long-term security so that scientists will know how much funding there will be for the next decade?
Mr Willetts
Of course, we have been able in the past year to fund six of the eight capital projects that the science community identified as the most important. We think that that has been a considerable achievement in tough times, and we will continue to try to secure financing for other capital programmes in the future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recently said that all long-term economic growth was linked to innovation, yet one year after he claimed to have protected the science budget, the independent Campaign for Science and Engineering has revealed that its budget has been slashed by 12%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned. The Minister’s own Department says that cuts to science will damage our world-leading position, yet businesses up and down the country are being denied the innovation support that they need, and the shambles in university funding makes it harder for universities to provide science places. If innovation is the engine of growth, why is the Secretary of State doing so much damage to it?
Mr Willetts
We in the coalition are absolutely committed to the importance of science and research, and we are strengthening the links between science and research and the business community. We are also offering cash protection for the science budget across all main current expenditure, which the hon. Lady’s party never did in government. The very source that she has just cited, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, only a fortnight ago
“welcomed Chancellor George Osborne’s announcement that £195m of new investment will be spent on science and engineering.”
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to promote British exports.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to promote British exports.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
My Department is supporting British exports through UK Trade & Investment. Its strategy, which was launched in May 2011, sets out plans to provide practical support to exporters over the next five years. I have undertaken a number of visits overseas to promote British business to countries including China, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Romania, and next week I shall be in south-east Asia promoting British trade.
Pauline Latham
Britain is increasingly becoming a centre of excellence for high-tech, high-value manufacturing exports. In Derbyshire, we have some great high-tech exporters ranging from Rolls-Royce, which my right hon. Friend knows all about, to Pektron, an innovative, family-owned electronics manufacturer. What more can my right hon. Friend do to showcase those exceptional firms and remind people up and down the country and internationally that high-tech British goods are in demand everywhere, and that that needs to continue?
Vince Cable
Yes, there are many successful British exporters. Over the past year, exports have grown on a year-to-year basis by about 9%. Where we have fallen down historically is that British small and medium-sized companies have not been as involved in exporting as the larger enterprises such as Rolls-Royce. One of the main commitments in the UKTI strategy is to concentrate help and resources on those companies, which would undoubtedly help the specialist company in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Alun Cairns
It is good to note that exports have risen to their highest level since records began, and I note the Government’s plans to double our exports to Brazil by 2015. Following the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, what specific action is my right hon. Friend taking to help British exporters to overcome the language issues and bureaucratic barriers that might stand in the way of achieving that?
Vince Cable
I went to Brazil precisely to answer that question. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we are starting from a weak position. As a result of neglect in the past, Britain’s share of imports into Brazil is far lower than those of Germany, France and Italy, for example, and we must remedy that. We are putting in a major effort in Brazil, through UKTI, to capture some of the opportunities, particularly those that are arising from the expansion of the oil and gas industries there.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has mentioned some exotic locations, but he did not mention the fact that he came to Huddersfield two weeks ago. Did he learn from that visit that export manufacturing is at the heart of getting the biggest bang for our buck, and that manufacturing for export counts for more in regard to the balance of trade? He talks about innovation and universities, but we do not want just seven—we want 133 innovation units.
Vince Cable
As a Yorkshireman myself, I would hesitate to call Huddersfield an overseas market, but it is certainly an outstanding centre of excellence. I enjoyed my visit there. We visited David Brown, one of the recipients of regional growth fund money and a very successful manufacturing exporter. I would also commend going further up the valley to Todmorden, where there is a brilliant British casting and forging company working flat out in our major export markets.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
UKTI has no presence in Wales, so what discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Welsh Government to ensure that UKTI is doing its best to promote Welsh exports?
Vince Cable
Of course the Welsh Government, as a devolved Government, have more responsibilities of their own in this field, but Wales is part of the UK and I will do my best to work with my Welsh Government colleagues to promote exports. I have already talked to the Secretary of State about getting more Welsh businesses represented on UKTI missions and on projects of that kind.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regional growth fund.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
In April we announced that 50 bids had been successful as part of round 1 of the regional growth fund, receiving a conditional allocation of £450 million, which will deliver 27,000 new or safeguarded jobs and close to 100,000 jobs in supply chains. More than half these projects have already started, and successful bidders will receive funding as due diligence is completed. Announcements on the second larger round are imminent.
Ian Lavery
There have been conflicting reports about the Department’s performance on the regional growth fund and what has been settled as a result of it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many applications have come from Northumberland, how many of them have been successful and how many have received any form of payment to date?
Vince Cable
I cannot tell him off the cuff how many companies in Northumberland have received regional growth fund money. I know that the north-east was the most substantial recipient in the first round. I believe that several—in fact, the majority—of those projects are proceeding, and they will create jobs in Northumberland.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
We in South Norfolk were very pleased to see the Secretary of State visiting Group Lotus, one of the country’s highest technology companies, which he described as “the best of British”. Does he agree that the regional growth fund would be seen as even more effective if Lotus’s high-quality bid were successful?
Vince Cable
I think my colleague is disarmingly tempting me to commit some indiscretion here. I have been to Lotus, but we did not discuss the regional growth fund bid. It is an outstanding company, and I am certainly aware that it has put in a bid.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Well, why do we not put the bunting out? Six months after 45 regional growth fund bids were submitted, only three have got the money, so there are only 42 to go. Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell us how many people in BIS it takes to change a light bulb. However, on 17 October, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) assured The Times that due diligence on the bids had taken an average of six weeks. These bids have all been waiting six months. Will the Secretary of State tell us when the bidders will get their promised money, as all these continued growth prospects have been put at risk because his Department has been asleep at the wheel?
Vince Cable
I definitely think we should put the bunting out for the regional growth fund. As I explained in my first answer to this question, more than half of all these projects are now under way. Factories have been built; jobs have been created—that is what it is about. As was made clear at the outset and as Lord Heseltine made clear a few days ago, the release of funding is a later stage in the process when due diligence has been completed. Are the Labour Front-Bench team seriously arguing that we should dispense with controls over the spending of public money in the private sector? I know they did that in government, but we are not going to do it.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to promote manufacturing skills.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
We are promoting manufacturing skills with success. Provisional figures show substantial growth, with 47,020 apprenticeship programme starts in engineering and manufacturing technologies in 2010 alone. That is an increase of 20%. The development of advanced and higher level apprenticeships and the roll-out of the “see inside manufacturing” initiative will build on that success.
Stuart Andrew
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increase in the number of apprenticeships that was announced today, which demonstrates a real commitment on the part of the Government and employers to training the next generation. Companies such as ATB Morley, in my constituency, and Airedale International are crying out for a skilled work force. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on how apprenticeships can help to provide the training skills that such companies need?
Mr Hayes
Apprenticeships are, of course, jobs. They give people a chance to learn in the workplace. They provide individuals with a chance to gain the skills that they need and that fuel social mobility, they provide companies with a chance to gain the skills that they need in order to prosper, and they provide Britain with a chance to become a more cohesive, successful and prosperous nation.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
When the Minister has a moment, will he reflect on early-day motion 2218, which seeks to expose six British construction companies that are threatening to tear up the national pay agreement for skilled electricians and thus trying to de-skill the construction industry? Perhaps in the fullness of time he will give us a written response expressing his view of those actions.
Mr Hayes
I should be happy to do that. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point, and I will certainly consider doing what he suggests. Moreover, I should be happy to meet him and anyone he wants to bring to my Department, with my officials, so that we can take the matter further.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
7. What steps his Department is taking in response to recent job losses announced by BAE Systems.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Government’s first priority is to support the individuals whose jobs may be at risk. To that end, the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service is providing support, training and careers advice. The Government are also working with the Lancashire and the Humber local enterprise partnerships on two potential new enterprise zones to support local economies.
Andrew Stephenson
What role does my hon. Friend think that group training associations can play in redeploying and supporting those who have lost their jobs? In Lancashire we have Training 2000, the biggest GTA in the country, which is already working closely with Rolls-Royce and other businesses that are currently recruiting.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
What is the reason for the reversal of the decision on the Lancashire enterprise zones in September? In August a bid had been turned down, and job losses had been agreed by the Ministry of Defence in July. That sequence of events suggests that the MOD was not talking to BIS, and that BIS made a reckless decision in August which was overturned by the Treasury. Can the Minister explain?
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
8. What steps his Department is taking to support the construction industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Government are acting positively to strengthen the industry by reform the planning system, modernising public sector procurement, and producing the first national infrastructure plan, which will unlock up to £200 billion of both public and private investment.
John Cryer
Can we return to planet Earth? Since the election 65,000 jobs have gone in construction, no one is training apprentices, and public sector contracts have dried up. Do we not need a bit more action?
Mr Prisk
It is nice to have the hon. Gentleman back on planet Earth. It appears that he has been away from it for a long time. We have heard about the work that the Government are doing on apprenticeships, we have seen the investment in infrastructure, and there is a positive story to tell. Why cannot the Labour party understand that?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Very much on planet Earth, there are many sites that are not being developed but could be. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury to ensure that financial incentives are offered to the owners of sterile land so that it can return to use and be developed, thus providing jobs in the construction industry?
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Britain’s construction industry needs a lion at the wheel, but instead we have a tortoise that is sitting still while building sites and people in our construction industry are made redundant. However, there is an alternative. The shadow Chancellor’s five-point plan will produce projects that will enable us to get the industry moving. For instance, a VAT cut to 5% on home improvements and repairs and maintenance is a targeted approach that is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses. Will the Government take serious action to get the construction industry moving?
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
9. What steps he plans to take to protect stem cell research in the UK following the decision of the European Court of Justice to prohibit the patenting of inventions based on human stem cells; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
We are—[Interruption.] We are carefully considering the impact of the ruling—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have had enough references to animals. Let us now experience the product of one of the brains of the Minister.
Mr Willetts
I will do my best, Mr Speaker.
As I was saying, we are carefully considering the impact of the ruling on current UK patent practice. The Technology Strategy Board currently funds 15 studies involving human stem cells, two of which use human embryonic stem cells. The TSB and the research councils will continue to support and fund research on stem cells from all sources, including embryonic.
Graham Stringer
That was an interesting reply, because leading scientists in the field have called the decision everything from “devastating” to “appalling”. They believe this work will move to South Korea and Canada, and that potential cures for people suffering from degenerative diseases will be developed later, if they are developed at all. I simply do not understand the Minister’s answer, and I would like more details on how he is going to stop this work going abroad.
Mr Willetts
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this research is very important in tackling fundamental human illnesses such as Parkinson’s, and that is why we will continue to support it. We are assessing the implications of the ECJ ruling. It is important that stem cells can be derived in a variety of ways, and embryonic stem cells are only one source of stem cells. That is why we need more time to assess the implications of this judgment.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I am sure the Minister agrees that stem cell science is one of Britain’s great strengths. The feeling within the industry is that this Government are putting their money where their mouth is. In contrast to the accusations and nonsense coming from Opposition Members that we are not investing in science, the recent £195 million investment in graphene and supercomputing and the protection of the science budget amounts to a real growth strategy.
Mr Willetts
We are totally committed to investing in life sciences in Britain, and let me give a practical example of how we can cut the burden of regulation to bring this industry forward: we have committed to reducing the time it takes to start a clinical trial from over 600 days—the period we inherited from the previous Government—to 70 days in future under us.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
My understanding is that the Court’s judgment does not stop research into embryonic stem cells, but that it does mean that scientists will not be able to patent anything worth while, and that therefore the intellectual property is likely to go abroad, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said. What are the Government going to do to stop that happening, because this research is vital for people with degenerative diseases?
Mr Willetts
The hon. Lady is right: this is vital research. The crucial points, however, are that the research is taking place using stem cells from a range of sources, not just embryonic stem cells, and we are continuing to assess how much of the research and development that currently takes place in Britain would be affected by this judgment.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
10. What steps he is taking to encourage entrepreneurship.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Government are committed to making the United Kingdom the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. Steps being taken include boosting tax relief, getting the banks to increase lending to small firms and scrapping regulations from this Department alone that would have cost small and medium-sized enterprises more than £315 million every year.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is clear that the Government are taking an active lead on growing and supporting our entrepreneurs. Will he therefore join me in supporting the Federation of Small Businesses in its fantastic real-life entrepreneur campaign, as that support will demonstrate yet again just how committed the coalition Government are to the entrepreneurial spirit in UK plc?
Mr Prisk
Absolutely. That is an excellent campaign by the FSB, and it shows why we are focused on matters that concern those real-life entrepreneurs: cutting their costs; tackling red tape; and of course improving access to finance. There is a lot more to do, but they know that we are on their side.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Another excellent campaign from the FSB and also the Federation of Master Builders is the “Cut the VAT” campaign, which supports a cut in VAT on home improvements to 5%. Such a move would also be good for entrepreneurs. Will the Minister support that campaign?
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on all the help he is giving entrepreneurs. Could he find time in his busy schedule to visit the many entrepreneurs in Brighton and Hove?
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
11. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on support for seaside town economies.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Greg Clark)
My two Departments, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government, have regular discussions with the Treasury about support for economies. My hon. Friend will know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has announced the coastal communities fund, which will be available from April.
Mr Sanders
Two Select Committee reports have identified that one of the main problems facing coastal communities is poor transport links. May I invite the Minister to visit the warm and welcoming English riviera to see the challenges and opportunities there, which could be fully addressed by better transport links?
Greg Clark
A visit to the English riviera is an enticing invitation, and I will be delighted to go there. My hon. Friend is right to say that connectivity is a concern for all coastal communities, and I know that he is waiting for a decision on the south Devon link road. I cannot pre-empt that, but I think I will go by train this time to avoid any delays.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library a copy of the advice he received from BIS officials—not DCLG officials—on the historical disadvantages that seaside towns and cities face, particularly those relating to access and business failures? Clearly the advice was not forceful enough, because neither Torbay nor Plymouth was successful in this round of bids for local enterprise zones, as he well knows.
Greg Clark
As the hon. Lady knows, we have had discussions about Plymouth. I very much hope that all the representatives of Plymouth will join in putting together an area to attract business that is very much in keeping with the enterprise zone proposal. Of course I will put together a package of the research and make it available to her.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
12. How much capital expenditure for scientific research his Department has allocated in 2011-12 to date.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I have recently announced that the Department will be investing an additional £145 million in high-performance computing. That brings the Department’s total capital spend in science and research to £793 million for 2011-12.
Jane Ellison
I thank the Minister for that reply. Britain has always been great at discovering and inventing things, but we need to address how to commercialise some of that cutting-edge research. Will he therefore comment on what the Government are doing to ensure that we bring that research, and those discoveries and inventions, to market in the future?
Mr Willetts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are setting up the network of six technology and innovation centres. It is why we are particularly backing the campuses in Norwich, Babraham, Harwell and Daresbury, which bring together scientific research and business applications. It was also the reason for the investment of £50 million in the application of graphene to business purposes, which was announced only a few weeks ago.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise the deep concern in our universities at the cutting back of their capital programme, in contrast with what is happening in other countries, which will put us at a significant competitive disadvantage?
Mr Willetts
The figure that I just gave the House for capital spending on science and research is comparable with the figures for capital spending under the ring-fenced science budget under the previous Government. So, even in tough times, we are absolutely maintaining our commitment to investing in science.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
16. If he will consider changing the MPharm qualification from level 6 to level 7.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The Government do not determine the academic levels of higher education qualifications. The Higher Education Funding Council funds the MPharm as an undergraduate master's degree, to the benefit of 10,000 students a year who are entitled to teaching grants and student support.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituent Louis Leir has done an undergraduate degree and wants to do a MPharm, but unfortunately it is classified as an undergraduate-level degree. He is therefore caught by the equivalent or lower qualifications —ELQ—policy and is unable to get help with tuition fees. Will Ministers give further considerations to the issues relating to master's level qualifications? The MPharm truly is one of those, as most of the House probably recognises.
Mr Willetts
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in pursuing that constituency case, about which we have corresponded. Just as he was with the Pfizer case at Sandwich, he is a persistent hon. Member and I congratulate him on that. However, we believe that if we were to take the ingenious approach he proposes, it might mean that the 10,000 undergraduates currently benefiting from financial support lose it.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
18. What assessment he has made of the difficulties faced by apprentices aged 19 and over in obtaining adequate funding for level 3 qualifications.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The Government are investing significantly in adult apprenticeships, with earmarked investment of £679 million in 2011-12. We rely on employers coming forward to make places available and many more are doing so every day, week and month. There were 114,900 starts in 2010-11—nearly twice as many as in the previous year—for those aged over 19.
Mr Stuart
The Minister not only champions apprenticeships but facilitates their delivery and I congratulate him on that. May I ask him to consider introducing a flexible three-year contract for young apprenticeships, with a break clause after year 2, so that there is an equalisation of funding for young apprenticeships on courses both before and after their 19th birthdays?
Mr Hayes
Knowing my hon. Friend’s expertise and commitment to this subject, when I saw his question I spoke to my officials and got an interesting response from them. I think that if we better estimate at the outset people’s prospects of progression, we may well be able to take account of what my hon. Friend says. I invite him, as I did earlier, to come to the Department to talk that through and to see what changes we can make to remove any disincentives of the kind to which he refers.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The construction industry, the manufacturing sector and apprenticeships all go hand in hand. Will the Minister confirm that the vast majority of the increase in apprenticeships in the past year has been in the over-25s category? Frankly, that is not doing enough to assist with the serious problem of youth unemployment.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a growth in over-25s apprenticeships and he will know that the previous Government commissioned the Leitch report, which said that that was exactly what we needed—to upskill and reskill the work force. Notwithstanding that, however, he will also know that there has been remarkable, unprecedented growth in 16 to 18 apprenticeships and in 19 to 24 apprenticeships over two years. Contrary to the complaints of the carpers and the cringers, the whiners and the whingers, the biggest proportion of growth has been at level 3—that is A-level equivalent.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Having recently served a one-year apprenticeship by the side of the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, I am not surprised by the excellent numbers that were released today on apprenticeships, as his dedication is second to none. May I ask him to say a word on the increase in level 3 apprenticeships, which are equivalent in qualification to A-levels?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend has gone on to other, I am tempted to say greater, things since he served that apprenticeship, and he is right to draw attention once again to the increase at level 3, because there were those, largely drawn from the bourgeois left, who looked down their noses at practical learning and who thought that the most growth would be at level 2, but actually we have facilitated very substantial growth—over 60%—at level 3 as my hon. Friend says. It is a rosy day for the Government and, much more importantly, a rosy day for Britain.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
19. What steps he plans to take to reduce costs for small businesses.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
In these rosy days, in addition to extending small business rate relief and reversing Labour’s planned rise in payroll taxes, we also intend to reduce the burden of financial accounting rules. That will save businesses up to £600 million, a third of which will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises.
Robert Halfon
At a time when many small businesses are struggling to thrive in the economic climate, will my hon. Friend join the campaign of Harlow chamber of commerce and the Essex Federation of Small Businesses strongly to oppose the proposals of the Health and Safety Executive to charge £750-plus to inspect small businesses?
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Many small businesses in the construction sector would benefit from a cut in VAT to 5%, as has been raised. We heard the Minister’s response; he thinks we are wrong in calling for that. If he thinks we are wrong, does he think the Federation of Master Builders, the Builders Merchants Federation, British Precast and the Modern Masonry Alliance are wrong as well?
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
My Department has a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy and business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.
Jake Berry
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate Ministers on the fantastic apprenticeship numbers that were announced today. With that and the rebalancing of our economy in mind, and given that in Rossendale and Darwen we have a manufacturing economy, can the Secretary of State tell the House how we are going to make it easier for employers in my constituency to take on new apprentices?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge the big increase in apprenticeships, and it is not simply quantity; it is also about quality. Some of the rapid growth that is taking place is in advanced apprenticeships, including in manufacturing, and we welcome that, but we do not accept that the status quo is adequate. We want to strip away some of the bureaucratic barriers that hinder companies, particularly small companies, and my colleagues are working on that.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
A few years ago, the Business Secretary was described by the Deputy Prime Minister as an “economic prophet”. So in January, when the Secretary of State told the House that
“…economic growth is now strong. It will become stronger as a result of the work that the Government are doing in stabilising finances”—[Official Report, 13 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 429.]
we listened with interest. Given the performance of the economy since January, does the Business Secretary believe he has lived up to his billing?
Vince Cable
May I first warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rapid and considerable promotion? I will not tempt fate by hoping that he makes a success of it, but I none the less wish him well. Of course, one advantage that he has in coming into Parliament only very recently is that he is not personally responsible for some of the disasters that occurred under his predecessors. One of our problems is sorting out some of those disasters, not least of which are the massive deficit that we inherited, a broken banking system, large amounts of personal debt and a flat housing market. All those factors explain why it is now very difficult to launch into rapid growth, but we are putting in place the rebalancing of the economy and the financial discipline to make that feasible.
Mr Umunna
I thank the Business Secretary for his kind words, but I wonder when he will take responsibility. In his first speech as Business Secretary, he described his Department as the “Department for economic growth”. The truth is that, under his leadership, it has been the Department for no growth. The economy has stagnated, unemployment has soared and confidence has nose-dived—and that is all before the effects of the eurozone crisis have been felt. Things would be very different if he changed his policy and adopted a proper plan for growth to get demand back again. In January, he thought his policies were working and it turns out he was wrong. He has described himself as a Keynesian, but Keynes famously said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind.”
Why will the Business Secretary not do the same?
Vince Cable
Well, Keynes famously wrote in his well-publicised note to Franklin Roosevelt that probably the most useful thing that the Government could do in a depression was keep down long-term interest rates, and that is what this Government have done as a result of their fiscal prudence.
The hon. Gentleman says that we do not have the policies in place; we have two things in place. We have policies for financial stability, which we did not have when we inherited the economy; and on the other hand we have policies in place to rebalance the economy, to reinvent manufacturing, which was allowed to decline catastrophically under the previous Government, and to promote exports and business investment—things that were shamefully neglected when his colleagues were in government.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
T2. The Mayor of London has had great success in growing the number of apprenticeships from the low base inherited from his Labour predecessor by requiring apprentices to be taken on as a condition of bids for public projects. Will the Minister look at whether that success could be built on and extended to national Government?
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the remarkable figures in London. Of all the regions, London has seen the biggest proportionate growth in the number of apprenticeships, and I recently had a meeting in the Mayor’s office to discuss the subject. She is also right that there are things the Government can do to help, so we will look again at what can be done, based on the experience in London, to promote apprenticeships in the way she describes.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T4. In June, the Office of Fair Trading upheld the Which? super-complaint about card surcharges, agreeing that they pose significant detriment to consumers. When will the Government act to stop people being exploited in this way?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are looking at the OFT’s powerful report and consulting colleagues in the Treasury, and we will come back to the House in due course.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
T3. In formulating his response to the Beecroft review, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the interests of hundreds of thousands of people who are currently locked out of the labour market, particularly youngsters who might well be prepared to waive some of the more generous job protection provisions in return for that vital first start?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor has announced that we will move the period of unfair dismissal from one year to two years—I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that—which will deal with exactly the point he has made. He will also know that we have an employment law review and a red tape challenge to ensure that we have employment laws in this country that will make our labour market fair and efficient.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. What message do the Government think they are sending to the thousands of families in this country who are now struggling in debt as a result of payday loans, by allowing the legal loan sharks not only to advise them on employment law, but to swell their party coffers?
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T6. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Wilson review on the collaboration between industry and universities. I am currently working on a project in the west midlands with local business leaders and universities. Will he meet industrialists and me when the report is competed next year?
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, because she is absolutely right that one of our priorities is to ensure that the strength of our research base is fed through into stronger support for business and greater business investment, and we look forward to Sir Tim Wilson’s report.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
T7. The Secretary of State will be aware that Remploy businesses were set up across this country after the second world war to give work to disabled people returning from the war. Those businesses have gone on for decades and given great work to disabled people. Why are the Government going to axe the programme?
Vince Cable
Certainly we should be doing all we can to support disabled workers. My understanding is that those decisions lie with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I would be happy to engage or help if there is a problem.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
UK Trade & Investment has just completed a trade mission to Iraq for the Erbil international trade fair, of which I was privileged to be a part. We had 86 businesses, companies and educationalists at the British pavilion at the trade fair, whereas three years ago we had only one. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the UKTI team and our consul-general on their great work during the mission?
Vince Cable
Yes. UKTI does an excellent job. Like all other parts of the Government, it is having to do more with less, but it does so through refocusing and strategy. I have not yet been to that country, but I look forward to doing so.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T8. Does the Minister of State really think that sending a letter to Members whose constituents are affected by the potential redundancies at BAE Systems stating that those people could move to other parts of the country to get jobs shows any understanding of the regional economy and the need for skilled manufacturing jobs, particularly in the Humber area?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The letter sets out, first, help for those individuals on the ground at those sites. Secondly, it refers to making sure that by having the new talent retention service we do not lose those skills; and, thirdly, it refers to making sure that we put enterprise zones in place. I have to say that the response I have had from local people has been far more positive, sadly, than that of Labour Members.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Many of those who strongly support the Government’s policy to establish a grocery adjudicator to curb the bully-boy tactics of supermarkets will be concerned to ensure that it has the teeth to do the job. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take this opportunity to reassure those supporters of the Government’s policy that a supplier will not be required to take the risk of making a complaint in order to prompt an inquiry by the adjudicator?
Mr Davey
I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because he has been a stalwart campaigner for that change. I am delighted that we were able to publish the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill on 24 May, and that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s report on it has welcomed our proposals. He will know that the proposal is unique, because it allows anonymous claims to be made to the adjudicator and for reports, of which the adjudicator will be able to take note, to be put into the public domain.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Bank of England’s own data released last week indicate that lending by banks to small businesses fell by £2.5 billion in the three months to August. Was not the Secretary of State right to admit at last that the economy is in a far weaker state under this Government than it ever was in the last year under Labour?
Vince Cable
That certainly is not the case, but the hon. Gentleman has a perfectly valid point in relation to bank lending. That is absolutely the case, and, as a result of the agreement that we have reached with the banks, they have—certainly in the first two quarters—achieved the gross lending objectives that we set them, but there is a lot more to do. Surveys show that a shortage of credit is a serious problem, and we have to continue to work with the banks and, where necessary, to require them to make credit available to the economy.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Since December 2008, 3,218 tied pubs have closed and 425 free houses have opened, yet the British Beer and Pub Association, which speaks for pub companies, continues to mislead Ministers and MPs by stating that the opposite is actually the case. Do Ministers agree that this discredits the BBPA and also shows that the Government must stick to their commitment to act on the issue?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on the subject, and he will know that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has just undertaken a report on all those issues. The Government are therefore considering it and will respond to it shortly. If I were tempted into replying to the details of his question, I would prejudice that response.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Having withdrawn funding from the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, will the Secretary of State tell us which women’s organisations he has contacted to encourage women back into those under-represented areas?
Mr Willetts
It is important that women are properly represented in engineering and science, and I discuss that issue with a range of groups, so I hope the hon. Lady will be encouraged by the fact that we have 26,000 STEMNET ambassadors. Already, we have 40% who are female, but obviously we need to be better.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Next month should at last see meaningfully democratic elections in Egypt, but a new democratic Egypt faces a future hamstrung by debts from the Mubarak era. Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials to conduct an audit of the £100 million owed by Egypt to the Export Credits Guarantee Department?
Vince Cable
As my hon. Friend knows, there is a mechanism for dealing with official debt, through the Paris Club, but I will certainly undertake to speak to my colleague, the Secretary of State for International Development, to ask what concessional assistance we are giving to Egypt. The matter does not directly bear on my Department, but I accept that there is a link with the promotion of trade.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Does the Business Secretary believe that tax evasion and tax avoidance is having a negative impact on economic growth?
Vince Cable
Absolutely. I am resolute, and I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will work with me in combating both.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is considering the creation of a public data corporation. Does the Minister accept that making public data openly available can facilitate innovation in more ways than can be easily anticipated, benefiting the economy and the country? Will he meet me and other campaigners to discuss the details of that further?
Mr Davey
I am certainly very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. He is right to bring attention to this very important innovation by the Government to create something called a public data corporation, bringing together a number of key Government assets to ensure that they are managed efficiently and to put a greater amount of data into the public domain.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the Labour Government’s great successes was the introduction of the artist’s resale right. Since then, the art market has quadrupled, and hard-pressed artists have received £13 million. The derogation in awarding the artist’s resale right to the estate of dead artists lapses at the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that from January next year it will apply to the estate of deceased artists?
Vince Cable
No, I cannot confirm that, but I will speak to my colleague at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the impact on the art market, and how we propose to proceed with that in the European Union.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The success of apprenticeships is undoubtedly vital to future prosperity in areas such as the west midlands. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the apprenticeship programme in the west midlands region?
Mr Hayes
I described this as a rosy day for Britain, and it is a rosy day for the west midlands too. The number of apprenticeship starts in the west midlands is up by more than a half on 2009-10, which is due in part to the advocacy of excellent Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
Order. We must press on because we have a hectic schedule today.
Eurozone Crisis
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I wanted to update the House as early as possible on developments in the eurozone overnight, and in the absence of the Prime Minister as he travels to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, to report on the good progress made at yesterday’s European Council.
The crisis in the eurozone has caused instability in financial markets, has greatly undermined confidence around the world, and is having a chilling effect on economic growth in many countries, including our own. It is in our overwhelming national interest that a coherent, comprehensive and lasting solution to the eurozone’s problems is found, because the decisive resolution of this crisis would provide the single biggest boost to the British economy this autumn, and the break-up of the euro would be the single greatest threat to our prosperity.
Our view about how to solve the eurozone’s immediate problems has been clear, consistent and forcefully expressed. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have set it out to the House on a number of occasions: reinforcement, recapitalisation and resolution. First, eurozone member states need to reinforce their bail-out fund to create a firewall; secondly, weak European banks need to be recapitalised; and thirdly, the unsustainable position of Greece’s debts needs to be resolved. But if the solution is to last, as I said many months ago, members of the eurozone also need to address the logic of monetary union by pursuing greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, while at the same time we protect Britain’s interests.
We have to improve competitiveness: competitiveness in the peripheral economies of the eurozone as measured against the core economies such as Germany, and competitiveness across the whole European continent versus the rest of the world. This is the solution of the crisis that we have been advocating for months, and the solution again advocated by the Prime Minister at yesterday’s European Council.
Our view is that last night very good progress was made towards solving the immediate crisis—very good progress on all fronts. The deal put together is much better than was expected yesterday afternoon. But much detail remains unresolved, and having put pressure on the eurozone to get this far, we have to keep up the pressure to get the details completed. It has started down the right road; now it must finish the job.
Let me take each element of last night’s deal in turn and say how it affects Britain. First, on recapitalising banks, we are pleased that the European Council agreed to the proposal hammered out by myself and other Finance Ministers at the weekend ECOFIN. All major European banks will be required to hold at least a 9% core tier 1 capital ratio by the end of June next year, including marking to market all their exposure to sovereign debt. The European Banking Authority, based here in London, assessed that achieving this target means that banks will require an extra €106 billion of capital, and the Council yesterday confirmed that if this cannot be raised privately, Governments will have to step up to the plate.
I can confirm to the House today that in the assessment of the European Banking Authority and our own tripartite authorities, no British bank requires additional capital. This is an important expression of confidence in this country’s banking system at a time of global financial stress. EU member states also agreed to co-ordinate guarantees of term funding, should they be required, and we have ensured that state aid rules will be applied properly, and European banks will be restructured if necessary, just as the European Commission demanded of the last British Government two years ago.
While some would have wanted an even tougher banking agreement, and even more capital going into Europe’s weak banks, we should welcome what has been achieved with this agreement. We now have—unlike the totally inadequate stress tests of last year—a commitment to significant extra resources for the European banking system. However, the UK and others insisted that that commitment from the whole of the European Union on banking be conditional on the two other key components of the solution to the crisis that I set out: a reinforced firewall and a resolution of Greek debt. These are both properly matters for the Eurozone, not the UK—and they are both matters on which progress was also made last night.
On Greece, a headline agreement was reached to reduce the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio to 120% by 2020. The eurozone will contribute an additional €30 billion. Because the British Government have made sure that we are not part of the Greek bail-out, none of that extra €30 billion will come from our taxpayers, while private holders of Greek sovereign debt will be asked to accept a nominal write-down of 50%. A lot more work is needed to put all this into practice, including detailed negotiations with the private sector—but we said that Greece’s debts were unsustainable, and we are pleased to see a resolution in sight.
On reinforcing the size of the firewall, the eurozone has set out two options that could operate in tandem. One is to provide, from the bail-out fund, insurance on new debt issued by Eurozone countries; the second is to create special purpose vehicles that can attract resources from private and public investors. In its statement, the eurozone said that
“the leverage effect of both options will vary”
but that they could be
“expected to yield around 1 trillion euro”.
We have always believed that the role of the European Central Bank is critical, and I welcome the positive statement made by Mario Draghi, the incoming ECB president.
Talk of special purpose vehicles has given rise to questions about the involvement of the International Monetary Fund and major shareholders such as the UK. As I have said to the House on many occasions, Britain has always been one of the IMF’s largest shareholders and biggest supporters: we helped to create the institution 60 years ago; the last Government agreed to increase its resources two years ago; and this Government not only ratified that agreement but helped to make the IMF more representative of the new world economy by brokering a deal last year that gave countries such as China and Brazil a greater say, while securing Britain’s seat on the board. The IMF has been an active participant in the packages put together to support Ireland, Portugal and Greece. It has also been active in extending flexible credit lines to Poland and Mexico—neither of which is in the eurozone, of course—as well as supporting other countries in central and eastern Europe such as Hungary, Romania and Latvia. Indeed, it currently has 53 lending programmes around the world, of which only three are in the eurozone.
Supporting countries that cannot support themselves is what the IMF exists to do, and there may well be a case for further increasing the resources of the IMF to keep pace with the size of the global economy. Britain, as a founding and permanent member of its governing board, stands ready to consider the case for further resources and contribute, with other countries, if necessary. Let us remember that support for the IMF does not add to our debt or deficit, and that no-one who has ever provided money to the IMF has ever lost that money. But let me be very clear: we are prepared to see an increase only in the resources that the IMF makes available to all the countries of the world. We would not be prepared to see IMF resources reserved for use only by the eurozone. By all means the IMF can use its expertise and advice to help the eurozone to create the special purpose vehicle that it is considering. By all means let countries with large foreign currency reserves such as China consider putting their own money into the eurozone’s special purpose vehicle—that must be their decision—but the IMF cannot put its own resources in; it can lend only to countries with a programme for adjustment.
I confirm today that Britain will not put its resources in either. We do not have a surplus; we have a large deficit. We have had to use our resources to recapitalise our banks and to stand behind our currency. An active member of the IMF? Yes. Helping the IMF with advice and technical support? Yes. But the IMF contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. And Britain contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. That is Britain’s clear position.
We expect eurozone members to use the next few days—the next few weeks, at the most—to provide much more detail about their plans to increase their firewalls and sort out Greek debt. We have made it clear that the sooner that happens, the better it will be for the world economy. We must maintain the momentum.
This package will not on its own resolve the longer-term issues of how to make the euro work more effectively. Those longer-term issues were addressed yesterday, and there were proposals for greater fiscal integration and mutual control over the budget policies of eurozone Governments. I have argued that we need to follow the remorseless logic of monetary union, and that involves a loss of national sovereignty for countries in the eurozone.
It is in Britain’s interest that the euro operates more effectively, provided that the interests of all 27 member states are properly protected in key areas of European policy, such as the single market, competition and financial services. We are insistent that our voice will continue to be heard and our national interests protected. We have found allies among the other 10 members of the EU that are not in the euro. An important marker was put down in Sunday’s European Council conclusions.
No one pretends that sorting out this situation in a satisfactory way will be easy, but it is a necessity. That is the context in which we should approach potential treaty changes. The coalition Government have already proved that they can protect Britain’s interests by getting us out of the previous Government’s involvement in the eurozone bail-outs, holding down the European Union budget increases, and putting into law the guarantee that no further powers or competencies can be transferred to Brussels without the consent of the British people in a referendum. The Government will again protect Britain’s interests as the discussions on a possible limited treaty change begin. We will seek to rebalance the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which in our view have become unbalanced.
Finally, the euro will not find lasting stability until its peripheral members become more competitive. That means credible plans to reduce budget deficits. That commitment was made in the very first section of yesterday’s agreement. However, that involves difficult decisions on pension ages, business tax rates, welfare reform and educational standards. Britain, thankfully, is not in the euro, but we are taking those difficult decisions at home, because the ultimate lesson of this crisis is that unless a country can pay its way in the world and compete around the globe, it will be next in the firing line. I am determined that our country will never be in the firing line.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for coming to the House to make that statement. With the shadow Chancellor in New York, I am responding on behalf of the Opposition, and I have a number of detailed questions. It is good that some agreement has been reached, but with so little detail, many unanswered questions remain. I hope that the Chancellor can help the House today, because whatever happens in the eurozone will have huge ramifications for British families and businesses.
First, on the recapitalisation of the banks, is the Chancellor confident that the deal announced is sufficient and that UK banks do not need further recapitalisation? Will he keep that under review? What estimates has he made of the exposure of UK banks to Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish sovereign debt? Will he confirm that the House of Commons estimates of $3 billion for Greece and $17 billion for Italy reflect the current position for UK banks? Although the agreement states that banks and other creditors are invited to accept a 50% loss on Greek sovereign debt, is the Chancellor confident that the vast majority will agree—and if so, by when?
On the expansion of the European financial stability facility, does the Chancellor believe that the €1 trillion package is sufficient? Does it amount to the “big bazooka” that the Prime Minister talked about earlier this month? Alternatively, will we be back here in a few months’ time, which would mean further uncertainty, undermining confidence, undermining investment and undermining growth? That is the last thing that Britain, or Europe, needs.
Can the Chancellor explain how the leveraging of the EFSF will work, and when he believes the detail of credit enhancement and special purpose vehicles will be finalised? If the EFSF must also fund bank recapitalisation, will it be sufficient to give the markets confidence, and will there be funds remaining to underpin any sovereign debt crisis and prevent further contagion?
Although we have a clear economic interest in the eurozone sorting out its problems, the interests of British taxpayers must be safeguarded. It would have been wrong for Britain to pay twice, both through ongoing temporary EU bail-out funds and through the IMF. If this package is indeed the final and permanent bail-out fund, any British role should be through the IMF alone.
I heard the Chancellor’s question and answer session with himself on the IMF, but will he clarify what he said on the radio this morning? He said that the IMF was not
“going to put additional resources directly into the eurozone, hypothecated for the eurozone.”
Does he believe, though, that there will need to be a further increase in UK contributions to the IMF? Whether he succeeds in persuading it to describe that as anything other than a hypothecated fund is irrelevant.
On the arrangements for future decision making, the agreement states:
“The President of the Euro Summit will keep non euro-area member states closely informed of preparations and outcomes of summits.”
“Closely informed”? Has Britain now been reduced to simply receiving a postcard from Brussels? How will the Chancellor ensure that Britain’s voice, and our vital national interest, is heard loud and clear in future negotiations?
On the forthcoming treaty changes, will the Chancellor admit what the Prime Minister was unable to admit yesterday? Is it now the Government’s policy to seek to repatriate powers as part of those treaty changes? Which ones, and on what timetable?
Finally, is not the missing piece in the agreement the lack of any plan for jobs and growth, which were not mentioned at all in the Chancellor’s statement? Is it not the case that without growth we cannot solve the debt crisis, we cannot solve the banking crisis, and we cannot solve the jobs crisis? At this time, Britain should be leading the charge and pushing for a proper plan for jobs and growth across Europe. But is not the truth that this Chancellor cannot do that? With unemployment at a 17-year high here in Britain, with no growth since last autumn, and with borrowing therefore now set to be £46 billion higher than he planned, he is clinging to an austerity plan that is failing here in Britain.
With the UK economy flatlining since this time last year, before the eurozone crisis of recent months, and with only Greece and Portugal growing more slowly than Britain, is it not time that we had a plan for jobs and growth—across Europe, yes, but here in Britain too?
Mr Osborne
I thank the hon. Lady for some of her questions. Of course, we miss the constructive and consensual approach of the shadow Chancellor. We are talking about the Bretton Woods institutions, and it turns out that he is at a place called Buttonwood, which adds to the pantomime feel of Labour’s economic policy.
Let me deal directly with the hon. Lady’s questions. First, of course we keep the capital and liquidity positions of the British banks under constant review. We would do that in the absence of any European agreement, but of course we have also participated in the recent work by the European Banking Authority. We thought it was important that that was done at EU level rather than eurozone level. I repeat what I said in my statement: the EBA and our own authorities confirm that no British bank requires additional capital, which of course is very good news for us all.
On the hon. Lady’s question about getting private sector involvement in the write-down of Greek debt, that is of course one of the key unresolved issues from last night. We now need to see whether the headline agreement reached on behalf of the private sector can be implemented in practice. I am confident that it can, but that is one of the crucial next steps that need to be got on with.
The hon. Lady asked about the exposure of the UK banking system and the UK economy to various peripheral economies of Europe. Those figures are published regularly by the Bank of England. I do not propose to repeat them today, but they are available for everyone to see.
On the question that the hon. Lady asked about the overall fund, €1 trillion is the number that the eurozone has put on its firewall. Of course, some said it should be larger, but it is very significantly larger than what we had yesterday, which we should welcome. As with private sector involvement in the Greek deal, we now need to see the details of how the eurozone will create that leverage. It has set out two options that can work side by side. One is a kind of first loss insurance on newly issued debt, and the second is the special purpose vehicle, by which it hopes to get external private sector investment. Of course, it is openly speculating about getting Chinese money into that.
The IMF can only lend directly to countries, and countries with programmes or agreed and negotiated flexible credit lines, which will remain the case. It cannot lend into that special purpose vehicle. That is also the UK position. We do not think that Britain, with its deficit, can contribute to the special purpose vehicle. If we were to do so, we would add to our debt, and we do not think that that is appropriate. We have had to use our own resources to deal with our own problems in this country.
It is of course crucial that the IMF remains a central economic institution in dealing with the world’s problems, and I urge the hon. Lady, newly appointed as shadow Chief Secretary, to reconsider Labour’s position—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) led the Labour party in Committee to vote against the increase in IMF resources, which the last Labour Prime Minister negotiated at the London 2009 summit. Whatever I have said about the right hon. Gentleman—and I have said quite a few things—I do not think that anyone would doubt that the highlight of his premiership was the negotiation of the London 2009 G20 deal. It is completely astonishing that the Labour party voted against that agreement.
As we discuss over the next few months increasing the IMF’s resources to deal with all the countries of the world, I urge Labour Members to reconsider their position on that, and also their rather odd position on the euro. They seem to be holding out membership of the euro—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Well, that is certainly what the Labour leader was doing at the weekend. To be in the euro but out of the IMF strikes me as a rather bizarre economic policy at the moment.
That brings me to my final point. Britain has been arguing consistently for months that a solution to this crisis requires recapitalising the banks, reinforcing the firewall and resolving the Greek crisis. We have insisted that the appropriate issues are discussed at the level of 27, which is why there have been two European Councils this week, and an ECOFIN. We will continue to argue for Britain’s national interest as we enter the difficult discussions ahead on the potential treaty change, on making the euro work, and above all on getting the growth and jobs that the hon. Lady talks about across Europe and in this country, by making this continent far more competitive and stopping Britain and Europe from pricing themselves out of the world economy.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Following on from the Chancellor’s final remarks, I am sure he would agree that without a restoration of growth in the eurozone, the debt crisis simply cannot be resolved. He has been with his counterparts quite a lot in the past few days. What evidence has he seen in discussions with them that the EU has the will to implement the necessary reforms on the supply side of the economy to restore Europe’s global competitiveness?
Mr Osborne
There is increasing evidence that people are focused on the structural issues facing the European economy. Indeed, when my hon. Friend looks at the agreement issued by the eurozone last night, he will see that when it refers to Spain and Italy, it stresses the importance not just of getting their budget deficits down, but of plans to increase the pension age and make labour legislation more flexible and competitive—all the sorts of things that this Government are pursuing here in Britain, although every one of those measures has been opposed by the Labour party.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that one reason why the bank recapitalisation worked three years ago was that we were able to provide precisely the sort of detail required to reassure markets that we were taking the necessary action? When can we expect to hear, for example, exactly how much Greek debt is to be written down, and which banks in continental Europe will require additional funds from Governments or other sources? When can we expect to hear more detail about the rescue fund? In relation to that, can he let us know whether there is a commitment on the part of the eurozone to provide real cash—or are we looking at a sophisticated financial instrument of the sort that might have contributed to the problems in the first place?
Mr Osborne
I fear that we are looking at a sophisticated financial instrument here. However, it is clear that Germany and the Bundestag were not prepared to provide further resources. The European Central Bank was not prepared to provide those resources either, for all sorts of reasons to do with its history and those of other central banks in Europe. They have therefore turned to those options to try to leverage up the money they have already committed. That is the sensible choice for them, given those other constraints. They are trying to get other private investors from around the world, potentially including the involvement of sovereign wealth funds, to leverage up the fund.
Of course, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner we get the agreement in detail, the better. That applies equally to what he said about private sector involvement in the Greek write-down. A mistake made earlier this year, on 21 July, was that eurozone members put together a deal and then took months to implement it and get the detail. He is completely right to say that yes, we made some good progress overnight, but the job is not finished yet. The eurozone now has to get the detail and reassure the markets that it has got a grip of the situation. That is where we will continue to exert British pressure.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In what respects does the Chancellor believe, and can he demonstrate, that the proposals for a two-tier Europe and a fiscal union do not represent a constitutional, economic and political fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and ourselves?
Mr Osborne
If my hon. Friend is referring, as I suspect he is, to the European Union Act 2011, there are clear procedures in place for establishing whether powers or competences are being transferred from the UK and this Parliament to Brussels. Those procedures are clearly set out, but I would say that it is in our interests that the euro works. That requires greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, which works to the benefit of Britain, provided that—this is an important proviso—we can continue to ensure that our voice is heard on issues that are for the 27 members, such as the single market, competition policy and financial services. That is what we will be fighting hard for in the coming months.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I remain wholly unconvinced that the euro can survive in its current form, unless the weaker countries are permitted to recreate their own currencies and devalue. They currently face permanent deflation and permanent handouts from Germany. That is no future for them, and no future for Europe.
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman has consistently made that argument for at least as long as I have been a Member of the House of Commons, and longer still. He probably takes some comfort in the fact that events over the past decade have tended to reinforce the views that he has expressed, but I would say this: it is in Britain’s interest that we make the euro work. The disorderly break-up of the euro, or any break-up of the euro, would be an enormous economic blow for this country. Forty per cent. of our trade is with the eurozone.
If we set aside the arguments that we will have this autumn and next year about the domestic effects of the Government’s policies—the Government will argue that they promote growth, and the Opposition will argue that they undermine it—everyone in the House would accept that instability in the eurozone has had a chilling effect on the British economy and other economies. If that is what a bit of instability and market volatility can create, let us just imagine what the break-up of the eurozone will do to this economy.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what the consequences would have been for our membership of the IMF if those who had voted against the increase in our subscription had prevailed?
Mr Osborne
That would have been catastrophic. We would have been the only IMF shareholder not to have ratified the deal initiated at the London G20 summit, which would have completely isolated Britain. We might have had to leave the IMF, and we would certainly have lost our permanent seat on the board. We heard all the talk from the shadow Chief Secretary about ensuring that Britain is at the table—but she wants us to get up and leave the IMF table.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
In his statement, the Chancellor said, quite rightly, that the euro would not work unless the periphery countries regained their competitiveness. How is that possible if those countries do not have the full IMF package, including currency devaluation? In that context, does he think that the IMF will get its money back?
Mr Osborne
It is perfectly possible for areas within a monetary union to increase their competitiveness relative to other areas in the union—parts of the United Kingdom and the United States have done so in the past 20 or 30 years. It is possible, but it is very hard work—I agree with the sentiment that the hon. Lady is expressing—and requires people to tackle tough issues, such as labour market reform, pension ages, tax rates and so on, which, of course, are controversial. However, people in countries such as Italy, Spain and Greece have been confronted with the reality of the need to make change—although we will see whether they do indeed undertake that change. The IMF is the guardian of its own programmes and makes constant assessments of its programmes in Ireland, Greece and Portugal. I do not want to be premature, but I think that we are seeing substantial improvement in the Irish economic performance after the difficult decisions that they have taken in that country.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary once described the euro as a “burning building”. Might it not be an idea for us to help our neighbours get out of the building? We know that there is always an exit from monetary union, so why not help our friends to get out? Keeping them in at any price is in neither their interests nor ours.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter before, and we disagree. What the Foreign Secretary said at the time—I remember because I was his speechwriter—[Interruption.] And there were some very good speeches at the time.
Mr Osborne
They were all written by him.
The Foreign Secretary described the euro as a
“burning building with no exits”.
That was his point. As I said, the break-up of the euro, disorderly or otherwise, this autumn or in the foreseeable future, would cause enormous instability to the entire global economy and do enormous damage to the British economy.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor provide some clarification? He said that no UK funding would go to the euro bail-out. When he talked about supporting the IMF, therefore, did he mean with advice and suggestions only or is he using UK taxpayers’ money to support it? If the latter, how will he force the IMF to ring-fence the money so that it does not pay for a euro bail-out?
Mr Osborne
Let me be clear to the hon. Lady. The IMF potentially has a role—but that is yet to be decided—in helping the eurozone to organise its special purpose vehicle, provide technical support and do all the things that it is very good at doing, which is stepping in and providing expertise. That is a perfectly legitimate role for the IMF. It has done it in other situations where trust funds and the like have been created around the world. However, we are saying that there should not be IMF resources going into this special purpose vehicle in terms of a lending programme. The IMF lends money to countries with conditions attached, and that is what it should do in the future. It is what its articles require it to do. We do not support, and I do not think that the IMF does either, changing those articles and allowing the IMF to lend money to the special purpose vehicle. We are against that and against Britain contributing to the special purpose vehicle, even if countries such as China or Chinese sovereign wealth funds do contribute.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement that resolving the immediate crisis in the eurozone and securing the long-term future of the euro currency are in Britain’s national interest. However, does he agree that it is also in Britain’s national interest to maintain full, positive and active engagement within the EU 27 member states in order to deepen the single market and increase intra-EU trade, which will benefit all member states?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree that there is a very important role for the EU27 to strengthen and deepen the single market and to promote free trade—the EU has just concluded a free trade agreement with South Korea that benefits the British economy directly. Also, the EU will have an important role in things such as financial services regulation, and it is important that that is discussed at the level of the 27, because we are such an important player in the financial services industry worldwide. So I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain has been absolutely clear in recent months that issues affecting the 27 should be discussed by the 27, not at the level of the 17 euro members. It has been partly through our insistence, with others, that there have been two European Councils and an ECOFIN this week to ensure that proper procedures are followed.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor said that British interests should be properly protected when the eurozone countries move towards giving up national sovereignty and towards greater fiscal integration. Will he clarify how that will happen?
Mr Osborne
This is the argument that we have to make over the coming months and as the discussions start on whether there is going to be a future treaty change—although what is being talked about is a treaty change of a limited nature. We have to look for ways of securing Britain’s influence and voice, and the influence and voice of the other nine EU member states that are not in the eurozone. That is absolutely top of our negotiating agenda. However, we also want to secure a rebalancing of the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which will be another important part of the argument that we make.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the 17 eurozone countries have established the precedent of holding their own euro summit and have created yet another president, the president of the euro group, there is a real danger that they will start to agree policies to suit themselves and then impose them on the other 10 EU countries that, thankfully, like the UK, have not adopted the euro?
Mr Osborne
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be alert to the danger of the 17 eurozone members, which will have a qualified voting majority, caucusing on areas that are legitimately the preserve of the 27 member states. When this country, under the previous Government, allowed the eurogroup of Finance Ministers to be established and accepted that Britain would not be at that eurogroup, there was the fear that the eurogroup would caucus. That was one of the concerns of the then Government and Opposition. That actually has not happened. If anything, they have not co-ordinated and worked together closely enough over the past decade or so. However, he is absolutely right that we need to ensure that they do not caucus in the future in a way that undermines our voice and influence or that bounces all 27 member states. All member states not in the euro are alert to this challenge. Indeed, last night the Prime Minister had dinner with the Polish and Swedish Prime Ministers to discuss precisely that issue.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor be crystal clear? Is he guaranteeing that no British money will be used for this bail-out directly, through the IMF or through any other vehicle?
Mr Osborne
I can guarantee that British money is not going into the special purpose vehicle.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Chancellor is absolutely right to say that a disorderly break-up of the euro would be a disaster, but given that the euro is going to break up, should we not take the advice of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and organise an orderly break up of the euro?
Mr Osborne
I do not think that the orderly break-up of the euro, even if it were desirable, which I am not saying it would be, could be done in a way that would not lead to a pretty disorderly impact on financial markets and the British economy.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is a very naughty boy and I shall see him afterwards.
Basically, Greece lied about its finances and Italy is probably still lying about its finances. It would have helped enormously had there been independent proper auditing of those countries’ finances. Many people opposed that when it was proposed, but surely we should be advocating it now. The danger for the Government is that it might apply to all 27 countries, not just the 17 eurozone members.
Mr Osborne
Indeed. The statement talked about independent auditing of finance and independent growth figures on which to base fiscal projections, which is precisely what we have introduced in this country through the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility. That will ensure that we do not get political pressure to alter the growth forecast of the type that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), detailed in his recent autobiography.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
The 50% haircut has been described as a charge on the banks, but Greek sovereign debt is actually held by insurance companies, pension funds and hundreds of thousands of individual savers. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is in the package—or what measures he thinks need to be taken—to restore confidence in the existing sovereign debt of the peripheral eurozone countries?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend’s first point is a good one. The write-down of Greek debt ultimately has an impact on people who invest in Greek debt, either directly or—as is more likely for the general population of this country—through their pension funds and the like. Thankfully, British institutions were not that heavily exposed to the Greek banking system and economy, compared with other European countries such as France and Germany, but he is right that people will have taken losses. In Britain, the institutions that he mentioned all provisioned for Greek loss many months ago, so it will come as no shock to them. More broadly, he asked about confidence in the stock of debt, which is of course one of the challenges. The first loss guarantee that the agreement talks about is only for newly issued debt. We will have to see how the special purpose vehicle works as well, but in general, if there is confidence that there is a sufficient set of mechanisms in place to stand behind the euro and countries that are in trouble, that will also increase confidence in the stock of debt.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor might be surprised to know that if limited treaty changes are necessary to set up the inner 17, there would be support from the Opposition Benches for the limited changes needed to protect Britain’s interests and for the capacity to build a coalition among the 10 non-eurozone members. However, a very real political question is whether the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will be able to withstand the pressure from their Back Benches for much more fundamental reform of the treaty.
Mr Osborne
I would hope that we would persuade all parties in this House. There is certainly strong agreement on the Conservative Benches that we want to rebalance the responsibilities and repatriate some powers. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrat leader have talked about rebalancing responsibilities—he did so earlier this week. [Interruption.] The shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), seems to forget the position set out by his party leader this weekend. When he was asked whether he thought that Brussels had too much power, he said no. That is the official position of the Labour party going into these negotiations. I know that Opposition Members look pretty glum about it, but that is what the leader they chose—or rather, they did not choose—has done for them.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Will the Chancellor explain to the House how it has come about that although the United Kingdom’s deficit this year is larger than Greece’s, our interest rates are similar to those in Germany?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a good observation. Because of the credible fiscal plans that we have set out, we have secured confidence in Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world, taken our credit rating off negative watch, which is where it was at the time of the general election, and secured for our country record low interest rates. Those interest rates would be at risk if we pursued the policies advocated by the Opposition, which would also be a rather bizarre position to take into the European Council discussions, when right at the top of the agreement signed yesterday is the statement that countries need to pursue policies of
“fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.”
The Opposition have voted against every policy of fiscal consolidation and every policy of structural reform.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Does the Chancellor think that the 50% haircut of Greek sovereign debt will be sufficient and does he expect that holders of Italian debt will also need a trip to the barber’s?
Mr Osborne
We think 50% is a very good number. We had in mind somewhere around 50%, and we wondered whether that would be achievable. One of the pleasant surprises of last night was that it was achieved. It is only a headline agreement, and as the former Chancellor said earlier, it absolutely needs to be put into practice now if this deal is to mean anything. I think it is best for me to stick to talking just about Greece.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
RBS shares have jumped 7% this morning in response to the eurozone statement. Does the Chancellor share the markets’ view that British banks are sufficiently capitalised to withstand not just the haircut to Greek debt, but any other eventualities that might arise in the eurozone over the next few months?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I am confident about that, which is also something that the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority monitor carefully. The important thing about the test that the European Banking Authority applied was that it not only required banks to hold 9% core tier 1, but marked to market their sovereign debt exposures, which is something that the eurozone resisted for the last year and a half. Of course, the market has priced in some haircuts—to continue the barbershop analogy—of other sovereign debts. That does not mean that I think they will happen; they are what the market thinks will happen. The fact that we have now tested our banks against those marked to market on sovereign debt gives us confidence that the banking system in Britain can withstand whatever is thrown its way in the next couple of months.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Something that I do not often discuss with people in the House is the fact that for some years the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, his Chancellor and I chaired the committee on preparations for the euro, on which the present Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills served, so I have some experience in this area. The Governor of the Bank of England said that we were in the middle of the worst crisis in the history of the international economy, but when I listened to today’s statement, the Chancellor seemed to come across as extremely timid about this country’s role in meeting that challenge.
Mr Osborne
I will have to thumb through the index of Peter Oborne’s book, “Guilty Men”, to see whether there is a reference to the hon. Gentleman. I will concede that there are a few references to some of my colleagues in that book, but I have a good alibi, which is that I was writing speeches for the Foreign Secretary at the time, making it clear what some of the problems were with the euro, and some of those problems have come to pass.
Mr Osborne
As the Foreign Secretary used to say at the time, he wrote his own speeches, and I write my speeches today—and those who have written my speeches before me have got themselves into the House of Commons, which is a good thing.
The serious point that I would make to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is this. I completely reject his idea that Britain has been marginalised. We have actually insisted that such matters be discussed at the European Council and ECOFIN. A key component of today’s agreement is the banking package, which is the area where there is most detail. There was a 10-hour negotiation to achieve the banking package last Saturday which Britain was right at the heart of, so we are at the centre of things. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that his party’s Front-Bench policy to marginalise us from the IMF would also see us leaving that key negotiating table.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals for a financial transaction tax are now dead in the water?
Mr Osborne
I cannot confirm that they are dead in the water, because the eurozone is determined to pursue a financial transaction tax and talks about that in its statement. However, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that Britain will not accept a financial transaction tax at an EU27 level while other jurisdictions in the world do not impose one. We are not opposed to financial transaction taxes in principle—after all, we have stamp duty on shares in this country—but we will not have a financial transaction tax at a European Union level while countries such as America, China, Singapore and others do not have one. As their having one is a long way off, we will be waiting a long time—perhaps for ever—for a European Union financial transaction tax.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the next few years we are likely to see the emergence of a two-speed Europe, with the Government—or parts of the Government—going in exactly the opposite direction. What can the Chancellor and the Prime Minister do to ensure that we are not locked out of the fundamental decisions that will be made?
Mr Osborne
I just do not accept the premise behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. The coalition agreement explicitly states:
“We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”.
The odd one out is the Labour party, which has set itself against taking any power from Brussels back to Britain. That is exactly what the Labour leader said this weekend when asked that question. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman use his lobbying efforts and his questions on his own party leader.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I for one do not share the optimism that the latest package of measures will do the job, if only because it does not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is a lack of competitiveness. Can the Chancellor assure the House and the country that, if there were to be a further downward leg to the crisis, Britain will not be called on in any way to help financially with any further rescue packages, whether through the IMF or not?
Mr Osborne
As I have said to the House, Britain should not be part of eurozone bail-outs. We got ourselves out of—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. On coming to office, on the Sunday after the general election, the Labour Government committed us to being part of an EU bail-out of the eurozone. We have now got ourselves out of that, which is very important. We are also not contributing to the eurozone bail-out of Greece, which has just increased in size; nor are we going to contribute to any special purpose vehicle or fund that might be created. We are absolutely clear about that. When it comes to IMF resources, like every other country in the world that is a member of the IMF, including China, Thailand, Guatemala, the United States of America, Canada and Brazil, we of course contribute to its resources for the 53 programmes that it is currently carrying out across the world, and we will continue to do so. However, we are not prepared to see—and the articles of the IMF do not allow for—money from the IMF being put into a special purpose vehicle. So I think that the position is pretty clear.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I would think much more highly of the Chancellor if he would actually admit that one reason that the banking system in the UK is not under threat is because the last Government and the people of this country bailed out the banks.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, as Hansard will show, I asked him last time about the possibility that they would require a £2 trillion fund, which most economists say they will, and that the so-called haircut—more Sweeney Todd than Vidal Sassoon—would be 60%. Surely we must be in the IMF and involved in funding through the IMF; otherwise the big bazooka that the Prime Minister has talked about will say “Made in China”.
Mr Osborne
I am happy to acknowledge that the previous Government recapitalised the British banks. They were obviously under enormous duress at the time—[Interruption.] It is simply not the case, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East has just suggested, that the Conservatives opposed that. We supported it at the time; indeed, we were advocating it in advance of it happening. However, I completely recognise that it was a difficult decision for the previous Government to take.
On the question of the size of the fund, of course there are those who would like it to be even larger. We should welcome the significant progress that has increased its size severalfold to, potentially, around €1 trillion, which is a significant sum. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) also asked an interesting question about what was happening during our time as Members of Parliament to the balance of economic force and power in the world. I suspect that we are going to spend many years talking about that in the period ahead.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate the remaining colleagues who are seeking to catch my eye, but I must remind the House that there is a business statement to follow, and a significant debate thereafter. I am therefore looking for brevity.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s approach, including his recognition that the division of responsibilities between the EU and member states has become unbalanced. Does he agree that the new proposals for fiscal integration and mutual control in the eurozone do nothing to reduce the case for a rebalancing of those responsibilities?
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor update us on the situation regarding Cypriot banks, with their many customers in the UK and their tie-in to the Greek economy?
Mr Osborne
We keep under close surveillance not only British banks but the branches of Cypriot banks and the subsidiaries of other banks operating here in the UK. So we are closely monitoring the Cypriot banks, as we do with the other eurozone banks in Britain.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Has the Chancellor seen any credible figures that show that Greece can solve its long-term deficit and debt problems and still remain in the eurozone?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I think that there are plenty of things that Greece can do, which the Greek Government have already identified, to make itself much more competitive. It is coming from a long way behind, but it can do quite a lot in regard to its labour market, its pension ages, its tax rates and the like that would make it considerably more competitive than it is today.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Chancellor please give us more details of how he intends to represent the UK’s interests, given that the eurozone countries have their own separate president and summits?
Mr Osborne
Eurozone Finance Ministers’ meetings are already held every month—that was agreed by the previous Government—and there is now an agreement to hold two eurozone Heads of Government summits a year. There have been two this year already, but we should not regard that as a fundamental threat; we have to allow them to get together to better manage their own currency. We are, however, looking at proposals that have been put forward here for those summits to take place after the EU27 leaders gather, rather than before, so that we do not have any caucusing in advance of a meeting of the European Council.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
How confident is my right hon. Friend that countries such as China will want to contribute to the special purpose vehicle, and what will happen if they do not?
Mr Osborne
The short answer is that we will find out whether China wants to contribute. The President of France is speaking to the President of China today, and he will no doubt give us all an update following that conversation.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Much to the annoyance of some of his Back Benchers, the Chancellor supports greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, but what precisely does he mean by greater fiscal integration?
Mr Osborne
I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to Conservative Back Benchers. Actually, quite a lot of Eurosceptics would argue—as I would, as a Eurosceptic—that we always said that this would happen if we joined the single currency. We always said that it would result in losing national sovereignty, co-ordinating budget policies or giving away powers over budgets. That is one of the reasons that we did not want Britain to join; it is why we stayed out. Given that monetary union logic leads to greater fiscal integration, we should let that happen, because I think that it will make the euro work better. As I have said, however, Britain wants no part of it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Harlow taxpayers will be very relieved that none of their hard-earned money is to be used to prop up failed socialist Governments in Europe. They will also want to be sure, however, that my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to repatriate powers from Europe, unlike Labour Members, who believe that everything in the EU garden is rosy.
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we are going to seek to rebalance those responsibilities. He also draws our attention to the fact that Greece and Spain are run by socialist Governments, but I do not want to intrude on their politics.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Having just taken credit for letting Greece off half its debt at the expense of, among others, British pensioners, what provisions would the Chancellor advise British institutions to make in regard to Italian debt?
Mr Osborne
I am not providing that advice across the Dispatch Box, but the Financial Services Authority, the Bank of England and the Treasury monitor British financial institutions to ensure that they are appropriately prepared for things that might happen. The European Banking Authority test that I have talked about takes into account a mark to market on the sovereign debt exposures of countries such as Italy and Spain.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
The Opposition have talked a lot about Britain’s marginalisation, so may I say that I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister attended yesterday’s meeting because I know that the Leader of the Opposition would much prefer President Sarkozy to represent this country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that while he is Chancellor he will do everything he can to ensure that a British Prime Minister represents British interests in Europe?
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
May I just press the Chancellor a little further on the Prime Minister’s desire to repatriate powers over employment and social policy? What discussions has he had so far with eurozone Finance Ministers on these matters and how many of them would he expect to support the Prime Minister’s position?
Mr Osborne
The discussions on treaty change, which the Council conclusions on the eurozone mention, have only just begun, so I have not had those discussions.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend anticipate how his international counterparts would have reacted at recent EU summits if he had argued that, as advocated by Labour Members, the UK should increase its borrowing by the end of this Parliament by up to £87 billion a year?
Mr Osborne
We would, of course, have been laughed out of the summit. We would not even have been able to sign up to the Council’s conclusions. The Labour party policy has no plan to reduce the deficit—[Interruption.] Well, if there is a plan, let us hear it. Let us hear one example. The Labour party has no plan to reduce our deficit, which is higher than that of almost any of the countries we have talked about. It has a plan basically to pull us out of the International Monetary Fund and a plan to join the euro—such plans would be treated as slightly bizarre at some of these meetings.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
More constituents have contacted me about the financial transaction tax than ever contacted me about Monday’s debate. They will be pleased to have heard the Chancellor say that he supports this in principle. Will he go to the G20 to argue vigorously in favour of this tax?
Mr Osborne
What I would say about the financial transaction tax—[Interruption.] I am not sure that it is Labour policy. There is a debate about this tax, but attached to it is a serious red herring. People would like a financial transaction tax to be used to pay for the aid commitments into which big western countries entered. That is what all the non-governmental organisations that contacted the hon. Lady and others are arguing for. Britain is meeting its international aid commitments out of its own resources, and we do need a financial transaction tax across Europe for other countries to meet the aid commitments they entered into. When it comes to the principle of the financial transaction tax, one cannot oppose it, as we have a stamp duty on shares, but I would say that if we impose such a tax in Europe, all the business would disappear overnight to Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere. We know that because that is what happened when the United States imposed a form of transaction tax on the euro-dollar market—it moved to London—and when Sweden introduced a financial transaction tax in the early ’90s, its entire business moved to London almost immediately. We have many case-studies. I understand why people are emotive about this issue, but surely the question is, “Are you meeting your aid commitments?”—and this country is. We should all be proud of that.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Following the deal on the eurozone, I understand that Italian media and Italian businesses are calling on Mr Berlusconi to copy this Government’s approach to deficit reduction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Italy and other eurozone countries would have been far better off if they had followed that course of action long before now?
Mr Osborne
I think they would have been in a better position if they had got ahead of the pressure from the markets rather than being pursued by them. That is precisely what this Government did in Britain. The markets are, for many people, an abstract idea, but as we have discussed, we are talking ultimately about the decisions of many millions of investors and people with pensions, life insurance policies and the like about where they put their money. If they do not have confidence in a country’s ability to pay its way in the world, that money disappears almost overnight.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Has the Chancellor had an opportunity to carry out the work that will determine if, when and by how much last night’s decision will impact on UK growth? If he has not had that opportunity, will he undertake to come back to us so we can have further debate on that very matter?
Mr Osborne
The honest answer to the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly good question is that, on the morning after the night before, we do not know because important details remain to be resolved. We need to see the detail of how this 50% write-down of Greek debt is going to happen and we need to see how the new firewall will work in practice. We have to see the details: until they are in place, this will remain unresolved and the instability might return. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that when the detail is in place, we should be able to make an assessment of whether it has calmed the markets and improved the UK growth position.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
While strongly supporting my right hon. Friend’s robust defence of the national interest, may I ask him what the statement means where it says “to provide, from the bail-out fund”, presumably the existing bail-out fund, “insurance on new debt issued by eurozone countries”, presumably including Italy?
Mr Osborne
The concept here is that first-loss insurance on newly issued debt from countries such as Italy, as my hon. Friend mentions, would be provided out of the special purpose vehicle. That would obviously make it easier for investors to buy bad debt.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement that some progress has been made to protect the eurozone. In parallel with repatriating powers, will the British Government make it absolutely certain that the single market becomes a place where competition can thrive and productivity can improve, as it is in our interest as well as that of the whole of Europe to make sure that it works well?
Mr Osborne
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The European single market has helped the UK economy over the last couple of decades. We want to see it completed further and we want to see the services directive properly implemented. Competition has brought great benefits not just to the economy, but to European consumers, including those in this country. To my mind, that is what the European Union exists to do. It should make its contribution to growth across the continent.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that the euro preparations unit has been abolished and that under this Government it will never be re-established?
Mr Osborne
That is an easy assurance for me to give to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There was a euro preparations unit in the Treasury when I arrived. It was shut down and it will not be reopened.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the previous Government signed this country up to the Nice treaty 10 years ago, they also signed away our veto on financial assistance to European nations?
Mr Osborne
I can confirm that we have lost our veto on financial assistance. That was one of the issues with the so-called EFSM—the European financial stabilisation mechanism—which was the EU27 bail-out fund, which we joined a couple of days before this Government were created. Getting us out of it—[Interruption.] The former Chancellor’s memoirs are very clear about this.
Mr Osborne
The former Chancellor wrote them! What I would say to my hon. Friend is that we did not have the power to veto disbursements from the EFSM, so we had to negotiate our way out of it. That is precisely what the British Prime Minister has done.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
We hear Labour Members suggesting that Britain is somehow isolated from other members at the EU table, but does the Chancellor agree that what they forget is that by refusing to rule out joining the euro and by insisting that more powers be ceded to Brussels, they are isolating themselves from the broad mass of the British people?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable position for the Labour leader to take when he says:
“I don’t think Brussels has too much power.”
What sort of negotiation would it be if he were in charge?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Chancellor’s efforts to protect British taxpayers from further bail-outs. I also welcome his statement that the International Monetary Fund exists to support countries that cannot support themselves, but I reiterate my concern that the IMF does not end up supporting a currency if a country chooses not to take the right action.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend has made a good point. The IMF exists to support countries, and supports 53 at present. It does not exist to support currencies.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the Chancellor tell us how on earth it can be the case that, although it has a larger deficit than Greece, the United Kingdom enjoys German levels of interest rates?
Mr Osborne
That is because this Government, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party—which created this mess—have established fiscal credibility, brought our interest rates down, and ensured that while we may talk about the bail-out of some European countries, we are not talking about the bail-out of Britain.
Business of the House
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week beginning 31 October will be as follows:
Monday 31 October—Instruction relating to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 1 November—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 2).
Wednesday 2 November—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 3).
Thursday 3 November—General debate on the Silk commission.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 November will include the following:
Monday 7 November—Money resolution relating to the Localism Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Localism Bill.
Tuesday 8 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to European budgets, followed by motion to approve a reasoned opinion relating to credit institutions, followed by business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 9 November—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Thursday 10 November—General debate on armed forces personnel.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 and 10 November 2011 will be as follows:
Thursday 3 November—Debate on shale gas, followed by debate on electricity market reform.
Thursday 10 November—Debate on funding of social care.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Last Monday was the 50th anniversary of the first session of Prime Minister’s questions. I am surprised that the Leader of the House did not mention that. I know how much you enjoy those occasions, Mr Speaker.
When I looked it up, I found that the first such occasion featured an old Etonian Tory Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, fielding questions about his negotiations to get us into the “common market.” Fifty years on, the latest Old Etonian Tory Prime Minister spent the day frantically pleading with his own side not to vote for a referendum to get us out of it. Macmillan was famous for his “little local difficulties”. I think that the current Prime Minister now has 81 “little local difficulties” of his own making, and more in the Cabinet. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the PM will follow Supermac’s example, and resort to a “night of the long knives” to deal with them?
This Government’s flawed choice to cut too far and too fast before the recovery was secure stalled growth in the economy long before the eurozone crisis. Despite the most ferocious squeeze in living standards for generations, their only plan is to abolish employment rights for millions of people in the workplace. May we have a debate on this week’s leaked report from millionaire financier Adrian Beecroft, which calls for the scrapping of protections against unfair dismissal, and says that creating that insecurity for millions of people at work is “a price worth paying”? Can the Leader of the House tell us why owning four Aston Martins and making lavish donations to the Tory party qualify Mr Beecroft to have a worthwhile opinion on anything?
Last week the Leader of the House told us that rushing forward the debate on EU reform from Thursday to Monday would allow the Foreign Secretary to enrich it with his presence. Can he tell the House how large the Tory rebellion would have been if the Foreign Secretary had not enriched the debate with his presence? And, given that this was the biggest rebellion on Europe in any political party since the dawn of time, can he tell us who is taking the blame? Tory blogger Tim Montgomerie blamed the Prime Minister, accusing him of having a work ethic which is the “opposite of Margaret Thatcher’s”. Apparently our Prime Minister is more interested in the latest box sets than in his red boxes. This week he has obviously been watching too much of “The Sopranos” and not enough “Friends”. [Laughter.]
Ms Eagle
Indeed. Perhaps I should repeat it.
Is it not clear that the Prime Minister’s plans backfired spectacularly, with half his own Back Benchers defying him? Today we learnt that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has threatened to leave the Cabinet if he is ever forced to vote against his Eurosceptic instincts again, and now we learn that the Justice Secretary has been suddenly pulled out of today’s debate on the Council of Europe, just in case he says something nice about the EU and further alienates the Tory rebels. What has it come to in today’s Tory party when Eurosceptics are bullied and pro-Europeans are gagged?
Given that last night’s welcome agreement in Brussels brings the prospect of a treaty change much closer, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government’s policy on Europe is now, and may we have a debate about it? While he was getting the Whips to bully them, the Prime Minister was trying to appease his mutinous Back Benchers by promising them reform tomorrow. The next day, his deputy vetoed it. The Prime Minister wants to repatriate powers, whereas the Deputy Prime Minister says that that “won’t work” and is “condemned to failure”. Which is it?
Speaking of the Deputy Prime Minister, his reward for rubbing salt in Eurosceptic wounds this week is being allowed to blow an extra half a million pounds a year on seven new Liberal Democrat special advisers. That is apparently intended to “bolster” Liberal Democrat influence in Whitehall. Perhaps, in the light of all this confusion and contradiction between the Prime Minister and his deputy, we should have a debate about what plans the Government have to repatriate powers from the Liberal Democrats. Is it not the case that the past few days have exposed a weak Prime Minister leading a divided Government, too busy fighting internal battles to fight for Britain’s interests?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady is right: this is the 50th anniversary of the first session of Prime Minister’s questions. I think that the Prime Minister enjoys the event more than the Leader of the Opposition.
I remind the hon. Lady that Supermac never lost an election. As for rebellions, she seems to think that they have happened only under the coalition Government, but the last Government endured much bigger rebellions. In March 2007, 94 Labour MPs voted to delay Trident, and even the hon. Lady has a history of dabbling in rebellions on issues such as foundation trusts.
Let me deal briefly with some of the other issues that the hon. Lady raised. We are committed to reforming employment law, supporting business and encouraging growth, while—crucially—ensuring that we do not weaken the employment rights of workers up and down the country; and we do not comment on leaked reports such as the one to which the hon. Lady referred.
We have just heard a statement on Europe, in which the Chancellor addressed the issue of treaty change. My party is united behind the Prime Minister’s vision for reform in the European Union, and indeed that is an aspiration shared by many across the continent. I agree with Lord Ashdown, who said in an interview yesterday:
“I don’t think Europe needs to be as intrusive as it is and so does Nick Clegg.”
As for the treaty, the hon. Lady will know what the coalition agreement says:
“We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”.
That remains the position. The coalition parties are in total harmony on the issue.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on happiness? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Is the Leader of the House aware that from this weekend onwards, for several months, many millions of people will be less happy than they could be as Britain is plunged into darkness by early afternoon after we have put our clocks back? If we cannot have a debate, may we have action in future to end this unnecessary and depressing ritual?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this important issue. He will know that a private Member’s Bill has been tabled on the specific subject that he has raised. It has received a Second Reading, and the Government are considering their position and consulting the devolved Assemblies which have an interest in the issue. We want to reach a consensus and make progress.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
May we have an informed debate about the right of public service workers to be appropriately represented at their workplace? Unfortunately, the sponsor of last night’s Adjournment debate was ill-informed and perpetuated the myth that trade unions are “the enemy within.” He represents the same party that heaps praise on our emergency service workers, but seeks to deny them proper representation at their workplace, which is utter hypocrisy.
Sir George Young
As the hon. Gentleman said, we had an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I am sure that the Minister replying to that debate made an informed contribution and dealt seriously with the issues raised. I cannot promise another such debate in Government time in the near future.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the House that Members who have not been present from the start should not expect to be called?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May we have a debate on freedom of speech? Mr Peter Tatchell—a gentleman for whom I have some admiration—has today attacked the Trafford Housing Trust for its despicable decision to downgrade the position and cut the salary of Mr Adrian Smith, a Christian, for posting private comments on his own private Facebook account on the subject of gay marriage. Should we be putting public money into an organisation that is, effectively, propagating state-sponsored intolerance?
Sir George Young
I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of worship. Of course people should obey the law of the country. I will draw this incident to the attention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, to see whether there is any action to be taken either by him or the Housing Corporation.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Backbench Business Committee has experienced a large increase in demand for debate time as a direct result of the introduction of e-petitions. As it is in the Leader of the House’s gift to give debate time to the Backbench Business Committee, will he recognise that his introduction of e-petitions and assigning the Backbench Business Committee to deal with them has led to this enormous increase in demand on time, and therefore allocate extra time, ring-fenced specifically for e-petitions?
Sir George Young
May I begin by commending the work of the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Lady in chairing it? Three petitions have passed the threshold. Her Committee has found time for one in Westminster Hall and one in the Chamber, and the third is before her at the moment. I commend the way in which the Committee has handled those petitions. There will be an opportunity to review both the e-petition regime and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and the Procedure Committee will conduct a broader review of the calendar, which is the context in which we should address the hon. Lady’s concern about how we might find more headroom for the Committee to respond to the many demands on its time.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On the question of happiness, the Leader of the House may be interested to know that 50 years ago this very week Helen Shapiro was top of the hit parade with “Walking Back to Happiness”.
I welcome the upcoming armed forces debate, but will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers are well briefed on the future of the Ministry of Defence police and on housing for the families of military personnel?
Sir George Young
I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend is happy, as he usually intervenes on matters relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, when he is far from happy. I thank him for his welcome for the armed forces debate. As he knows, there used to be regular armed forces debates in Government time, but responsibility for finding time then passed to the Backbench Business Committee. It has not so far been able to find time for such a debate—we understand why as we have just heard from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the time pressures facing the Committee—so the Government have provided a debate in the run-up to Armistice day. We think that that is an appropriate time for the House to remember those who serve in the armed forces, especially as it will now also be held against the backdrop of the ending of action in Libya. We think it is appropriate that the House should have a debate on this subject, which it has not discussed for a year.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that the Secretary of State for Health is due to make a statement of some kind at 1 o’clock today on the Government’s response to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel findings on the future of health services in north-east London, including King George hospital in my constituency. This morning, the Care Quality Commission published a damning report on the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, criticising poor management and some poor staff attitudes, and saying that the attempt to cut the deficit had led to reductions in the quality of care and that the transfer of services from King George hospital to the Queen’s hospital had not led to efficiency savings. May we have an early debate on these matters? I understand from the Secretary of State’s private office that he is due to make a statement in six minutes’ time, but neither I nor any of the other eight MPs representing the area—all of whom have been campaigning hard to save services at the hospital—have yet been informed of what is in that statement.
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about health service provision in his constituency. My understanding is that the Secretary of State for Health will shortly make a decision on this issue, which arises from the work of the panel on reconfiguration of services. When the Secretary of State has made his decisions, the Members concerned will be informed in the usual way, and I am sure he will take into account all relevant information, including any from the CQC.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
When I served as a church warden, I was advised that it was an offence to prevent any worshippers from attending divine service, and that as a church warden I had the power of arrest within the churchyard. I never had to test that, but given the confusion at St Paul’s cathedral, may we have a statement on the legal position?
Sir George Young
I commend my hon. Friend on his work as a church warden for the Church of England. As I understand it, there has been a resignation at St Paul’s. So far as I know, the protestors have not closed a bank or caused a single banker to resign, but they have closed St Paul’s and caused the resignation of a cleric who was committed to their cause. The legal situation is complex, as there is a variety of land ownership surrounding St Paul’s. My understanding is that the City of London Corporation is in touch with the Church authorities to see if they can reach agreement on the way forward. In the meantime, I hope that the protestors will heed the advice from a number of sources, not least the Bishop of London, that they should stop their protest and allow free access to St Paul’s.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Domestic violence costs the economy more than £6 billion, and research shows that it is three times more likely to occur when couples are under financial strain. On Monday, the Prime Minister was unable to tell me three ways in which his Government have helped women’s contribution to the economy. In view of that and the fact that the Bill we will start discussing next Monday will reduce access to legal aid for women victims of domestic violence, may we have a statement from the Government on what they have done to protect women from domestic violence?
Sir George Young
Only a few days ago, we had a debate in which we assisted women by changing the pension age arrangements, and there will be opportunities to discuss domestic violence in the three days next week that we debate the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The hon. Lady will also know that on Tuesday of this week the Home Secretary started a consultation on Clare’s law, which will bring real help to those suffering from domestic violence by giving people the right to know, or a right to ask, whether they are with a partner who has a history of violence. We have, therefore, taken a number of steps to protect women liable to domestic violence, and next week there will be an opportunity to pursue the agenda further.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
My constituency in Middlesex is driven by small business. May we have a debate on tax and tax reforms, and their effect on small business?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right that small and medium-sized enterprises are the drivers of economic growth, and he may have an opportunity to raise the topic when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes his autumn statement in November. In the meantime, my hon. Friend will know that we have extended the small business rate relief holiday for a year, we are working to abolish 43 tax reliefs in the system to come up with a better regime, and we are cutting corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G7. I hope that will help small businesses in Spelthorne.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Does the Leader of the House think it is ever right or appropriate for a Chair of a Select Committee to threaten a female member of that Committee with getting “a doing”?
Sir George Young
My understanding is that, whatever happened in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Chairman has apologised and I think that is the right action for him to take.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Ealing recently held its first public scrutiny meeting on the aftermath of the riots. One of the main concerns was the slowness with which insurance companies have been responding to claims from riot victims. If that is the case, it is totally unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend raise the matter with the Business Secretary and perhaps ask for a statement to be made to the House?
Sir George Young
It would be quite wrong of insurance companies to penalise the victims of the riots by withholding the compensation to which they are entitled. I say in passing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has extended the period during which businesses can claim for compensation. I will certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who may want to raise it with the Association of British Insurers. I am sure that individual Members of Parliament will take up any case where an injustice has been done to their constituents, and pursue it directly and vigorously with the insurance company concerned.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Recently, a female constituent of mine came to a surgery very concerned that she could not get access to a life-saving cancer drug, Femara. This is not to do with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, as the drug is available and regularly prescribed. What she could not do is access it in her chemist, and this is now happening throughout the United Kingdom. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on access to prescribed drugs and on the merits or otherwise of a public service obligation, as every other European country has, to make sure that not only do wholesalers provide these vital life-saving drugs and they are distributed, but every chemist holds stocks of them?
Sir George Young
I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. We debated health provision yesterday, although I am not sure whether he had the opportunity to raise the matter then. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman, reacting to the strong case that he has just made.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
May we have a debate on Government transparency? Hard-working taxpayers are learning today that the previous Government spent hundreds of pounds in an Australian casino. We do not know whether they put all the money on red, we do not know whether they blew it all and we do not know what they did with any winnings, but that is just one example of the misuse of Government procurement cards. Can the Leader of the House also tell us what the Government are doing to crack down on such excesses?
Sir George Young
The Government strongly believe in transparency. My hon. Friend will know that our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is today publishing details of all credit card expenditure of more than £500 made in recent months. We have borne down on the use of credit cards within the public sector, but we believe that transparency has a key role to play. I commend my right hon. Friend for publishing details of spending on Whitehall procurement cards which, as my hon. Friend indicated, has a number of interesting avenues that I am sure the media will want to explore.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
This has been a good week for the Backbench Business Committee. A few months ago, we had a debate in this Chamber about the use of wild animals in circuses, in which the view of the House was very clear. May we have a statement to the House on the progress the Government are making in addressing what they perceive are the legal obstacles to carrying out the will of the House in that respect?
Sir George Young
The Backbench Business Committee exists because the coalition Government set it up; the previous Administration failed to do that. I will certainly make inquiries about any legal obstacles that impede the will of the House, as expressed in that debate, being carried forward, and I will ask the Minister concerned to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the decision to hold a debate on the Silk commission in Government time, and I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate that important issue of highlighting the fiscal responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. What assurances can the Leader of the House give me regarding the time that will be allocated for that debate, to ensure that the subject is fully discussed in this House?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that traditionally there has been a St David’s day debate on Welsh affairs and that in this Parliament we have not had a debate on Wales. Given the pressure on the Backbench Business Committee, we felt that it was right to debate the Silk commission, which addresses issues of the governance of Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales and, indeed, the commission will want to know the views of the House, and we have provisionally allocated a whole day’s debate for that important matter.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Hundreds of my recently unemployed constituents have heard about job vacancies in the Palace. These are jobs working with charities, offering first-class travel and 40 lavish overseas trips. If the job application forms were made available in Accrington jobcentre, I am sure that we would get a high calibre of applicant. May we have a statement on why those job application details are not available in Hyndburn and Haslingden?
Sir George Young
I am not sure that I have correctly understood the hon. Gentleman’s question. Is he referring to job vacancies in the Palace of Westminster? Is that the thrust of his question?
Sir George Young
Jobs within the Palace come from a variety of sources: some are from individual Members and some are from the House of Commons Commission. The House of Commons Commission, as an equal opportunities employer, advertises jobs in the normal way, and I am sure that we would welcome applications from the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate about the incompetence and inefficiencies of the Child Support Agency? Three constituents of mine, David Kidd, Rodney Zuna and Mark Lavery, have been very poorly treated by that organisation. In the case of Mr David Kidd, the CSA is refusing to pay money that is rightfully owed to him after he was found not to be the father of a child, and the situation is causing him immense hardship. Will the Leader of the House raise this issue with Ministers?
Sir George Young
I will certainly contact Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to pursue the individual case raised by my hon. Friend. We all know from our own casework that the CSA generates a fantastic amount of work. The Government are in the process of reforming the child maintenance system by putting the child first, encouraging parents to come to an agreement about financial support and then providing statutory back-up where that is impossible. We believe that that will be a better system than the one we have at the moment.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the light of this week’s comments by Jamie Oliver about school food, may we please have a debate about school dinners and whether the Government have any commitment to them at all?
Sir George Young
The Government are committed to the provision of free school meals with appropriate nutritional content. I would personally welcome such a debate. I cannot provide Government time for one but I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee or you, Mr Speaker, might respond to an application for a debate on the Adjournment.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
At the Quest academy in my constituency 41% of pupils got five good GCSEs, including English and maths, this year. That was an increase from the 23% figure that the previous school, Selsdon high, got just a year ago, making the Quest academy one of the most improved schools in the country. Other neighbouring schools—Edenham high school, Shirley high school and the Oasis academy—also saw big improvements. May we have a debate on how the Government’s education reforms are transforming the life chances of deprived children in my constituency?
Sir George Young
We would welcome such a debate, and I hope that the Opposition, who have an Opposition day or two in the weeks ahead, might choose education as a subject for debate. We heard yesterday their somewhat confused position whereby they are in favour of free schools individually, but oppose the policy that generates them.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Given the fact that the Prime Minister on three separate occasions refused to list the powers that he wants to bring back from Brussels, may we have an urgent statement on the matter so that he can spell out clearly to the British people which powers he wants to bring back from Brussels? Is he afraid to do so?
Sir George Young
The Prime Minister answered questions on this matter for an hour on Monday and he answered questions yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the coalition agreement, he will find a specific example of where we want to get powers back—it concerns the working time directive.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
When I was born, the global population was 3 billion. It is about to breach 7 billion, and although I can say that I have modestly added to that, it is not all my fault. Such increase is unsustainable, as it will put undue pressures on water, food and even jobs. May I invite the Leader of the House to enable us to debate that very difficult subject, which we need to embrace in the future?
Sir George Young
We are all in this together. The figures that I saw, which I believe were published yesterday, showed that two thirds of the increase in the UK’s population was due to immigration, with the rest being due to increased longevity. On immigration, my hon. Friend will know the steps being taken by the Home Secretary to reduce net migration down to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. The steps we have taken regarding students, spouses and workers will all have a downward impact on the future UK population, which I hope he will welcome.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I wonder if the Leader of the House will encourage the Government to have an investigation and make a statement or create a debate on the operation of the 2002 commercial debts Act? I have found, through the wonderful scheme of being a business buddy for the federation of private business, that small businesses find that many bigger companies still write into their contracts a 90-day payment period, even though the Act states 30 days, and even SELECT, the electrical engineering group, says the same. The big businesses are bullying small businesses out of their rights under the Act, and I want to know what the Government are going to do to enforce that Act.
Sir George Young
We have just had Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise this issue then. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Business Secretary to see whether there is abuse of that piece of legislation and, if so, what action we can take to stop it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Monday’s historic debate was a great success for Parliament. The mother of Parliaments was watched by our nation and we had 90-odd Members participating in the debate. They spoke from their hearts and when the Division came Members from all three major parties voted differently. One point that has not been established, though, is that that debate could not have taken place had the Leader of the House not personally driven through the e-petitions process, and I do not think the Prime Minister has given him the credit for Monday’s debate that he deserves. Could we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on ensuring that we have more such debates?
Sir George Young
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his first-class winding-up speech to that debate, which I am sure had an important impact on the subsequent Division? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a firm believer in empowering the House of Commons: he signed up to the e-petition process and the Backbench Business Committee. We are committed to a minimum of 35 days a year for the Backbench Business Committee, and although it is sometimes inconvenient for the Government, we firmly believe that it is right that the House of Commons should have some control of its agenda, at times choosing subjects that the Government perhaps would not have chosen.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Speaking in Australia this week, President Kikwete of Tanzania urged investors in his country to reinvest the profits from their companies in his country. Unfortunately, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office well knows, he is the same President Kikwete who is in thrall to the media baron Reginald Mengi and who has done nothing to give satisfaction to my constituents Sarah and Stewart Hermitage, whose farm in Tanzania was stolen from them by Mr Mengi’s brother. Could we have a debate in Government time to discuss not only the joys but the dangers of investing in Tanzania?
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear about that loss of property on the part of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I shall certainly raise the issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the FCO Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is in his place at the moment—and see whether there are any representations it can make to get justice for the people whose property was confiscated.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am sorry that the shadow Leader of the House feels that there is something wrong with owning four Aston Martins. After all, if one can own two Jags, why not four Aston Martins? Certainly, my constituents who work at the Heritage Aston Martin works in Newport Pagnell will be hoping that Mr Beecroft will own a few more. May we have a debate on the future of the British motor manufacturing industry?
Sir George Young
As the owner of a very small bicycle, I look at these fast and expensive cars with some envy. My hon. Friend makes a valid point—conspicuous consumption generates jobs in constituencies such as his. I think it was Lord Mandelson, was it not, who said that nothing inconvenienced him about millionaires? I hope that the Labour party will, perhaps, change its view about Aston Martins and Rolls-Royces, many of which are manufactured in constituencies represented by Labour Members of Parliament.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the law on succession to the throne, particularly the current inequality of male primogeniture? I ask that we have this debate soon, in the hope that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that is currently taking place might make some progress on this matter.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he finds the present law unsatisfactory. It discriminates against women and against people who marry Roman Catholics. He has made it clear that he has written to the Heads of the Commonwealth to try to get agreement. I can only suggest to my hon. Friend that she awaits the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia and sees what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has to say on this matter at its conclusion.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
May we have a debate on the role and responsibilities of Parliamentary Private Secretaries? Is it appropriate in a modern democracy that Members of Parliament who are neither Ministers nor in the Cabinet should be forced to resign if they vote against the Government? Does not that restrict their ability to represent their constituents and disproportionately reduce the power of the House?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sorry that two Parliamentary Private Secretaries left the Government earlier this week. She will know that when somebody is invited to become a Parliamentary Private Secretary, there is an assumed commitment that they will support the Government in the Division Lobby. If anybody feels unhappy about that, they should not become a Parliamentary Private Secretary. If, having become a PPS, someone feels they cannot support the Government in the Division Lobby, they have to stand down. I think that is set out in the ministerial code and it is a convention that is widely understood on both sides of the House.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on how the one-in, one-out policy of controlling regulations is progressing, so that we can determine the extent to which regulations made in this House are being replaced by ones made in Brussels?
Sir George Young
We touched on that earlier this week. We are committed to a red tape challenge of scrapping and simplifying regulations that are ineffective and obsolete. We have the one-in, one-out approach and I am sure that BIS Ministers will be happy to respond to detailed questions. We also have Lord Young’s report, which was produced a year ago and made a number of suggestions for relieving the burden on businesses, with the agenda of fostering employment and growth. I would welcome such a debate.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had time to see the set of Rolls-Royce Trent engine fan blades on the green in New Palace Yard, which were produced by the Rolls-Royce factory in Barnoldswick in my constituency. That display is part of a series of events to highlight the potential of high-value manufacturing and apprenticeships. May we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on what progress the Government have made on supporting apprenticeships?
Sir George Young
Yes, I bicycled past the turbine and contrasted the horsepower that it represented with the horsepower on the bicycle. My hon. Friend might just have been in the House for BIS questions in which we had a very good exchange on apprenticeships. I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has done. We promised 50,000 extra apprenticeships in 2010-11, but we have actually delivered more than 100,000.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to be more family-friendly? Child care, child tax credits, Sure Start and the role of health visitors all matter greatly to people in Dover and Deal.
Sir George Young
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, which contained within it the answer, as he outlined a number of measures—child tax credit for struggling families, early years support for vulnerable two-year-olds, more support for child care within universal credit and increasing the number of health visitors. The Government would welcome such a debate; perhaps he would like to initiate one in Westminster Hall.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
With reference to the shadow Leader of the House’s box-set collection of TV programmes, I suspect that the shadow Cabinet is currently watching “Lost”. May we please have a debate on empty homes? There is a real paradox in my local council area in that while the council is pushing through its top-down housing targets for tens of thousands of new homes, there are 11,000 empty homes. Local people find that very hard to explain when the countryside is being dug up for new homes.
Sir George Young
As a former Housing Minister, I share my hon. Friend’s concern. There are about 350,000 empty houses in this country, which is an affront to those who are waiting for good housing. I commend the work of the Empty Homes Agency. In addition, the new homes bonus will apply also to local authorities that bring back into use homes that are currently empty, and other money is available within the local government budget to encourage local authorities to bring homes back into use. I commend my hon. Friend’s work on this issue, and I hope that all local authorities will do all they can to bring empty homes back into use.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
In my Gloucestershire constituency is a huge number of firms that trade with Brazil, but I am very apprehensive about the way in which we are developing trade links with Brazil, Russia, India and China—the so-called BRIC economies—because I sense that other countries are doing better than us. Can we put a spotlight on what the Government are doing to give comfort and support to businesses that wish to develop business in the BRIC economies?
Sir George Young
I know that a number of my hon. Friends in BIS and other Departments make export trips abroad with business men to win export orders on behalf of this country, and they have undertaken a number of visits to the markets to which my hon. Friend refers. UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, supported by all the Government, lead on this work. We want to use our network of staff across the globe to showcase UK strengths in sectors where we have world-beating capability and we hope to win more export orders and to provide jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Points of Order
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I bow to no one in my admiration for the BBC “Today” programme, but it is not the forum in which Ministers should make important announcements. Today the Minister for Housing and Local Government, asserting that the big problem for 8 million social tenants is a lack of mobility, has launched HomeSwap Direct, a website—it is not so much “on your bike” now, but “on your website.” Had the Minister come to the House, we could have debated collapsing house building, soaring rents, a mortgage market where no one can get mortgages, and the big problem of rapidly rising unemployment where there are no jobs to move to. Has the Housing Minister indicated his intention to do the House the courtesy of coming to the House to make the announcement?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I received no notification of any intention by a Minister to make a statement on this subject. Off the top of my head, and without undertaking inquiries, I know the hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that it is difficult for me authoritatively to adjudicate on this matter. The reason why I say that is that I do not know at this stage whether what has happened is merely the launch of a statement, or the fulfilment of a policy commitment made on a previous occasion, or whether this is a new initiative of which the House should first have been informed, but as the hon. Gentleman would expect me to do, I shall assume the role of a detective and look into the matter, better to inform myself, and perhaps the hon. Member when I have done so.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not wish to have visited this on your head, but unfortunately the Scottish National party Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) repeated a calumny in the House recently, accusing a Member of threatening another Member, I believe without telling the Members that they were going to be named. I believe the Committee has met since then, and unfortunately the Leader of the House was not informed of the outcome of the formal meeting of the Select Committee, which clarified and, quite frankly, exonerated the Chair of that Committee of any threatening behaviour. Since it has been repeated in the House, can I ask you to look into this matter and call the SNP Member back to apologise on the Floor of the House? It is not politics; it is abuse of the House we are talking about here.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was doing nicely until he approached the conclusion of his remarks. There are two real points here. First, a Member who is planning to denounce the conduct or impugn the integrity of another Member should notify that Member in advance. Secondly, the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is properly the property of the Select Committee, which, I understand, has indeed deliberated upon it. The hon. Gentleman has used his point of order to offer his own admonishment of the hon. Member who he thinks has misbehaved. I do not think that further action by me at this time is required, but the hon. Gentleman has correctly put on record the fact that the Select Committee has had a discussion about the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will understand, I think it is perfectly reasonable now that we leave it there.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that very often a generic issue arises out of the very specific, and I wish to raise a generic issue and seek your guidance. The guidance I seek is on the necessity for accuracy in facts that are used in debates. Very often the interpretation of facts will differ, but facts are very important. Yesterday, in the course of a debate, a number of Labour local authorities were derided for, in the words of the hon. Member—I said the point is generic, so I will not name the individual—their “appalling and terrible” record on recycling. My own local authority was mentioned in the list, with a 33% rate of recycling. That was inaccurate; the actual rate is 51%. I request guidance from you, Mr Speaker, and possibly from “Erskine May”, on the need for accuracy, or alternatively, the need for Members to return to the House to correct the record, because I suspect that the other Labour local authorities named also have admirable recycling records and would want Hansard to reflect that accurately.
Mr Speaker
There are two simple points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, all Members take responsibility for, and are responsible for, the content of the statements that they make in the House. Secondly, it is of course desirable that facts adduced are indeed facts, but I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member, will understand when I say that if there were to be complete agreement as to the particular facts on any issue, let alone all issues, I have a feeling we would be witnessing the end of the House of Commons—and that isn’t going to happen.
If the appetite of Members for raising points of order—actual or contrived—has now been exhausted, we can proceed to the main business.
Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
Mr Speaker, you will already have seen that debates on European matters are a bit like buses: you wait for ages and then two of these delightful treats come along in the same week. I am particularly grateful for the fortunate coincidence of timing in that this debate on the Council of Europe arrives the week after the final collapse of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, because that provides a point of reflection and of comparison between what happens in so much of the world and what has happened in our own continent. The long rule by Gaddafi based on state-sponsored violence and terror throws into sharp relief, in particular, those liberties on which the British people have relied for centuries.
Whatever view Members in any part of the House take on particular laws or on how human rights should be given effect here, I think we would all stand united on the continuing need for and relevance of fundamental human rights such as protection from torture, and the right to free speech, assembly and worship. That tradition in this country of respect for human rights is one reason why we are very proud to be taking on the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
I acknowledge that there are in the House today members of the United Kingdom’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, and I pay tribute to the work that they do on behalf of the House and the country, and welcome the fact that they will be able to contribute the fruits of their experience during this afternoon’s proceedings.
As I hope Members will recall, the Council is the international organisation that helps promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law across the European continent. The United Kingdom was one of the founders of the organisation. Since its founding treaty was signed in this building in London in 1949, its membership has grown from 10 countries to 47, encompassing virtually the entire European continent. I think we in the United Kingdom can take pride in the fact that so many other European countries profess a belief in the importance of these fundamental principles, and also recognise the fact that membership of the Council of Europe and subscription to the European convention on human rights have proved a valuable framework within which the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe have been able to measure their own political development over the past 20 years.
I want this afternoon to advance the case for the central priority of the United Kingdom’s chairmanship: reform of the European Court of Human Rights. I want to say straight away that we have had, and I am sure will have, lively domestic discussions on human rights, and Members will not always agree, but we share the historic respect for the achievement of the convention. The Government’s priority is to ensure that the European Court of Human Rights works more effectively and focuses on cases that actually need to be dealt with at the European level. That needs to happen not to weaken rights, but to strengthen them, and by so doing, to advance the rule of law, democracy and freedom.
The United Kingdom was one of the principal architects of the European convention on human rights, which is the Council of Europe’s best known instrument. The convention embodies many of the basic rights and freedoms that have been fundamental to English, and then British, law for centuries: fair trial, freedom from torture and freedom of speech. Those are rights that we have enjoyed for hundreds of years.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
While my right hon. Friend is talking about the European Court of Human Rights, will he acknowledge that the Court currently has a backlog of approximately 166,000 cases? Is it not high time the Court underwent a thorough review of its working practices and competences, and is not our chairmanship of the Council a good time to do that?
Mr Lidington
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Court is to continue to be treated with respect, it is important for it to find a way of getting on top of that grotesque backlog of cases, which is in nobody’s interests. I will say more about that later.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
There have obviously been concerns about some of the ways in which the convention’s basic rights have been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Government consider during their chairmanship proposing that certain resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly should assist the Court in interpreting the basic texts?
Mr Lidington
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and indeed proposals from the Parliamentary Assembly as a body, will be considered seriously in the course of the debates and conversations that we will have during the six months of our chairmanship and beyond.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Has not the whole process become ludicrously abused? Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the diaries of Phil Woolas, the former Immigration Minister, which reveal that his job was made absolutely impossible? For instance, he had to release to Osama bin Laden’s son the file on him, even though he was not living here. The whole process has become abused. What plans has my right hon. Friend to repatriate powers on human rights to this country so that we can have a proper and sound immigration policy?
Mr Lidington
I have to tell my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly and plays an active part in its proceedings, that reading Mr. Woolas’s diaries is a delight that is still in store for me. I fear that he is trying to tempt me on to the question of how the human rights incorporated in the convention are implemented in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, the Government have established an independent commission on human rights, chaired by Leigh Lewis, which is deliberating on these matters and considering the different ideas that have been proposed. It will report by the end of 2012.
Sir Alan Meale
Will the Minister confirm a bit of information? As he touched on earlier, there are about 800 million people, comprising 47 nations, in the greater European area. I hope that he will confirm for Members on both sides of the House that, on all the judgments that the Court has made so far, this country has never refused to endorse the Court’s findings.
Mr Lidington
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right.
The convention played an important role after the second world war in re-establishing democracy and the rule of law across western Europe. It played a vital role after the cold war in leading the former states of the Soviet Union and its satellites to start adopting the principles of democratic liberalism. The convention remains crucial in tackling the murder of journalists in Russia, for example, or questions of religious freedom in Turkey. There are also telling recent examples of its relevance here at home—for example, in preventing the misuse of stop-and-search powers.
The problem is not with the fundamental principles of human rights expressed through the convention, but there are real issues that rightly cause concern in this House and more widely—issues that, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, matter to all countries that are party to the convention and members of the Council of Europe. Those relate to the operation of the Court in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Court and recognises its important role, but it is not working as it should, for at least two reasons.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds rightly said, it is struggling under a huge workload, and drowning under a backlog of more than 150,000 cases, which is growing by roughly 20,000 additional cases each year. The eightfold increase in case loads since 2001 shows that a sensible refocusing on what really matters is not a subject that can simply be deferred for another day; it is an urgent priority.
That urgency is illustrated further by the fact that more than 90% of cases before the Court, when they finally get to the top of the queue and are properly considered, or found to be inadmissible, simply do not come within the scope of the convention, or the procedural rules are found not to have been observed. For cases involving the United Kingdom that figure is higher. Roughly 97% of cases brought against the United Kingdom are found to be inadmissible—and that is before we get on to whether in the other cases—the minority—the finding is for or against the country alleged to have broken the terms of the convention. The backlog is the first reason why there is an urgent need to reform the court.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that the Government will host a conference at Wilton Park on the theme of the 2020 vision for the European Court of Human Rights. Will he confirm that members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly will be invited to participate in the conference?
Mr Lidington
I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend’s interest in participating and will ensure that the participation of members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly is properly considered. I will make sure that I consider it myself.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
The real problem with the backlog is that reforms to the Court cannot restructure the backlog or effectively fillet out any of the cases that might prove to be inadmissible. One of the prime objectives of our chairmanship must be to find a unified view that would facilitate that filleting process, and thus allow the backlog to be handled properly.
Mr Lidington
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend.
The second reason also explains why the backlog has been allowed to develop. The Court has at times been too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national courts and Parliaments. The European Court of Human Rights was never intended by its founders to be an additional tier of appeal for routine domestic judgments. No court could ever hope to offer redress on all matters to 800 million people. National courts are best placed to understand national problems and traditions of human rights. Enforcing rights in situations where the drafters of the convention never intended them to be is the wrong direction of travel for the Court, and that situation is getting worse and is undermining the Court’s authority and efficiency.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Can the Minister give a few examples in a UK context, of where the Court has been guilty of depriving us of national sovereignty?
Mr Lidington
I ask the hon. Lady simply to look at the sheer volume of cases before the Court. We argue that there needs to be a system under which the principle of subsidiarity, which the Court is already supposed to observe, is given greater weight. That will require not just a United Kingdom view from the chair, but consensus among member states. We are talking to colleagues throughout the Council of Europe about the right way forward, because what we are seeking to do certainly does not come from any hostility to the Court as an institution. In fact, concerns about the backlog, the case load and the damage being done to its reputation are widely shared not only among state parties, but by the secretary-general and the authorities in the Council itself.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr Lidington
I will give way once more, then I really am going to make some progress.
Michael Connarty
I thank the Minister. I am trying to be helpful, because I totally agree with and follow his logic on the backlog, but when he states that the Court was never meant to be a court of appeal against a national court’s ruling, surely that logic is wrong, because there cannot be an allowance, for example, for the Ukrainian court that put the country’s former President in jail for carrying out policies that its Parliament had decided. There must be somewhere for people to appeal on human rights grounds, and that is the Court. I presume the Minister meant that the Court could not provide redress in all cases—but in specific cases of such high contestability there must be a court that is above national, political courts.
Mr Lidington
I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman in principle, but we need effective criteria that everyone—from the judges of the Court to the states parties—will accept as enabling the Court to differentiate properly between cases that should be considered at that European level and those that ought to have been dealt with according to the legal systems of states parties that have demonstrated good traditions of respecting human rights.
All this means that there is a clear and pressing case for reform, and all 47 members of the Council of Europe have already signed up to a reform process. The goal of our chairmanship is to drive forward the changes that began in Council meetings at Interlaken and Izmir, and to agree a final package that makes a real impact on the operation of the Court.
I announced, in a written statement to Parliament yesterday, our full set of chairmanship priorities, following my discussion on Tuesday with our friend and ally the Council of Europe secretary-general Thorbjørn Jagland. My statement set out more detail on the reform for which we are pressing. It included proposals that would make the Court more efficient to enable it to deal with its backlog of applications, would reinforce the idea that the Court’s role was a subsidiary one, with states having the primary responsibility to protect convention rights, and would ensure that the best possible processes were in place for nominating judges to the Court, and that the Court’s case law was clear and consistent.
How we will do that? Reform requires the agreement of all 47 member states, and there is no getting round that fact, so we will accord the highest political priority to securing consensus on the necessary reforms by means of a political declaration at the end of our chairmanship. That declaration would record political agreement to a package of reforms and set the scene for later implementation under subsequent chairmanships. The declaration, we hope, will include, where necessary, amendments to the procedural sections of the convention, and provide the basis for a decision of the Committee of Ministers, to be adopted at its annual meeting on 14 May 2012.
No one should be in any doubt that delivering those goals will take time and a lot of intensive and complicated negotiations, but I do believe that the winds of change are in our favour, and if we achieve the reform that we seek, we stand to gain a stronger Council of Europe and a more effective Court, focused better on real substantive breaches of human rights.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
On declarations, there is no more fundamental right than that of a person to live freely and independently in their own country without fear of intimidation. The Minister will be aware that Cyprus follows the UK as chair of the Council, so will he assure Cypriots listening to this debate that we will do all we can and work tirelessly to ensure that the Cyprus problem, as it is now called, is satisfactorily concluded?
Mr Lidington
With respect, I may correct the hon. Gentleman, because the chairmanship proceeds in alphabetical sequence, so the Albanians will take over from us. I can certainly assure him, however, that the Foreign Secretary and I remain completely committed to doing all that lies within our power to work for an outcome in Cyprus that brings about the creation of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation, with equal rights for all communities, and in compliance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is not for the United Kingdom to determine what happens in Cyprus, because the process has to be Cypriot led if it is to work and if there is to be an enduring accord, but we give what support we can to the communities in Cyprus and to the work of the UN Secretary-General and his special envoy, Alexander Downer.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because he has had one bite of the cherry and I want to make progress. I do not want to be sidetracked into a further debate about Cyprus, which I am sure the House will have an opportunity to discuss in the future.
We have a unique opportunity to secure improvements to the Court, to enhance its credibility, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and to ensure that the legitimate decisions and traditions of national courts and legal systems are properly respected.
Hon. Members will be only too aware of the domestic backdrop to the programme, about which there is great interest abroad. The House will know, too, that the Government have established an independent commission with a remit to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, which would incorporate and build on all our obligations under the convention. I hope that the commission’s work will assist in bringing clarity to an area of contentious debate, and indeed it has already advised the Government very usefully on Court reform, but to avoid any doubt let me reaffirm that in the Government’s mind there is no question of the UK leaving the European convention on human rights. The coalition’s programme for government makes very clear our commitment to the convention and to the values it embodies.
The Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), commented on this subject very eloquently on Monday just gone, saying:
“The United Kingdom signed the Convention on the first day it was open for signature...The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify the Convention the following year. The United Kingdom will not be the first country to leave the Convention.”
I have spoken at length about Court reform, but our goals for our chairmanship touch on other significant matters, and I would like to close by turning briefly to them.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for setting out the policy so clearly, and I have had an opportunity to look at the priorities and objectives of the chairmanship. He mentions the Bill of Rights commission’s interim advice, and it contains some good recommendations on Court reform, particularly those based on the model of the International Criminal Court, whereby Strasbourg ought to look at only the most serious violations or fundamental freedoms. Is that the mandate which the Government will look to achieve with their European partners?
Mr Lidington
We take all the independent commission’s advice very seriously, and we look forward to the fruits of its later discussions, but, certainly, strengthening the principle of subsidiarity in the Court’s work is central to the programme of action that we envisage during our chairmanship.
In addition to the issues that I have already covered, we will continue actively to support Secretary-General Jagland’s programme of reform of the Council of Europe as an organisation. He has made good progress, including a reduced and more focused set of programmes, and I spoke to him this week about priorities for the final stages of the reform programme.
In particular, I am pleased to say that the UK has succeeded in persuading the 46 other member states to keep the Council of Europe budget under strict control, with zero real growth for the next two years, subject to strict conditions on wider efficiency reforms and any inflation increase remaining below 2%. We will work with our partners in the Council of Europe to promote an open internet, not only on access and content, but on freedom of expression. That is also a key policy priority, and one of the issues to be addressed at the London conference on cyber-space, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will host on 1 November. Our chairmanship is an ideal opportunity to advance our objectives through international co-operation, and to this end we will seek to ensure that the Council of Europe’s internet governance strategy is adopted.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will return to the internet problem later, because it is serious.
I referred to the Council of Europe’s budget in the Hemicycle, and suggested that it might be cut, but that word is not in the lexicon. Europe does not understand the possibility of cutting a budget. It only ever talks about an increase. Why are we considering an increase?
Mr Lidington
Ambitions must sometimes be tempered by the need to obtain the necessary consensus. In the context of getting 46 other countries to agree, the freeze that I talked about is a pretty good outcome. Further encouragement is that the combination of the freeze in the Council of Europe’s budget and the recalculation of the relative contributions of member states to that budget means that the United Kingdom will pay a smaller proportion in 2012 than we did in 2011. That is a good outcome of our negotiations.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
Discussions on the budget take place in Strasbourg, and 27 of the 47 member states are members of the European Union. Those 27 member states are sitting idly by while the Fundamental Rights Agency, which was established in Vienna and has some spurious objectives, increases its budget for allegedly doing a human rights job on behalf of the 27 states.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend, who is the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, makes his point cogently. He tempts me on to a much bigger debate about European Union expenditure, but I will confine myself to the matter before us.
The Government take the need for budgetary control over European Union agencies very seriously indeed. The growth of such expenditure and the proliferation of agencies within the European Union have been overlooked for too long. We have been making strong representations to the Commission about that, and have sought to build alliances with other EU member states to secure the sort of reform and budgetary discipline that my hon. Friend rightly wants.
Mr Lidington
I must make some progress, because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
During our chairmanship, we will work to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity across Europe. The Government are committed to using their relationship with other countries to advocate strongly for changes to discriminatory practices and laws that criminalise homosexuality in other countries.
We will work towards a more effective and efficient role for the Council of Europe in supporting local and regional democracy. The Council has a significant programme of activities in this area, including monitoring and sharing expertise. The UK supports that, but wants it to be streamlined and more carefully targeted.
Finally, we will support strengthening the rule of law in member states. We will work towards practical recommendations in this area, in co-operation with our partners in the Committee of Ministers, the secretariat and the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, the European Commission for Democracy through Law, which is usually referred to as the Venice Commission.
The Council of Europe is an important institution, whose values we share, and in whose proud record of achievement there is much to applaud. I hope that all hon. Members will support the UK’s efforts during our chairmanship to deliver improvements in the areas I have set out. Efforts to spread democracy, human rights and the rule of law are profoundly in our national interest and that of nations throughout Europe. If achieved, our objectives will not only benefit our citizens, but will have the potential to make a real difference for the good in the lives of people across our continent and beyond.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
This is an important and timely debate, and it is absolutely right that we have an opportunity to discuss in the House the UK’s forthcoming chairmanship of the Council of Europe. However, it is a shame that the most pro-European member of the Cabinet is not here to open the debate as was planned until late this morning.
There are now 47 members of the Council, and the period of chairmanship is six months, so this opportunity does not come around often. According to my rudimentary mathematics, the next time the UK will be in the chair will around 2035. The last time the UK was in the chair was in the early 1990s when the Conservative party was falling out about another European institution—the European Union. I sense a bit of déjà vu, and I trust that this afternoon’s debate will be less heated and divided than the debate earlier this week.
Our membership of the Council of Europe has been supported by successive Governments of different political colours and persuasions for the last six decades. It is worth reflecting on the history of the institution, which was shaped by the aftermath of the second world war and the defeat of fascism, and later by the collapse of communism. When Winston Churchill made his speech at the 1949 gathering in Strasbourg, he talked of an
“ancient city still scarred by the wounds of war”.
The horror of that global conflict, and the destruction and loss of life throughout Europe, led to the growing realisation that avoiding future wars had to be a priority.
That realisation brought together some of the leading statesmen of post-war Europe, with much of the earliest thinking coming from Winston Churchill. Other Conservative politicians played a role, particularly former Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe, who was instrumental in drawing up the European convention on human rights, which Clement Attlee’s Labour Government ratified in 1950. A cross-party consensus held then and over the following decades, and I hope that it will do so today.
Mr Leigh
We all accept that, but the fact is that the process has gone way beyond what was envisaged by people such as Winston Churchill.
The hon. Lady presumably wants to protect vulnerable women. Going back again to the diaries of theformer immigration Minister, he wrote that his proposal to increase the marriage age from 18 to 21 for a family visa would be overturned by judicial review because of the judges constantly referring to the convention on human rights. It is anti-human rights now, and we must reform it fundamentally.
Emma Reynolds
I agree that the Court needs to be reformed, and I will come to that, but I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Like the Minister for Europe, I have not had a chance to read my former colleague’s memoirs.
The Council today is very different from when it was first established, and Europe has changed beyond recognition. The rush of countries to join the Council of Europe in the years following the fall of communism extended its membership and reach significantly. Today, the Council of Europe has 47 member countries, covering 800 million people, and a vast land mass stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostok—that is a tongue twister. It has led the way in protecting and promoting the rule of law, human rights and democracy in Europe. Many hon. Members, past and present, have taken part in the Council of Europe’s election monitoring to ensure that democracy is upheld in every member state, and I commend them for that. I want to join the Europe Minister in commending the work of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentioned some distinguished contributions to the Council of Europe by Conservatives in past years. Does she agree that the leader of our delegation, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), has played a very distinguished part in the current process to change the rules of the Parliamentary Assembly to make the way in which it operates more streamlined and effective?
Emma Reynolds
I join the hon. Gentleman in that view. I recognise that Members across this House have played very important roles in the Council of Europe at different times.
Despite the fact that a Conservative Government were the driving force behind the European convention on human rights, a Labour Government put those rights into UK law in 1999, and we are proud of that. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives British citizens the right to bring cases before British courts rather than having to petition European judges directly. Although we remain committed to the European convention and the European Court, we also recognise that the Court needs reform. The Government have said today that its reform should be a priority for our forthcoming chairmanship, and I support that.
As has been mentioned, the Government set up an independent commission that has presented interim recommendations concerning that reform. The commission highlighted three areas that need to be addressed: the need substantially to reduce the number of cases brought before the Court; the need to consider the remedies that the Court may grant; and the need to improve the process of selecting high-quality judges.
Sir Alan Meale
At the moment, the judges are elected in the Assembly by all Members of the Assembly, but the Interlaken process proposes to diminish that democratic selection mechanism. The current process involves not just the election of the judges but the interviewing of the candidates, in which two criteria must be fulfilled: first, they have to be fully qualified to stand for election; and secondly, there must be at least one woman among the three candidates. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should move away from those principles.
Emma Reynolds
I am a great supporter of gender equality, but the selection process needs to be improved.
Mr Mike Hancock
For those of us who have had the privilege of being in the Council of Europe for any length of time, it is clear that it is not the process of selection by the Council of Europe that affects the calibre of judges but the pathetic selection process that goes on in member states after people have put their names forward. On most occasions, that leaves the Council of Europe having to pick the least worst of a bad bunch.
Emma Reynolds
I am sure that the Europe Minister has noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Any reform of the Court must begin by addressing the crippling backlog of cases before it; I understand that there are 150,000 cases and that number is increasing at a rate of 20,000 a year. I hope that at the end of the six months in which our Government have the chairmanship, the Opposition will be in a position to give them credit for pushing forward with these reforms. Indeed, the test of success for the Government is not only what they do in the six months when they are in charge, but whether they are able to inspire successive chairmanships of the Court and the Council to take on and continue their reforms.
Until now, I have been fairly consensual, but I am about to embark on a section of my speech that is perhaps not so consensual.
Emma Reynolds
I wrote it, thank you very much. That is very patronising of the hon. Gentleman. I might be a young blonde woman, but I am able to write my own speeches.
There is another area where the Government need to take action. It is incumbent on this Government to tackle the misconceptions about the European convention on human rights. I am sure that the Minister is only too aware of how some members of his own Government have peddled myths about human rights legislation to further certain political arguments, and of how there is a confusion—sometimes, it seems, a conflation—of the rulings and activities of the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Court of Justice. In some cases, there seems to be a deliberate lumping together of any institution with the word “Europe” in its title, with the assumption that Europe has a malign influence on this country.
Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will take a lead on challenging such misconceptions, not only in his party but in the country, and champion the positive role that our membership of the Council of Europe has played in furthering human rights and democracy in the UK and in other countries across the continent? After all, taking on the mantle of chairmanship brings with it certain responsibilities, one of which, surely, is demonstrating accuracy in debates on human rights. Let us hope to hear no more misleading myths about cats or other bogus stories.
Labour Members remain firmly committed to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights, but we recognise that this does not necessarily mean sticking to the status quo, and reforming the Court. We want the Government to use their six-month chairmanship to push forward with reforms to ensure that the Council continues to meet the aims and objectives in a way that is beneficial for all member countries, including the UK. Upholding a universal notion of human rights is a sign of a civilised nation and something that we should be proud of, not something that should be rubbished, heckled or blamed at every opportunity.
As I underlined in my introduction, successive Governments of different political persuasions have supported our membership of the Council of Europe and obligations that come with it. There is a long history and tradition in our country of which we should be proud.
Mr Raab
I agree that we should not automatically, in a knee-jerk way, blame Strasbourg for everything. However, has the hon. Lady seen the comments by the Lord Chief Justice, which read:
“I would like to say that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win”?
Does she accept, as the Lord Chief Justice does, that there is a legitimate debate about the expansion of human rights through judicial legislation?
Emma Reynolds
I do accept that, and I think it is a debate that we will have today.
Although modernisation and reform of the Council of Europe are needed, the values that underpinned its formation and membership are just as valid today as they were in 1950, and we should all be proud of those values.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
As the Minister for Europe said in his opening remarks, this is an interesting week in the House of Commons when we have two debates on Europe. If I may say so, it is good that we are debating Europe, and not necessarily the European Union, today, although I will touch on the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union.
As we have already heard, the Council of Europe dates back to 1949 and is very much dedicated to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We can be proud to have been one of its founding fathers. It now runs to 47 member states across the continent of Europe. The only states that are not members are Belarus, Kosovo and Vatican City—which I understand is not yet a democracy.
Mr Walter
As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out, the fact that there are 47 member states means that it will be 23 years before we get the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers again. It is therefore very important that we make good use of our six months in the chairmanship that starts in a week or so.
This House, as has been pointed out, is represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Eighteen Members from both Houses of Parliament serve as full members of the Parliamentary Assembly and a further 18 stand ready as substitutes.
Jim Sheridan
Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for Europe, does he accept that his party’s delegation is not made up of the most enthusiastic people on European matters? Hopefully, after the British chairmanship, we will have a more enlightened delegation of Government Members to the Council of Europe.
Mr Walter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think he will find that more members of the delegation are present on my side of the House than on his, where there are only four. The delegates from my party play an active role in the proceedings of the Parliamentary Assembly, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who chairs the committee on migration, refugees and population.
One of the powers of the Parliamentary Assembly is to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I have often heard statements in the British press, and occasionally from colleagues, that we should not be subject to the judgments of unelected and unaccountable judges. Well, we do not have any elected judges in this country, but we do have an elected British judge who serves on the European Court of Human Rights.
Perhaps I may correct one other myth. Often we are told that Europe has acquired a flag and an anthem. Those are not the flag and the anthem of the European Union. They were adopted as far back as 1955 by the Council of Europe. Just like Liverpool football club, which also has a flag and an anthem, the Council of Europe has not yet become a nation state.
I want to deal with the United Kingdom agenda and one important aspect of it in particular. During our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, an important ongoing issue that may make some progress is the accession of the European Union to the European convention on human rights. The question of European Union accession engenders mixed responses. Among the non-EU members of the Council of Europe, it is considered to be a good thing. They wonder why the institutions of the European Union should not be covered by the European convention on human rights and why the European Court of Human Rights should not have jurisdiction over its institutions. In that spirit, I believe that we should take this matter forward. My concern is about the manner of the participation of the European Union.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the conscientious and diligent way in which he has led the British delegation to the Council of Europe. I agree with the remarks with which he has prefaced his comments on the accession of the European Union. Does he agree, none the less, that we would all be the losers, in particular the non-EU member states in the Council of Europe, if the accession of the EU resulted in it appearing that there were two classes of members in the Council of Europe: EU member states and non-EU member states?
Mr Walter
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I will come on to say why I believe that there could be dangerous developments on this issue, particularly in relation to the Committee of Ministers, of which the United Kingdom is about to take the chair, and its voting procedures when European Union matters are under consideration. At the Dispatch Box earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in relation to the eurozone countries, that it was against his basic view that there should be any form of caucusing within the Council of Ministers. I think that that is absolutely right.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe that when he issued his statement yesterday on the UK agenda for the Council of Europe, he also issued a written ministerial statement on voting by European Union member states in multilateral organisations. The EU, of course, is not a member of the Council of Europe at the moment, but it aspires to be one. I therefore raise a concern that has been raised not only by EU member states, but more particularly by non-EU member states. If there was a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights against an EU member state, would the EU member states in the Committee of Ministers, when it came to enforcing that judgment, vote as a bloc or would they do what they do today, which is to decide individually how the judgment is to be implemented?
Sandra Osborne
I, too, pay tribute to the fantastic job that the hon. Gentleman does as the leader of the delegation. Does he agree that unless the EU is subject to the same rules as the countries, some non-EU member states may use that as an excuse not to carry out their obligations?
Mr Walter
I think that the hon. Lady is right. She is making the point for me that we must be seen to be fair and even-handed in the way we enforce judgments. That might become even more of a problem.
This issue is already taken account of in the draft of the accession of the EU. I am afraid that the Lisbon treaty is quoted in aid on this matter. If there was a judgment against an institution of the European Union, such as the Commission, the European Court of Justice or the European Central Bank, the 27 EU member states—or 28 as there will be by the time this is implemented, with the accession of Croatia—would be obliged under the Lisbon treaty to vote as a bloc. That brings into question the whole history of fairness and even-handedness in the Committee of Ministers.
The reason given for that is that if there was a judgment against the EU, it would be up to the 27 EU member states to implement that judgment. They therefore have to act as one and as a party. That is fine, but it sounds rather like they will be judge, jury and executioner. We have to question seriously how we will take that matter forward. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that in his summing up.
The next point may sound rather technical, but it goes back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s comment earlier that we are developing a situation in which there will be European Union mechanisms and institutions such as the European financial stability facility and the European Central Bank that involves not all 27 member states but only the 17 eurozone members, If there was a judgment against one of those entities in the European Court of Human Rights, would we vote as 27 member states or would the 17 vote together? Would the 10 non-eurozone members be let off the obligation in the Lisbon treaty to vote as one? I would again be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.
Mr Gale
It gets a bit worse than that. There is a thing called the transfrontier broadcasting directive, which is a European Union instrument. There is also a thing called the transfrontier broadcasting convention, which is a Council of Europe convention that preceded the directive. The convention needs updating and the Council of Europe was in the process of doing so intelligently and in line with technical developments. The European Commissioner responsible for broadcasting has told the Council of Europe and its 47 members, many of which are not members of the European Union, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that we cannot discuss the matter. What right does the European Union have to say to the Council of Europe—the greater body—that it can or cannot discuss something?
Mr Walter
My hon. Friend makes a very significant point about the sovereignty of member states, whether they be members of the European Union or of the Council of Europe. I believe that the sovereignty of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe should be absolute in the case of a Council of Europe convention.
Sir Alan Meale
Like the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, I pay tribute to him for his work at the Council of Europe over many years. Members of all parties will agree that he does a fine job. I apologise, but I will have to leave the debate shortly to chair the sitting in Westminster Hall.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the sovereignty of nations, what about Turkey? It has refused to accept the outcome of the Louzides case on the confiscation of property—it has paid up, but it has never accepted it. What about its current threat that if Cyprus is given the presidency of the Council of Ministers, it will leave the Council of Europe and not pursue any path towards entry into the European Union?
Mr Walter
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am an avowed supporter of Turkish membership of the European Union, but that does not mean that I will in any way make excuses for the Turkish Government’s non-compliance with their international obligations. I also regret the Turkish Prime Minister’s statement that Turkey would not participate in any discussions with the EU should Cyprus take on the presidency of the Council of Ministers. That is a wrong decision, as I have said to many Turkish colleagues.
To return to the question of EU accession, I wish to refer for a moment to the role of the European Parliament. It has been conceded that when it comes to the question of the election of judges, the European Parliament will have the same rights as the largest member states. We are one of those five largest member states. However, the draft arrangements go on to give the European Parliament special treatment, which I think is unjustified. It will have an ex officio place on the sub-committee that interviews the candidates for the post of judge in the European Court of Human Rights. As the leader of one of the other large delegations, I ask why I cannot appoint an ex officio member to that sub-committee on the basis that I should have the same voting rights as the European Parliament.
Under its internal mechanisms, the European Parliament will have the power to veto the three candidates who are on the shortlist. No other Parliament has that power. It will also have the power to be on the sub-committee that interviews the candidates. I contend that that will create an uneven playing field, and I hope we will resist it when we come to debate EU accession.
Oliver Heald
Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that is quite hard to understand for people who are not on the Council, or regularly attending it, is that some of the largest member countries are not in the EU? They are proud countries, and sadly often ones that are on the receiving end of judgments of the Court. If the arrangements that are made do not seem to be fair and equal right across the Council of Europe area, it affects how they look at the Council and its judgments. It also affects whether those judgments are enforceable and will stick.
Mr Walter
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, because it sums up the fact that what I have described will bring into question the legitimacy of the decisions of the Committee of Ministers when it comes to enforcing judgments that have been handed down by the Court.
I want to move on to one aspect of the United Kingdom’s agenda for our chairmanship, with which the Minister also dealt at length. It is the reform of the European Court of Human Rights, which not only we in this country but many member states across Europe welcome.
There seems to be some dispute about what the backlog of cases in the Court is at the moment. The last figure that I heard, which was at the beginning of this month from the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, was 162,000 cases, and growing at the rate of 2,000 a month. I therefore welcome the approach that we are taking as the new chair of the Committee of Ministers.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend concerned that most of us sitting in the Chamber today might not be here when the end of that list is reached? Does that bother him?
Mr Walter
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which brings me neatly to the next one that I wanted to make.
I welcome the work of the commission on a Bill of Rights under the chairmanship of Sir Leigh Lewis. It was set up to advise on a British Bill of Rights, but at the request of the Prime Minister the first document that it published was advice to the Government on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights. It has expressed a view on that question, and I shall come to that in a moment. I also welcome the interest taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I know has been to Strasbourg and met the Court and is considering that very important issue.
I wish to deal with four issues related to the reform of the Court. The first, to which a number of Members have alluded, is the quality of the judges. Under the existing procedure, each member state puts forward three nominees when there is a vacancy for a judge of that nationality. Under the new procedures, those candidates are to be interviewed by the Committee of Ministers and by a sub-committee of the Parliamentary Assembly set up specifically for the purpose of making recommendations on which of the three judges is probably the best candidate. It then comes down to the Parliamentary Assembly to vote on those judges.
There has been phenomenal criticism in the Parliamentary Assembly that the judges nominated are not up to the quality that one expects in such an important court, which deals with human rights across the continent. Some of the judges are academics, and some are only what I would call administrative lawyers, but I believe that judges should have experience of sitting as court judges, preferably in the supreme court of their member state. They should not be people who have applied because they have been teaching a nice academic course specialising in human rights at a university for the past few years and thought, “Why not go to Strasbourg for a few years?” That is not the right way to select candidates.
The Parliamentary Assembly is considering another matter of some concern. If one of those judges drops out and is unable to perform his or her duties, the member state in question can nominate ad hoc judges to sit in their place in the Court. In the past four years, 77 ad hoc judges appointed to sit in for judges who were unable to be in Strasbourg were involved in 516 judgments. I am not sure, and there is some doubt, whether those ad hoc judges are of the same quality, because they do not go through the same selection procedure. They are not nominated, they are not interviewed either by the committee of Ministers or by the sub-committee of the Parliamentary Assembly, and they are certainly not voted for by the Parliamentary Assembly. I am not sure that the spirit of the convention is being implemented if we allow those 77 ad hoc judges to sit in judgment.
The second and most important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe was on subsidiarity and the filtering of cases, causing the backlog. Is the ECHR the final court of appeal for the 800 million people who live on the continent of Europe? I contend that it is not. I believe that it exists to act in partnership with our national supreme courts and that it should not be used as the final court of appeal. A number of members of the delegation met the secretary-general of the Council of Europe on Tuesday to discuss that. He said that—this is even worse—the majority of the cases before the Court involve people using it not as their final court of appeal, but their court of first instance. In the majority of cases, people are disgruntled by something that has happened in their locality—a remote part of Russia or wherever—and they do not use the Russian legal system first and foremost, but go straight to Strasbourg. We must stop that from happening.
People who appeal to the Supreme Court in this country, or even to the Court of Appeal on their way up to the Supreme Court, must seek leave to do so. We must create a situation like that. Requiring people to seek leave to appeal would mean that a judge in this country or another member state would determine whether such a case is admissible, or whether it should be heard by a national supreme court and whether that should be the end of the road.
Mr Leigh
The European Court often gets blamed unfairly for judicial activism, but the real judicial activism is happening in our own courts, because the convention is incorporated in our law. That was the big mistake, and I am constantly referring to it, which is why I intervened earlier. In a sense, the focus of the debate is wrong. We cannot focus only on the Court in Strasbourg; we must also focus on our own courts.
Mr Walter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Government were right to set up the commission on a Bill of Rights, which will consider whether the Human Rights Act 1998 should be replaced by a British Bill of Rights that better reflects the sentiments he expresses.
Oliver Heald
By way of a rider to my hon. Friend’s point on seeking leave to appeal on a point of law, which I basically agree with, occasionally, a court in a country refuses leave in circumstances that do not hold water legally. Should there not at that point be a possibility of applying for leave to appeal directly to the Court in Strasbourg?
Mr Walter
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. We must strike the right balance—strike out spurious claims but not genuine ones. In some cases, those making genuine claims could be refused leave to appeal for, if I may say, political reasons, when their case should go to the Strasbourg Court. In this country, I have every confidence that the Supreme Court or any other lower court would act in the interests of the law and equity, but I might question the courts in a number of other member states—I will not name them in the Chamber.
My third point concerns the competence of the Court and its relationship with national Parliaments and sovereign member states. That the House debated and voted overwhelmingly against prisoner voting rights showed that we in this country feel that somebody committed to jail for an indictable offence should have their voting rights taken away while in prison. That is at variance with the judgment of the Court. I am not a lawyer, but in my view it is absolutely right that a court can sentence somebody to prison and so deny their liberty in several areas. In sentencing them to prison, we are not infringing most of their convention rights—for example, we are not infringing their right to life or imposing on them inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, we are deciding to deny them certain liberties—for example, by not allowing them to go home to their family every night, we are denying them the right to a family life.
Mr Binley
Do the people sent to prison not have the choice about whether they go to prison, and should that not be a major consideration? Furthermore, is this not a constitutional right, rather than a human right? I know that that takes us on to aspects of law, but these are the things that make people very angry.
Mr Walter
Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the point that we are making. We could have a wider debate about why people commit crimes and why they go to prison, but my specific point is about the denial of liberty and what convention rights that denial of liberty impinges on. It is accepted that some rights in the convention can legitimately be denied. I am interested that Mr Hirst, when he went to Strasbourg, did not say that he was being denied the right to a family life by being in prison and ask why he could not have his wife and children there. He picked on one emotive issue—his voting and democratic rights—but I think that it is absolutely right that this Parliament decide the voting rights of prisoners, and if it decides that prisoners should not have a vote, so be it. That is part of our national sovereignty. It is a matter for national legislatures, not the Court.
My fourth point concerns the backlog. As I mentioned, the figure that I have is 162,000 cases, growing by 2,000 a month. I commend the commission on a Bill of Rights and its advice on this matter: it expressed concern that, whatever reforms we came up with for the Court, they would not deal with the cases currently in the system, and it recommended that we find a way to clear the backlog. One of the commission’s proposals, which is worth taking forward, is that across Europe are retired judges experienced in human rights law who might be brought out of retirement on, say, a one-year contract, subject to their being vetted, interviewed and so on, and that they be given responsibility solely for going through the list of 162,000 cases, deciding which are admissible and, if necessary, immediately sending them to the Court for judgment.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Did the commission not also recommend that the judges be able to dismiss cases, in order to reduce their number, saying, “We cannot deal with this anymore”? The figure of 162,000 is ginormous. We would never get through them.
Mr Walter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we cannot get through them. We know that about 97% of those cases are inadmissible and could be got rid of straightaway, but we need somebody to sit down, go through the paperwork and say that they are inadmissible. If that were done, we might be able immediately to bring before the Court the few thousand cases that lie in the balance, or use this coterie of retired judges to sit in judgment if there are points of law involved that the Court has already been determined in previous cases and so no new judgments to be made.
It is not all as simple as that, though, because there are other constitutional issues. Many of the cases in Strasbourg get there because, as I understand it, there is no supreme court in the Russian Federation to adjudicate on them. They come straight to Strasbourg from the provincial courts, so we might have to persuade the Russian Federation to have a look at its court procedures—after it has got through its elections, of course.
I welcome the United Kingdom chairmanship. I know from colleagues in the Chamber that we are willing and ready to help the Minister and the Government to take forward our agenda, particularly on reform of the Court. The Interlaken process set in train some years ago was followed by a high-level conference under the Turkish presidency in Izmir, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor participated on behalf of this country. I hope that we come up with concrete proposals in our six months to ensure that reform of the Court is not only an agenda item, but a reality.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe well. I commend him and his deputy in Strasbourg, our excellent ambassador, Mrs Eleanor Fuller, who has done tremendous work. Thorbjørn Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, is an excellent secretary-general—one of the best the Council of Europe has had for a number of years—and is also very much in tune with the United Kingdom agenda.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I rise to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) with some trepidation. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of such matters, whereas I am merely a new member of the delegation. However, I will attempt to do my best. I welcome this debate, which is an ideal opportunity to reflect on the history and ideals of the Council of Europe, as well as its relevance in the modern world. Today is obviously an opportunity to debate the Government’s priorities for the UK chairmanship, but we also need strongly to reaffirm our commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law at international level, as well as the level of the nation state.
As we have heard, the UK was a founder member in 1949 and, two years later, was the first country to ratify the European convention on human rights, which is at the heart of the Council of Europe agenda. In the post-war era there was a common desire to build up international co-operation so that communal solutions could be found to global problems. Never again would the world erupt into terrible bloody wars. There would also be basic individual rights and freedoms, and the development of democratic Governments. As with the United Nations, that was the context that gave birth to the Council of Europe. We need only consider the wars that have, unfortunately continued despite all the efforts to avoid them, the ongoing threat of terrorism and the continuing struggle for human rights and democracy—as witnessed most recently in the Arab spring—to realise that there remains a fundamental need for a body such as the Council of Europe to ensure that individual countries not only sign up to promoting human rights for all their citizens, but live up to their responsibilities in implementing them.
As I have said, I am a new member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, having previously served on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the last Parliament. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the delegation and our civil servants, both at Westminster and in Strasbourg, for the support that I have been given in finding my way around the practices and procedures of the Parliamentary Assembly. It is a very different place from this one, and it is taking me some time to adjust. I hope that I am making some progress in that regard. I have already paid tribute to the leader of the UK delegation, and I would also like to pay tribute to the leader of the Labour delegation, my noble Friend Lord Prescott, and to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who chairs the Migration Committee, of which I have become a member. He has been very helpful, and has encouraged me to take part and to take on some early responsibilities. I welcome the opportunity to do that.
It is clear to me that the Committee of Ministers provides a necessary mechanism at governmental level to agree and implement policies, although, as other hon. Members have said, reform is much needed. I am therefore pleased that that is one of the Government’s priorities. I admit, however, that I initially wondered whether the Parliamentary Assembly was any more than just a talking shop. In these straitened times, is it worth using vital resources to fund such bodies? There are some who would question such expenditure, but my experience so far has shown me that they would be wrong. When I look at the work programme of the Parliamentary Assembly, I am amazed at the breadth and extent of the vital matters under discussion, and at the impressive reports that are produced, which I believe are akin to our own Select Committee reports.
The capacity exists to make challenging recommendations to the Council of Ministers and to hold the Council of Europe to account, which is an achievement, given the number of member states involved. We should therefore be careful that any savings that can and should be made do not undermine the whole principle of the Council of Europe or the Parliamentary Assembly, or render them incapable of doing their job.
For those who have the good fortune to live in a country such as the UK, it can be easy to take for granted the rights that we have. It has become increasingly obvious to me, through my previous membership of the OSCE delegation and now of the Council of Europe, that it is vital, at a profound yet simple level, to keep talking, even though that can be time consuming, expensive and, in the case of some of the eastern European countries, repetitive.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am following my hon. Friend’s speech carefully, and I welcome all the work that she does in the Council of Europe. Does she not think that there is a case for doing more in this country to publicise its work? We have the chairmanship coming up soon, yet very few members of the public will know about it. Is there not an obligation to ensure that the work is related to the people of this country in some way?
Sandra Osborne
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to that subject later in my speech. If the truth be told, I confess that I was pretty ignorant myself before I became a member of the delegation. That is probably an indictment of me, but also of the level of discussion that we have on the subject in this Parliament. We should take the opportunity to hold more discussions such as the one we are having today.
All the evidence suggests that mankind—I use that word advisedly—learns very little from experience, and very slowly, concerning the exercise of power and the protection of the weak, but at least there is hope when dialogue leads to international treaties. So, if we believe that human rights are at the centre of our foreign policy— sometimes I wonder, although I welcome the Minister’s statement to that effect—we should be prepared to support the European convention on human rights without equivocation.
The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to the meeting earlier this week between the UK delegation and Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe. The secretary-general commented that the UK was well placed to use the chairmanship to take forward reform of the European Court of Human Rights, because we started it and we have the diplomatic capacity to gather support. In the six months available, I hope that that proves to be the case. I am aware that a great deal of groundwork has already taken place—although, as the Minister has said, securing consensus among 47 states is a tall order. It is right that that should be the UK’s main priority, however. Everyone agrees that reform is needed, not least because of the huge backlog in applications.
As has already been said, there is also a tension in some people’s minds between the judgments of the Court and national sovereignty. That was illustrated in the UK with the judgment on prisoner voting rights. I was disappointed by the level of debate in the UK on that issue, as it undermined the purpose of the convention, which is to promote human rights. Whatever people’s views on whether prisoners should have the right to vote, the debate was characterised by inaccurate, populist and, in some cases, xenophobic nonsense. If there is a genuine problem—and I think we all agree that there is—with the Court intervening inappropriately in national affairs, let us deal with it in a measured way that promotes subsidiarity where appropriate, instead of bursting out in moral panic.
It is not unknown for the UK to lecture other countries about human rights, and quite rightly so—in fact, I hope the Government will take the chance to raise human rights issues with President Santos of Colombia when he visits the UK later this month—but we should practise what we preach if we want to be seen as an example to other countries. I hope we do, and I hope we are.
Although the reform of the European Court of Human Rights is the main priority, I would like to comment briefly on some of the other priorities that the UK Government have set for our chairmanship. Combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity across Europe is a very welcome objective, and I believe the work we have done in the UK stands us in good stead—particularly the measures in the Equality Act 2010 and the right to civil partnership, which were passed in the last Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government—believe me, I do not often compliment them—are currently consulting on taking this a step further with the introduction of gay marriage. I am pleased that we can give a lead to other member states on this, and I am glad the Government have made it a priority—not gay marriage, but tackling discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Michael Connarty
It has always struck me that in some other countries—this is certainly true where my son lives—people who are heterosexual can register not a civic partnership but the fact that they are de facto partners. That means that when one dies, the pension will transfer automatically to the other member of that de facto partnership. In this country, however, for a heterosexual couple who do not go through a formal legal marriage, either in a church or elsewhere, the pension dies with the partner. If we are talking about human rights, surely when people put themselves into a de facto partnership of that kind, they should have all the rights of those who go through a formal marriage.
Sandra Osborne
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but I would say that heterosexual people have the option to marry, which gay people have not had in the past. It is right that it should be afforded to them.
Sandra Osborne
There is a civic partnership that was not previously available—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are not conducting a conversation; this is a debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, it is not the hon. Lady’s fault. The hon. Gentleman should know better. If he wants to intervene, he knows how to do so properly.
Sandra Osborne
He is just very enthusiastic, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The internet, as we have found, knows no national barriers, and that has positive and negative consequences. Freedom of expression is vital in the context of human rights, and I am pleased that the UK Government are taking that on board by looking at people’s human rights in respect of their use of the internet. I hope that any European internet governance strategy will take into account the protection of vulnerable people, especially children.
On local and regional democracy, I am not particularly familiar with the Council of Europe’s programme, but as a former local councillor I have strong views about the role of local government in promoting democracy. I believe that we have many good examples here and a wealth of experience. However, local government has been somewhat undermined in recent years—by all parties—and should be held in higher regard in this country. The fact is that, by definition, local government is closest to the people—something that is extremely important throughout the length and breadth of Europe. That is relevant to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said about the importance of publicising the Council of Europe and its work. Word could be spread among communities through local government, explaining what the COE is all about.
As I said earlier, I am a member of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population in the Parliamentary Assembly. I would have liked to see some migration issues on the list of priorities, especially economic, human rights and integration issues. I had understood that the protection of minorities was intended to be one of the United Kingdom’s priorities.
I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those two points. Can he also tell me whether he, or any other Ministers, will be present at the Parliamentary Assembly to report to it during the UK chairmanship? I shall be interested to see how the chairmanship works out, and I wish Government and civil servants the very best in their endeavours.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, primarily because I have been calling for a debate on this subject for a good few weeks. I suspect that the Minister may have become sick of hearing from me. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who supported me last week in my pitch to the Backbench Business Committee. They clearly recognised the importance of holding such a topical debate at the time of our chairmanship. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) for his leadership and his insightful comments. As a new Member of Parliament, I know that he has a great deal of experience of these matters, and I think that all new Members have a lot to learn from him.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, and for the written statement that he published yesterday. There is, of course, much to discuss when it comes to our chairmanship and its priorities, and this afternoon is the right time for that discussion.
All Members who have spoken so far have touched on Britain’s strong historic links with the Council of Europe and the drafting of the original European convention on human rights. In view of those historic links, I think that Britain must now play a central role in reforming the COE to ensure that the sovereignty of nation states is respected and the British interest is put first. I say that partly in the context of this week’s debates on European affairs. On Monday we saw exactly what happens when power-hungry supranational institutions simply go too far: the public become somewhat disenfranchised, and the democratic deficit created becomes slightly harder to remedy. The public have a view on that. I think there is a genuine danger that if action is not taken during our chairmanship, the country could find itself sleepwalking down a path towards the stripping away of more of our powers and more important decisions will eventually be taken out of our hands.
No doubt there is unity throughout the House on the need to safeguard rights to a fair trial, respect for family life, protection from slavery, freedom of thought and other great values of which this country and British democracy have been staunch defenders over the years. However, the European system of human rights that is reinforced by the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and their related institutions lacks accountability and democratic legitimacy.
I believe that central to that problem is the way in which the European Court of Human Rights operates. Over the years, it has effectively become a final court of appeal for those who feel that there are human rights-related grounds that their national courts have wrongly dismissed. I think we all appreciate the importance of that. Recent statistics from the court reveal that in 83% of cases it finds that violation has taken place, contrary to decisions made nationally. The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the backlog of cases, and I think there is consensus on the fact that the numbers are alarming. I welcome my hon. Friend’s highly practical suggestion that people should be brought in to read through the paperwork and sort out the situation. While the figures for Britain are better than average, with the Court finding that a violation has taken place in 61% of cases, it is astonishing that in so many cases the Court and its judges rule against judgments made by very able, experienced and qualified judges in the British courts. Moreover, given that section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly binds our courts into the European human rights system so they already give effect to the convention in European case law, it is even more unreasonable for Europe to dismiss so many of the decisions made by our courts.
Politicians will always have their differences with the judiciary and the decisions made by judges, but many of the decisions made in Strasbourg are fundamentally contrary to British values and the British interest. That leads me to question the accountability and legitimacy of the Court.
This situation is made even more challenging to our democracy because no real mechanisms are in place for Parliament to reverse these European Court judgments. Such mechanisms are in place for decisions by domestic courts, however. Earlier this year when the English courts highlighted an anomaly in laws relating to police bail arrangements, Parliament was able to initiate and pass emergency legislation: the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011. Just as courts act independently to hold the legislature and the Executive to account, in this case Parliament and the Government were able to hold the judiciary to account. That does not seem to be possible for decisions made in the European Court, however. As has been mentioned, last February the House passed a motion sending a clear message to Europe that it did not believe it was right of the European Court of Human Rights to demand that we scrap our laws and give convicted prisoners the right to vote, yet Europe is still insisting that the judgments of the European Court takes precedence over the laws passed and motions agreed by this Parliament, and is still saying that we must grant prisoners the right to vote.
Michael Connarty
I have been listening to the hon. Lady expand on her point. I think she has got the matter wrong. When the European Court of Human Rights makes a judgment, it passes it back to the country of origin, which must then make proposals to try to fit in with that judgment. I understand that there is no intention on the part of the Government—supported by the Opposition, I hope—to give up their right in this matter entirely. They are being asked to define in which circumstances it is appropriate for someone to be not only incarcerated but deprived of their right to vote.
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
In February we debated the sovereignty and decision making of this House in relation to a particular judgment. By refusing to accept the sovereignty of our Parliament and the democratic decision making of this House, Europe is demonstrating a lack of legitimacy and democratic accountability, which I find astonishing given that the Council of Europe was established precisely to promote democracy. Therefore, in my view, attacking our Parliament and seeking to undermine our democracy is simply counter-productive.
The prisoner votes issue is just one well-known example of the problem—and it is still ongoing. There are other similar Strasbourg decisions, however, such as in the Sufi and Elmi case, where Britain was prevented on human rights grounds from deporting two individuals back to Somalia, despite their being responsible for a very serious spate of crimes, including threats to kill, robbery and dealing in class A drugs. We should bear in mind that such decisions can end up setting a legal precedent, so they can impact on subsequent deportation cases. In the Sufi and Elmi case, human rights were used as an excuse to allow people to remain in Britain.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a number of excellent points. Does she agree that the human rights of violent criminals and terrorists are too often being put ahead of the human rights of law-abiding British subjects? She is right to draw attention to that.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so clearly and succinctly. Our chairmanship of the Council of Europe is coming up and this is a big opportunity for us to address, if nothing else, the perception issues and the fact that we need to remain vigilant on these matters to ensure that powers and decision making stay in this country.
In pulling my remarks together, I wish to emphasise to the Minister and the Government that there are issues to be addressed. Britain is signed up to a range of international agreements on human rights-related matters, which are all welcome and important. However, decisions on human rights laws must be brought back home, because having British courts interpreting British laws is a better and more democratic position than having European judges and their officials ignoring our national interest. It is unhelpful and counter-productive for them to be foisting their particular laws on us.
It is time to draw a line in the sand on many of these matters, and to free up our courts, our public bodies and, in particular, Parliament from some of the excessive intrusion and integration on human rights matters that we have seen. I hope that, through the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, the Government will take this opportunity to address these matters, in addition to the areas of priority that the Minister outlined.
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
I said that I was not going to be able to speak in the debate, but I managed to get somebody else to chair a meeting in this building in time to come back to the Chamber.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her persistence and endeavour in securing this debate, although I suspect our agreement on and understanding of each other’s politics ceases there. She has not grasped at all what the Council of Europe is about, which is human rights, the rule of law and democracy. They are all intertwined; they are not simple little solutions set aside from each other and never the twain shall meet. They are interlinked so that we can get policies that cross national boundaries.
The hon. Lady cites one or two examples that everybody in this Chamber, including the Minister and Labour Members, agree on, but they are minor cases where things have to be cleared up. That is all part of the agenda for change, which the Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe are undertaking. Let us deal with the big issues, one of which is capital punishment. Countries are not allowed to become members of the Council of Europe if they carry out capital punishment. We must remember that there are 800 million people in these 47 countries in greater Europe, and we cannot singly deal with one or two issues such as the ones she raised.
Sir Alan Meale
The hon. Gentleman is right. I apologise if I have led him up the path of thinking that these minor matters in relation to the very big issues that the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights deal with are in some way not important. They are all very important, and they are very important to the people involved. As the Minister rightly pointed out, Members on both sides of the House are seriously of a mind for change and reform as far as the Court is concerned, because of the huge catalogue of outstanding cases, many of which could and should be dealt with in the courts of the individual countries. We should accept responsibility for our failure to act to make the courts deal with them. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, the problem of the courts and the outstanding cases in the European Court is caused by failures in individual nations and their court systems.
I said in an intervention that we have a very democratic system, which could be reformed in some way, for choosing judges. The three candidates that are submitted by all member countries have to be fully experienced in such matters before their names are even put forward and there has to be a gender balance. Those people are then examined by a committee in full before recommendations are made to the Assembly, which then decides. I have been there on a number of occasions over the years, as have other hon. Members who are present today, when time and again we have sent back the names of candidates and said, “They are not qualified,” “They do not come up to the standard,” or, in a number of cases, “No gender choice whatever has been given.” A few years ago, some countries refused to submit the name of a female candidate. The system is well-tested and I do not think that talking about “sleepwalking” away from accountability is the best way forward.
The Minister gave us the best way forward, which has been accepted by all parties. We need reform. We have to wake up the courts and the Governments of member countries and say, “You have to take responsibility for and deal with these issues; the European Court is for bigger things.” The example I gave of where such instances might apply involved a failure by two members of the Council of Europe area and, indeed, Britain—so three countries in all—in respect of seized assets in the northern area of Cyprus. An individual citizen went through all the courses for legal redress in their own country, Cyprus, and then went to the guarantor powers of Greece and the United Kingdom, but the case failed and there was no other domestic court for that case to go to. Members might ask, “What does a person’s ownership of their home have to do with the European Court of Human Rights?” Well, it has a lot to do with it if someone’s country has been invaded, they have been marshalled out of their home and local area into another country, and the return of the assets in the house, and the house itself, has been refused.
The Loizidou case went to the Court, which took a number of years to deal with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) rightly pointed out, it was then sent back to Turkey and the regime in the northern area of Cyprus, which were told, “You must deal with this matter. What you have done is illegal—you have illegally invaded, you have illegally occupied and you have illegally kept rightful owners away from their homes.” The judgment that came down in the end was that reparation to the tune of nearly £1 million in costs and compensation should be paid to the family not for the home they had lost but for the loss of use of their home over that 30-odd year period. That case could not have been dealt with in any other court.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important case regarding the human rights of the people of Cyprus. Is it not the case that this issue of human rights goes further and affects not just loss of property but loss of people? There is also an issue of missing relatives and people who still do not know where their loved ones have gone since the conflicts. They have called on Turkey to release basic information giving them a right to know where their relatives are. Does he agree that there has been a breach of those fundamental rights which must be answered and that we could take the opportunity, as chair of the Council of Europe, to make that case?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are not discussing the issue of Turkey per se and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bring the debate back to the question of the chairmanship of the Council of Europe and its priorities.
Sir Alan Meale
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. To give a very short reply to the question, let me just point out to the hon. Member for Witham that there has been involvement in that particular case and many other cases of breaches of human rights by the British Government as a guarantor power. Those issues will be taken up yet again in the course of the six-month chairmanship. Indeed, quite recently the European Minister met the Commissioner for Human Rights, who is an employee elected by the Council of Europe members in its Assembly. As my colleague the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) alluded to, 1,619 Greek Cypriots and 684 Turkish Cypriots remain missing from those periods. I know there will be contact on that subject during our chairmanship.
The Minister outlined the primary policies that we shall take up during our chairmanship. One key area is local and regional government. Next week or the week after, the Minister will be present at talks in Kiev. I hope he will give a guarantee in his summing-up that he will fall behind all the magnificent work on local government reform by Kivinemi, the Minister from Finland, which was picked up and improved upon by Chavez, the Spanish Minister. That is very important.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham on her persistence in obtaining the debate, but I ask her to think about some of the Council of Europe’s other roles that will be debated during our chairmanship. We send people on peace missions or monitoring missions. Two or three Members who are currently in the Chamber take part in those missions and put themselves at risk. At this minute there are people on monitoring missions in some outlying areas of greater Europe, where they have to receive military protection in order to fulfil their role. In the forthcoming weeks and months, Members from both sides of the Chamber will be undertaking such missions, and they risk their lives in doing so. In the Georgian conflict, the Chechnyan conflict, the Bosnian conflict and the Kosovan-Serbia conflict, Members of the House, as members of the Council of Europe, went in as peace monitors and election monitors, trying to achieve a democratic purpose. The Council is not just a small organisation in that respect.
I shall refer briefly to the work of the eight committees of the Council of Europe. Britain’s membership of the Assembly, from both sides of this Chamber, is a worthwhile and leading part of the work of the Council of Europe. We have a number of vice-chairmen. We have the chairmen of the monitoring committee, the health committee and the environment committee; the list goes on and on. I mentioned the committee that examines and gives initial interviews to those who wish to become judges of the European Court of Human Rights. We hold the chairmanship and leading positions on that committee. I pay tribute to a previous Conservative Member of this place: John Greenway was the chair of the Council’s committee on rules of procedure, and did a magnificent job in the years that he held that position.
I also pay tribute to the British ambassador in Strasbourg. I have seen many ambassadors in different countries who treat it as a fine profession and a life indeed, but this woman works night and day. If committees meet early in the morning, she is there; she is there throughout the day and into the late evenings, attending meetings and so on. I pay tribute to her and her staff, as I do to Secretary-General Jagland. He is comparatively new to his role, but I am pleased that I and others on both sides of this Chamber voted for him, because he has done a magnificent job and brought a stature to the Council of Europe and its work, with his background as Speaker and Prime Minister of his own country’s Government. His sense of purpose in the reform process has been very good indeed.
Last but not least, I pay tribute to the staff of this place. We have a small number of staff who run the Overseas Office. They fix up all the travel arrangements and arrange the accommodation, which I acknowledge is not salubrious—I wish it was—but for which they get the best value they can. They have to make those arrangements for 30-odd Members of Parliament, including arrangements to enable them to participate in all the committees that emanate from the work of the Council of Europe.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I wish to touch briefly on three issues. The first relates to the European convention on human rights, which is the first priority listed on the briefing paper issued by the Government on the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Article 5 of the convention sets out the right to freedom. Article 6 sets out the right to a fair trial. A constituent of mine has been held in prison in Malta for more than two years. Another constituent has just faced a highly questionable trial in Lille in France, and he was held for two years before the trial without any right to freedom. Malta and France are both signatories to the convention on human rights.
When I started to look into the background, I wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to request a breakdown of the number of UK citizens who have been held for more than 10 months without trial in countries that are signatories to the convention on human rights and members of the Council of Europe. Initially, those at the FCO said that they did not have a breakdown for all 47 countries and that it would be unreasonable to expect them to do all that work because it would be very expensive. However, not wishing to be unhelpful, they asked me to name the countries I was interested in. I named four: Greece, Spain, France and Malta—the latter two for obvious reasons. It was a freedom of information request and they complied with it.
Malta is holding five UK citizens who have been in prison for more than 10 months without trial, and Malta is a signatory to the convention on human rights. France is holding 12 UK citizens who have been in prison for more than 10 months without trial, and France is a signatory to the convention on human rights. Indeed, my constituent was held in France for more than two years. Spain is holding 43 UK citizens who have been in prison for more than 10 months without trial, and Spain is a signatory to the convention on human rights. Article 5, which sets out the right to freedom, is being breached by these countries. The FCO said that it could not specify the number of UK citizens being held in Greece because that number was so small that doing so could identify the person concerned. I did not quite understand that, but the fact of the matter is that Greece is also clearly in breach of article 5.
In the case of the constituent who was tried in Lille last week, I maintain that article 6 has been breached because I do not believe that he has had a fair trial. In fact, I am afraid that his situation was probably worsened by the intervention of a British Member of Parliament seeking to bring about the trial. The man has been sentenced to five years in prison, fined €10,000 and asked to repay something akin to the debt of Greece—€5 million. He does not have that because he has lost his home and his family; he has lost the lot.
During the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe, I want the Government to hold to the fire the feet of each and every country that is a member of the Council and is holding UK citizens, or any other citizens for that matter, for long periods of time without trial. It is a clear breach of the convention. Many of those countries, France in particular, are preaching to the United Kingdom and trying to tell us that we must give prisoners voting rights. We had that debate in this Chamber and reached a sovereign decision as a sovereign Parliament. I explained that in person to the Human Rights Commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, the last time we were in Strasbourg. I said, “Tom, you must understand that this is a sovereign Parliament. This is not a Government decision, but a decision taken in the House of Commons by elected Members. We have decided that we do not believe that we have a duty to give convicted prisoners voting rights.” While that is an issue, we are told that other countries can hold citizens without trial for very long periods in breach of the convention.
I would like my right hon. Friend to take to the chairmanship and to Ministers this clear issue and say that we will not budge one inch until every country holding any citizen for an indeterminate period without trial has complied properly with the convention.
Michael Connarty
I just want to get the hon. Member to clarify and put on the record the fact that all of these countries have not only signed, but ratified and implemented the convention, because there are many countries who sign conventions, never ratify them and never, therefore, implement them.
Mr Gale
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The implication is that because we have signed the convention, we are implementing it. My understanding is that Malta, Spain and France have implemented it, but I am open to challenge on Greece— I ought to know but do not. France certainly makes a big issue of the situation and is very communautaire, just as long as it wants to be, but on this issue it is in clear breach and needs to be told that it is.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend regret as I do the fact that, notwithstanding the Forfeiture Act 1870, which established the will of this House in respect of prisoner votes, and the emphatic vote in February, which made clear to Ministers and to the Court itself the settled view of the House, there has been only a suspension of the Court’s judgment on the UK situation with respect to Greens and M.T., as a result of an Italian case, and that the Court has not accepted the will of this House to decide that we are correct and will not give the franchise to convicted felons?
Mr Gale
I have already made my view abundantly plain: I regret the situation very much indeed. If there is any case to be made, it can only be this: a person on remand might be considered to have the right to vote, because they have not been convicted. I cannot have my cake and eat it, because, if I want people to have a fair trial and to be tried in a timely fashion, I have to concede that if people have not been convicted, they should arguably have the right to vote—but that is all.
Internet governance and freedom of expression on the internet, is one of the Government’s priorities during our chairmanship, but I urge caution upon my right hon. Friend the Minister. The culture committee, on which I sit as an alternate, and the sub-committee that has been dealing with the issue, on which I sit as a full member, have recently been considering a report prepared by another delegate to the Council of Europe. Fortunately, members of the United Kingdom delegation stood shoulder to shoulder and had the report withdrawn.
The report has now been rewritten and will be brought back before the committee in Paris on 6 December, when I suspect a reasonable compromise will be reached and it will then be debated. When it is debated and passed, it will be passed to Ministers for consideration, but in that report there is a great deal of motherhood and apple pie. The Government’s position paper says that they stand by the right to freedom of expression on the internet, and that is all nice and fine, but we are talking about what is known as public control, which basically means state control—and means something slightly different in French.
I do not want to see state control of the internet, and we all know what we mean when we say freedom of expression on the internet, but we have to consider the fact that, although social networking and all those things were held up as the great saviour, the prop that held up the Arab spring and made things happen, which was wonderful, precisely the same social networking was used in London in August to orchestrate criminal riots.
So, just before we go too far down that road, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ask his colleagues on the Committee of Ministers to take a long, hard, proper look at the issue, and to ensure that we understand exactly what we are saying when we plead freedom of expression on the internet. One man’s freedom of expression may be the ball and chain around another man’s leg.
Finally, I shall touch again on the issue that I raised earlier, transfrontier broadcasting, because it is serious. Twenty-five years ago the Council of Europe passed a transfrontier broadcasting convention. I know, because I am a re-tread, and 25 years ago—God help me—I was on the Council of Europe and I participated in the debate at the time. The reason we worked so hard on the issue was that we wanted to make sure that Europe did not do something very silly by insisting that every television station throughout Europe had a half-hour quota of clog-dancing in Lederhosen or whatever, but instead had something sensible. We knew what we wanted. We wanted reasonable control of matters such as broadcast pornography, taste, decency and so on. We created something that was worth while.
Tim Renton, who was then a Home Office Minister with responsibility for broadcasting—it used to be a Home Office responsibility—turned that convention into the European Union directive, so it was a worthwhile exercise. We have now reached the point where the convention is out of date, and because of the advance of technology it needs to be streamlined. The Council of Europe is getting to grips with it, and rightly doing what it was trying to do before—to get it right. Suddenly, along comes a European Union Commissioner who says that it is a European Union competence and that the Council may not discuss it.
As things stand, the Council of Europe has stopped its work on the project. That is outrageous because, as has been said, the European Union represents only a proportion of the countries that are member states of the Council of Europe. I believe that the greater should embrace the lesser, not the other way round, and that the matter is a Council of Europe responsibility. I urge my right hon. Friend to take that message on board very clearly indeed. It is an important issue.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale). Having been in the Council of Europe, and in this House for so long, and having watched his endeavours in the Council of Europe at the moment, it is amazing that he is still enthusiastic about searching out the right wording and practice in the things he is involved in. I am sure that he was the same 25 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) referred to me as enthusiastic, but I have been here for a mere 19 years. I hope that when I have been here for as long as the hon. Gentleman I am still as enthusiastic for the fight.
The fight is for the correct implementation of the principles behind the Council of Europe. I may not always take the example of the hon. Member for North Thanet on how he approaches things, and hopefully we will be at the meeting seeking the compromise that I suggested might be found between him and the author of the original report, which was deeply flawed in the way it was expressed. I hope that we will work together across the party divide on these matters.
It is a pity the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has gone. I am not sure whether she is a member of the delegation, but certainly some members on the Government side do not take up their place, and she might be able to learn quite a lot by volunteering to take one of the places that are not being actively filled at the moment. I am sure she would find it enlightening and educational, as we all do. The delegation, although we may come from different angles, is genuinely still the bedrock of debates in the Council of Europe. Delegates are often there at the beginning; they are there at the end of the day, which might be 8 o’clock at night; and they are often there on Friday when most people have decided to go home. We want to take part in debates and make our views known.
Oliver Heald
The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I were both there on the Friday of the last part-session, disagreeing with each other. I thought he would like to know that I am here, and that I do not entirely agree with him today.
Michael Connarty
We came in together, and hopefully they will carry us out together. I recall that we also came to the House in the same year.
It is absolutely incredible that a court as important as the Court of Human Rights is clogged up by a type of bureaucracy that could not be imagined in the most disorganised country in the world. The simplest cases that will clearly never be correctly allocated to the Court have to be judged by a full bench of judges before they can say, “No, we can’t deal with this.” There is no sifting process and no filter process. No Committee in this House would run if every Member had to gather every day, look at every paper proposed, and come before the Committee to decide whether it could even discuss it. That is what the Court is about at the moment. Anything we can do under our chairmanship to bring in a filtering system whereby one judge or some other method is used to say, “This is still correct to stay on the list and others must be sent back to the courts of the national jurisdictions or rejected”, is long overdue.
I will talk later about the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of individual countries. It is a myth that the Court can make a country implement its judgment just by lifting the judgment made in the Court and transposing it into the Acts of Parliament of this country. It is not the European Union, after all. I see that the Minister for Europe is here, and he recognises that that can happen with European Union regulations and all the other things that come in, and we have to just get on with it because we have signed away some of those rights—but not at Council of Europe level. It has to come back and be looked at by this sovereign Parliament, which then makes a judgment on what amendments to make that would implement it. I hope that we never move away from that.
There is lots of talk saying that our Human Rights Act is somehow a transcription of the convention on human rights and the judgments of the courts. I hope that it is, in fact, an attempt by this sovereign Parliament to implement the human rights that we all hold so dear for our country and for every other country. If it is not correct and needs to be amended in some way, that is our right as a sovereign Parliament, but we must not get into the situation where we can overturn the human rights that are available to people in Council of Europe countries just because we believe that it will satisfy the feelings of our constituents.
I held a very excellent debate about human rights and family rights. On family rights, yes, there is no doubt that people are angry because that is used as a plea for someone not to be sent back to some other country. But when we come down to the fundamentals and someone is asked, “Do you think that family rights are due to all of us?”, most people would say yes. We then have to decide why it is not applicable to someone who may come from another country. Sometimes, if we throw out that basic judgment that family rights are available to all of us, and must therefore be available to anyone under our jurisdiction, we destroy something very important in what we have fought for, for political gain and for a feeling of anger rather than for a judgment of what is correct.
Bob Stewart
I have a question because I am slightly ignorant on the procedures. If a judgment came back to this House and this House decided that it would not accept it, where do we stand then?
Michael Connarty
That is a very important question. If the Government should bring back a proposal on, for example, whether prisoners in custody should have voting rights, and we decided that we did not wish to accept it, we could reject it. They would have to come back again to try to put another proposal, and I presume negotiations would go on between the Committee of Ministers, particularly with our chairmanship in the next six months, to find something that would be suitable, and that would be correct. However, I believe—this is my own judgment—that if we got to the point where we said, “No, we refuse to implement this”, then there must be some question about whether we want to remain in the Council of Europe at all.
Mr Binley
The hon. Gentleman is a very dedicated member of the Parliamentary Assembly, and it is a pleasure to work with him. Does he recognise that at the end of the day the judgment goes to the Committee of Ministers, and that equally at the end of the day it has no powers of enforcement? I relate that to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale): nothing can be done, and therein lies one of the problems.
Michael Connarty
I think that is correct in what I have seen of the Council of Europe. It can make judgments, it can put down statements, people can support those statements, and they can be transmitted through the Committee of Ministers to the representatives of all the countries who send a representative to that Committee. One of the reasons I am quite a strong supporter of the European Union is that it can bring in directives, and has done so, as I shall mention later, in areas which are close to my heart and to the logic of why I am here as a representative of the people of my constituency. It has an enforceable power, mainly tied up with the economic power that lies in the EU rather than just the Court of Justice. But yes, I think that there is a need for a much more diligent pursuit of the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet.
The third part of what I say will be on the way in which the Council of Europe operates. The debate on the scope and effect of proposals, papers or conventions has to be had vigorously in the committees. That was done by the hon. Member for North Thanet, and I will give examples of where, even in the year that I have been there, I have taken that route and had changes made. Hopefully I will bring about other changes, because that is what we are there to do: we are not there just to go to the plenaries and get our card ticked for being present; we are, I hope, there to go to the committees, participate in the debates and form and reform the papers, the proposals and the conventions that eventually come out of the Council of Europe. If we do that, it is our duty to come here and argue for them to be implemented in our country in the fullest way declared in those conventions. If we cannot do that, I question whether we are fully participating in the process.
I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), because he organises the Labour side of the delegation. He was the person who suggested that, having been Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and been a member for the past 13 years, I might see going to the Council of Europe as a natural progression, because I could see more of the debates at the fundamental level, which I did not see in the minutiae of the implementation of European directives. I thank him for inviting me to attend.
It was suggested that I should go into the committee on culture, science and education. I will speak a little about the processes that I found there, because it is important to put on the record, for those who do not know what this is all about and who read the debates, what happens there. When I went along, one of the large papers that was debated was on “the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue.” When I read it, I realised, as a humanist, that the Council of Europe’s fundamental principle of the right to belief as well as faith, was missing from the paper. When the committee invited people from all the main religions to discuss the paper, it also invited the secretary of the European Federation of Humanists to present a paper and to be heard in Paris. We then tabled amendments, which were debated and added to the paper. The paper was eventually discussed again in the committee, of which the hon. Member for North Thanet is also a member, and went to the full plenary, where it was passed by a 95% vote of the Parliamentary Assembly.
There are some things in that paper that I believe are priorities for our sixth-month presidency and that will be very helpful in a world where we know there is still anti-Semitism, sectarianism and in many countries an anti-Christian movement that threatens people’s rights, but also persecution and a denial of the rights of people who are not affiliated to religious organisations. I found those issues fundamental to why I am here, what I believe in and what I believe are the rights of the people whom I represent, and there they were being discussed in that committee. Hopefully, my participation in that debate changed the document.
There was opposition from one or two fundamentalist born again Christians who tried to take all the references to humanism out of the paper. I am glad to say that it was defended by people of all faiths in the committee and in the Assembly, because it is not about being against something, but about including people and diversity in the real sense, not just in a small way. That was an important lesson for me that when I was placed on a committee, if I took it seriously, I could do something; I would not necessarily have carried the day, but I could at least express those views.
The other committee that I sit on is the social, health and family affairs committee. The discussions of that committee chimed very much with the interests that I have always thought that we are there to pursue, such as the discussions about human trafficking. Some hon. Members may know that I am now vice-chair of the all-party human trafficking group in this House. I have pressed—even harried—the Government to sign up to the European directives on human trafficking and the new, extended European directive against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. I found that there was very much a campaign running on that in the Council of Europe—the “One in Five” campaign. Again, I am grateful to the leader of the delegation, who nominated me to be the UK representative on that organisation. It is in fact a network of contact parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children.
When we talk about these things, particularly at a European level about cross-border action, some people think it is not to do with them, but I have to say that in my own constituency, in the town of Grangemouth, an industrial town, there have been two unbelievably horrendous cases—many cases, but two horrendous cases of sexual abuse of female children aged 13 and 14 months by two different people, put on the internet and spread around the massive paedophile rings throughout the world. It is in every street and every town. In fact the deputy commissioner for children in England is going to have a two-year investigation running into sexual abuse of children. On one day, she took a snapshot throughout England of local authorities and care organisations; in one day, on the same day in England, 1,000 cases of sexual abuse of children were reported in England—in one day at that snapshot. That is how frightening this is.
When we had our first meeting we were addressed by Mr John Carr, who is from the UK and is the expert adviser to the International Telecommunications Union on online protection of children. The figures he gave were horrendous: there are 1 million images on paedophile internet sites at any time in the world; there are 15 million transactions a year in the country. The one thing that is a problem is that a site can be shut down or blocked in this country within 24 hours, but there are sites running in Russia and in the USA that were reported and identified over a year ago but are still running, in Russia because of gangsterism and it is hidden and hard to get at, and in the USA because it is protected by state laws and local laws. The providers of these things can still keep running a year after they are found to be trading. It is a massive, criminal, monetary-driven enterprise—paedophile activity and the abuse of children. That was a salutary lesson for me that there was something going on there that wanted to join all 47 countries—and wider than that, but all 47 countries as a start—in a campaign against one of the most heinous crimes and most heinous possible abuses of human rights and the rights of the child.
As an adjunct, we debated in the social, health and family affairs committee—I was asked to speak, and I think the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) spoke in the same debate—the rights of undocumented migrant children. I think the most succinct statement of what the Council of Europe is about is the amendment from that committee that was spoken to by Madam Strik from the Netherlands. It said that a child is first and always a child, and then after may be a migrant. If that is what the Council of Europe is about, that is so powerful for the people we represent, because they want that to be a right for everyone in all their towns and all their communities, and the Council of Europe allows us to do that.
We have also been addressed by the UN special rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat Maalla M’jid, a woman who does this work throughout the world. It was in fact connecting the Council of Europe countries to what is happening in a much wider portfolio.
In this process of holding the presidency or the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers, I have an extra priority. It is embarrassing, and it relates to the question that I asked the hon. Member for North Thanet about having ratified a convention. The United Kingdom signed up to the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, which was laid on 25 October 2007—almost exactly four years ago—on 5 May 2008. We have yet to ratify it, and if we do not ratify it, it is not brought into force. Let us look at the countries that have. Spain, which was referred to earlier, signed it in 2009 and ratified it in December 2010, and has put it into force. It is no use signing something that is not put into force. I have been trying to get in to ask the Prime Minister for a number of weeks now—but have not been called—when we are going to ratify it. In our chairmanship six months, that is the time we should do this. We should ratify that convention.
It is amazing how many people have actually been involved, and I pay compliment to a lady who I am told is called Martine McCutcheon, who starred in “Love Actually”—I think she played the Prime Minister’s girlfriend, if I recall correctly. She presented, with people from the UK, a petition, gathered with the help of the Body Shop, of 735,889 signatures, exactly at the time it was presented, calling for the UK to ratify that convention. That was 12 May 2011. The message does not seem to have got through to our Prime Minister and Government yet, but the people of this country want us to do that.
I pay a compliment to them and to the hon. Member, who is a Member of the Government party, who is the chair of the UK Parliament’s all-party human trafficking group, and to Anthony Steen, a former Member of this House who set up an institute, the Human Trafficking Foundation. He is being supported to get campaigning organisations in all of the EU countries, but we still have a long way to go, and I hope it will be led by our chairmanship.
I have one other small point, but it is an important point. The committee on culture, science and education had a proposal before it for a recommendation towards a European framework convention on youth rights. Disappointingly, the response of the permanent member representing the UK, who will become the chair of the Committee of Ministers, was that they did not really think we needed youth rights. Unfortunately, it is a fact that now, in most of the countries of Europe, there is a long period between being a child and being put out to work. Sometimes people study; sometimes they try to make a life for themselves; and sometimes they go into work. In that period, a lot of young people fall between the two stools. They are not treated as children and they are not adults. They are not people who are making the rules; they are the people who are having to suffer the badly made rules.
Why I want to raise this is that it gives us an example of what we can do in the Council of Europe. I was on that committee and was involved in the draft. I took the draft away with me and I took it to people in the West Lothian youth forum, which is a forum set up by the local authority. I gave them copies and asked them to go away and use the youth forum to discuss this matter. What did they think of it? What did they think should be done with it? What ideas were missing from it? The forum came back with three very simple amendments. One was on housing rights and the right to housing. The forum members pointed out that you can get housing—you can get housing in the worst dumps and slums of the cities—if you are a young person, because you are basically an insecure tenant and you have difficulties. They wanted rights to housing that is actually of a standard that is acceptable at a European level.
The second one was on employment. They wanted in employment the right to training with in-work accreditation, because they knew so many young people who had got jobs and were used, basically. They were told they were getting an apprenticeship, spent two years as a grease monkey, and then when they asked to go to college to get certification, they were sacked and some other young person got taken on to go through the same process again and again.
Those are two very important matters. The third one I think is very important as well, particularly since we allow the UK Youth Parliament to meet here in this House, in this Chamber. People in the forum said they want these matters, if we ever have a convention, to be monitored by the Youth Parliament or their equivalent in Europe, so that they can have a say on whether the Governments who sign up to these things are doing anything about it.
Mr Binley
I am again most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous with his time. Does he think there ought to be a balancing factor to rights? I am not denying the importance of rights, but I wonder whether we ought to give equal importance to the responsibilities of the individual. Perhaps he has an opportunity to make that point and to ask the Minister whether he might consider it as well.
Michael Connarty
I think that we have quite a developed idea among those who take it seriously that with rights come responsibilities. I explain to everyone who comes around Parliament that it is a nice building, fine, but buildings are buildings; Parliament is about what goes on in here—the concept of democracy, the demos, the people who had the right in Athens and the responsibility to run the country. They had the power but also the responsibility. That, basically, is how society should be run. We get rights, but we have responsibilities at the same time. I think that our Government in the past tried to echo that again and again. I think that there are questions about whether people think that they have only rights. In Scotland at the moment, everyone thinks that everything is free: they do not pay council tax increases, they do not pay for their education, they do not pay for their prescriptions—it is all free. I am afraid that that is not a world in which people can live for very long, because they soon become bankrupted financially but also bankrupted in terms of principle. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right: there needs to be a balance.
Those young people were amazing. They took it seriously. A Member of Parliament said, “Here is a convention or a document that will affect your lives if it is ever passed. What do you think?” They went off and treated it seriously. I know that one of the people who helped to draft it, a young David Begg, sits in the Scottish Youth Parliament, and some of them come down here and participate in the UK Youth Parliament. That is giving them rights and responsibilities in the right way, and I hope that we will take that seriously and perhaps change our position and encourage the development of something that will speak to the youth and that has to contain responsibilities. However, the debate in the culture, science and education committee was the opposite: people said, “We don’t want to talk about responsibilities because we want to talk about young people having rights without saying they have to pay for them.” I do not necessarily agree with the balance, but that was how it was drafted.
I will finish with one last reference to a document, Madam Deputy Speaker, because a lot of the debate going on is as though the Council of Europe is out there, the Court of Human Rights is out there, and they come and fly in and drop things on top of us that we have to implement. There is a paper from 6 June Parliamentary Assembly that I hope that every Member of the House will read. Perhaps members of the public would like to read it. It is called “National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe”. It states:
“The report examines ways to better exploit parliaments’ potential in this respect and proposes basic principles to be respected by the parliaments of the Council of Europe member states.”
It then lists a lot of very, very sensible suggestions for how Parliaments might do this. I think that is what it is about. It is not about saying, “Europe will make the decision for you. The Council of Europe will make the decision for you. You just have to implement it.” It is about thinking about how we, as parliamentarians in our Parliaments, can take those guarantees correctly.
In my first year as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I realised that it was the one place where I could find the things that brought me into Parliament, the things that brought me into public life as a community activist, from where I went on to be a councillor and to give up so much of my life and time to this process of democratic representation. It is about human rights. The Council of Europe sets a benchmark against which it says to all the countries in the Council of Europe area, “You will be judged by the Council of Europe.” Enforceability is very important, and I would like to see more of it, but it says, “You will be judged by it. You will be held up to scrutiny by it. The more important thing is that you will have to ask yourselves, in your Parliament, how do you measure up to these human rights that should be available to everyone?” When I hear debates in here with people throwing out phrases that clearly say, “I want this human right, but that person from that country should not have it because we do not want them to have it. Send them back to their country, but they might be tortured. Send them back to their country, but they might face capital punishment,” I am ashamed, because that should not be talked about in this mother of Parliaments. Human rights are fundamental and the Council of Europe is their guardian. I am very pleased to be there, and I am sure that our time as the chair, with the leadership of the Minister and the Labour Benches, will be a good six months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I would like to draw it to Members’ attention that this debate is due to finish at 6 o’clock. We will need to leave some time at the end—not too much—to hear back from the Minister, who has been given a long list of questions already. There are 10 more Members wishing to contribute. I ask them to keep their eye on the clock when making their contributions. If it looks as if everybody will not get in, I shall consider setting a time limit on speeches to try and help Members. However, I am sure that you will all want to help each other to make your points in this consensual debate.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
This has been quite a consensual debate. It has not been as noisy and pacey as the debate about Europe that we had on Monday, but there has been a great deal of quality and quite a lot of unity, not only on the importance of the Council of Europe, but on the need to reform some of its institutions, such as the European Court. I welcome the Minister’s remarks and those of the Labour representative, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), although I think she might have made a slight slip of the tongue when she suggested that the landmass covered by the Council of Europe stretched from Vladivostok to Reykjavik. The term “landmass” might come as something of a surprise to the Icelanders.
I pay tribute to all the members of the British delegation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) will be sorry that he is unable to contribute to today’s debate as he is feeling rather unwell. He is a committed member of the delegation, and I am sure that hon. Members will regret not hearing one of his robust contributions. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). He burnished his European credentials earlier this week, but he has received so many accolades today as the leader of the British delegation that that fact is worth mentioning too.
It is an enormous honour for Britain to take on the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. As the Minister highlighted, Britain was involved right at the beginning in establishing the institution, which was forged from the embers of wartime Europe and has promoted human rights, freedom and democracy, the rule of law and cultural co-operation ever since. It is sad that we are now so complacent that in some circles the phrase “human rights” has become something of a dirty word. Indeed, on occasion even the rule of law and the right of judges to interpret human rights have been questioned.
The Council of Europe shows that this is an important area that needs to be defended. Obviously the Council of Europe has a much lighter touch than the European Union and its institutions, but that gives it a much wider and more comprehensive remit. It has not just touched on human rights: we also have conventions on cybercrime, pharmaceuticals, the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of torture, and—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out—on trafficking human beings and on racism and intolerance, including intolerance based on religious belief or non-belief.
The complacent and sometimes rather lazy criticism of human rights and institutions at the European level can easily drift into a reversal of the progress that we have seen in all these enormously important areas. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), who is no longer in his place, pointed out how important it is not just to accept that the conventions exist and that a piece of paper has been signed, but to ensure that cases are considered in detail and measures are enforced in member states. However, that does not mean that there is no need for reform. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s initiative to look into reforming Council of Europe institutions. The European convention on human rights is something that we should stoutly defend. We were the first state to ratify it, and we should certainly welcome the European Union’s accession to it and the application of those disciplines to its institutions.
Martin Horwood
I do not think that there is any suggestion that we will repeal the Human Rights Act, which actually allows this country to exercise its sovereignty by bringing the European convention on human rights into British law and giving British judges the right to enforce it. That is a re-enforcement of British sovereignty, so I would be surprised if any such suggestion were made.
However, the European Court of Human Rights clearly has a lot of problems. Mention has been made of the 155,000-case backlog. Obviously it is right that the British chairmanship should work to ensure that the Court’s judgments are implemented across the rest of Europe as well as they are in the UK, that its membership is of sufficiently high quality and, most importantly, that it does not act as a substitute for domestic courts.
One good initiative by the coalition has been the establishment of the commission on a Bill of Rights, which has already made interim recommendations on reforming the Court. The commission said in July:
“It is essential for the Court to be able to address cases involving serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, and serious issues of general importance, where the Court’s intervention is justified. The Court should be a court of last resort, and not a first port of call for all human rights issues. It should be adjudicating hundreds of cases a year, not thousands, and certainly not tens of thousands, and ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is observed by national institutions with the primary responsibility for the protection of human rights”.
The British chairmanship should build on that report, and seize the opportunity to take forward reform of the Court. I also hope, however, that the UK chairmanship will not be entirely distracted by the mechanics of human rights, and that it will champion those rights where they need to be championed.
In that respect, the UK chairmanship can build on the excellent work of the Foreign Secretary in his extensive report on human rights and democracy produced last year. It contains a list of countries causing concern to the British Government because of their human rights record. That list includes several European countries and one member state of the Council of Europe. Outside the Council of Europe it highlights Belarus, which is currently barred from membership because of its human rights record. The Foreign Secretary’s report describes “successive waves of repression” in that country. The Deputy Prime Minister has referred to it as “Europe’s shameful secret”. The Liberal Democrats’ own youth organisation has highlighted the struggle of its Belarusian sister organisation, Civil Forum, stating that its members
“continue to protest against the regime despite the potential violence they often face. Their struggle for human rights and political freedom is an inspiration to the global Liberal Youth movement.”
Sadly, I am sure that similar things could well be happening in such organisations in other political traditions as well. If the UK chairmanship can advance the cause of human rights in Belarus, that would be extremely welcome.
Russia also gets an unfavourable mention in the Foreign Secretary’s list. The report talks about
“restrictions on freedom of assembly, harassment and obstruction of NGOs and journalists”.
It also states:
“Human rights defenders in Russia remained at high risk in 2010.”
It highlights the cases of Oleg Orlov, of the human rights organisation Memorial, and of Sapiyat Magomedova, a human rights lawyer. It also mentions the trials of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and talks about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, about which many questions remain unanswered. This is all very sad, because Russia has for centuries been a pillar of European culture and civilisation, and it needs to understand that showing respect for freedom, democracy and the rule of law is absolutely essential if it is to become a full member of the European family of nations.
As well as mentioning Belarus and Russia, the report also refers to examples even closer to the heart of Europe. Hungary’s new constitution gives cause for concern, and Amnesty International has highlighted issues in it relating to the rights of women, as well as to
“the provision allowing for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole…and the exclusion of sexual orientation from the protected grounds of discrimination”.
Hungary was in many ways at the starting point of Europe’s democratic revolution in 1989. It is a free democracy, and a full member of the Council of Europe and of the European Union, and it would be a great shame if it were to acquire a poor reputation in the area of human rights. I hope that under the UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe we shall see proactive debate and promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
I welcome the Minister’s remarks on the forthcoming London conference on cyberspace. It is important for it to tackle the threats from cybercrime and even co-ordinated cyber-attack. I also hope, however, that, in line with our role in the Council of Europe, it will emphasise the values of freedom on the internet and in cyberspace. Throughout the whole episode of the Arab spring so far, we have seen how important that freedom can be to championing democracy and human rights.
On the question of the budget, the Council of Europe is a relatively small institution in the great continental scheme of things, but it has had a staggeringly large impact for its size, and I believe that it provides very good value for money. The United Kingdom should pursue an active and successful chairmanship of the Council, as that would be in our national interest, as well as in the interest of our citizens and citizens across the whole continent of Europe.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Having heard about the worthy deeds of the Council of Europe, I shall start on the question of value for money. I was struck by that as I thought about the worthy deeds of the police and the fire service in my area, as both the police station and the fire station are being closed down. Of course there are arguments about the Government’s economic policy, but all Members recognise that there has to be a level of cuts. That means—whoever is in government—that we have to prioritise what needs to be cut in the light of what we regard as valuable. There is a consensus on that.
It therefore seems strange to me that the Government do not appear to be proposing any cuts at all in respect of any of the international institutions or our contributions to them. I personally believe that a 30% cut for the European Union would amount to a pro-European case, and that it should be cut to the same degree as our police service and our fire service are being cut over the next four years—and not just in my area. That would seem to me appropriate.
I am, of course, arguing that cutting the police and fire services is the wrong priority, but in developing that argument I would not claim that the Government are either intellectually or ideologically anti-police or anti-fire service. I think that the cuts are being made in the wrong place, and I find it odd, in the light of those cuts, that the Government have not yet specified—they have the ability to do so with their six-month chairmanship of the Council of Europe—how appropriate cuts will be made to the budget of such organisations. I am not entering into a dialogue over whether that body should exist—
Oliver Heald
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has researched the Council of Europe at all, but its budget is being cut in real terms. What is more, it is on a pretty slim budget anyway. It is not like the European Union—nowhere near.
John Mann
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I would say, “Count the pennies and we’ll have the pounds.” I would like the Government to explore the notion of whether there needs to be any base in Strasbourg at all, or at least whether some functions could be combined. [Interruption.] There is certainly an overlap of functions between the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. [Interruption.] I hear from sedentary comments that some Members do not agree; they are entitled not to agree. My point is that at a time of major cuts in many nation states, including this country, the Government should be looking to ensure that there is a commensurate cut in such bodies and in our contribution to them—and that with the chairmanship, they have the opportunity to drive that through. I look forward to seeing how it will be done.
In announcing their priorities in a written ministerial statement yesterday, the Government said that they would
“promote an open internet, not only in terms of access and content but also freedom of expression.”
The statement continued:
“We will support the adoption of the draft Council of Europe strategy on internet governance, and the implementation of the principles it has adopted to uphold freedom of expression on the internet”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 10WS.]
I want to put some questions to the Minister and to make some points about that priority. Like every other Member, I am aware of the importance of freedom of expression on the internet. There are countries both in Europe and beyond where a lack of freedom of expression on the internet is a severe curtailment of the workings of democracy or, in some countries, of the real options for democracy. The two go together. It would be worthy and appropriate for the Government to take that work forward. There is, however, always a counter-side and a balance in these issues. Freedom of expression on the internet is not always a good thing. The Americans have a clear view on the matter, which their Supreme Court has expressed many times, including recently. For example, when a church in the United States decided to picket the funerals of gay service men who had died on active duty in Afghanistan, the Supreme Court ruled that that constituted freedom of expression.
There are differing views on how far freedom of expression should extend, but it is a fact that in this country, under the present Government as under the last, there have been successful prosecutions of people who have used the internet for the purpose of hate crimes, and I applaud that. Successive Attorneys-General have worked hard to ensure successful prosecutions of those who abuse their ability to express themselves freely on the internet and, in so doing, stir up hatred and restrict the freedom of expression of others, including the victims whom they target.
I chair the all-party group against anti-Semitism. Under the last Government, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) was the Minister, and, this year, under the present Government—I cannot remember the constituency of the culture Minister, the Prime Minister’s mate who is responsible for these matters—
John Mann
Yes, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He rightly convened a conference of experts, and I note that the Government are convening another on 1 November. Have any of those involved in the conference that the hon. Gentleman rightly convened, on a cross-departmental basis, been invited to the forthcoming conference? Will the same level of expertise be involved in the examination of hate crime on the internet, or are the Government adopting an unbalanced approach while chairing the Council of Europe, and considering only one concept rather than both? That would not be in the traditions of the parties that make up the ruling Government in this country.
The all-party group has received widespread support from Members on both sides of the House for many years. Members, including some who are in the Chamber today, have participated actively. Members of the Conservative party have participated above and beyond the normal call of duty, as indeed have members of other parties, including Liberal Democrats and, of course, Labour Members. It would be rather contradictory if the Government managed to slip into a conference on the internet on 1 November, in the context of their chairmanship of the Council of Europe, without ensuring that that conference also examines, on an expert level, including by politicians, problems relating to the use of the internet for hate crimes.
The internet is now the place where anti-Semitic filth is spread, be it the old hatreds, the blood libels, the resurrecting of the protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the new hatreds caused by a failure to differentiate between legitimate criticism of the state of Israel and attacks on Jewish people. A wide array of offences are being committed on the internet, across Europe and across this country today, and there have been new developments in recent times. Social media sites such as YouTube carry videos, and social networking sites such as Facebook publish messages promoting anti-Semitic themes. In blogs, not least those in online newspapers, a particular theme will give rise to a string of anti-Semitic or other offensive hate messages aimed at a specific group. That is one of the problems and dilemmas surrounding the internet.
In case any Member is not aware of the sort of stuff that is published, let me give some recent examples. Here is a nice little one which comes from somewhere quite close to my constituency. Someone has just posted this:
“Throw the jew down the well
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have a big party”.
What a charming post! The following example is from a press statement:
“The Muslims joining the demonstration called upon the Muslim armies to march forth to fight the Jews, eradicate Israel and purify the earth of Jewish filth”.
These examples come from this country, and there are vast amounts of this material.
The abuse is not only anti-Semitic; other hatreds are expressed as well. Various groups of people are targeted. Gay rights groups have identified this as a problem, for example. Other issues can be involved. Sometimes people who are isolated in some way can be targeted, such as through cyber-bullying, which is a huge new problem.
I therefore urge the Government to focus on these internet issues in their chairmanship, starting with the conference of 1 November. These problems must not be brushed under the carpet.
Research has been done in Norway—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) says that this is not relevant; it is absolutely relevant. Yesterday, the Government said this issue would be a top priority for the Council of Europe during their chairmanship.
Oliver Heald
The point being made was how on earth can the hon. Gentleman criticise the Council of Europe about this issue, when the Council of Europe, and especially the Parliamentary Assembly, is trying to address these issues right across Europe? I serve on the committee on culture, science and education at the COE, and we are currently working on a report on this very topic.
John Mann
The hon. Gentleman is a very good parliamentarian and he used to be my MP, but he sometimes gets over-excited. I am not criticising the COE. I am proposing a cut in its budget, and in the budgets of other international institutions. That is not a criticism of the COE; rather, it is to do with the economic realities. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to prioritise certain areas of expenditure, such as by red-circling overseas aid, they are perfectly entitled to do so. What I am saying is that the Government should use their chairmanship of the COE to implement a small cut in its budget—and that the budgets of other EU and international bodies should also be cut.
Mr Walter
I want to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. The delegation from this place to the COE has had its budget cut, as have the delegations to other international bodies. It was cut by 10% this year, and it will be affected by the overall House of Commons budget cut of 17% in this Parliament.
John Mann
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, and let me stress that I do not celebrate such cuts, but they are, perhaps, inevitable. I have only been to Strasbourg once—it was many years ago and it was not a trip to the Council of Europe—but it is certainly an opulent place. The following question should certainly be asked: do we need European parliamentary institutions in Strasbourg as well as Brussels?
Sir Alan Meale
I want to correct a possible misapprehension. As well as the 10% and 17% overall cuts already mentioned, for the last eight years the COE has had a nil increase in its budget, which is, in effect, a cut. The effects of these cuts are ongoing, and the COE is trying to work within the financial restrictions. In fact, one of the new secretary-general’s priorities is to deliver these cuts, and he has the support of all political parties in Strasbourg.
John Mann
Turning for a moment to what is happening in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, I could mention the closure of fire stations. I hope the Government take a lead on seeing what more can be done, and I am certain the Minister is listening to this point.
On the Government’s priority to deal with the internet, the research from Norway, following the horrific murders there, on the propensity to violence of those surfing extremist websites needs further exploration. We need to analyse how the internet can have an impact on violence, including terrorist violence. This is a key area for us to do more work on.
We also need to address the question of corporate responsibility, not least with the internet providers. This chairmanship provides us with a great opportunity—with the internet as a priority—for the Government to get into that dialogue with the internet providers about precisely what their role is, how that can be improved and how best practice can be spread among them. I mentioned the overlap in the work of bodies such as the EU and the OSCE, and work on the internet causes a huge overlap. How are the Government going to use this opportunity to ensure that this work permeates those bodies and does not stand alone, because that would not be as effective as something that crosses over and permeates work ongoing in those two bodies?
How do the Government see the issue of education and the internet, including how young people are educated in schools on how they use and access the internet? We need to address the whole issue of grooming, child pornography and so on; important issues are involved. How are the Government going to use this opportunity to look at how best practice from other countries can be shared, how intelligence can be shared between law-enforcement agencies and what the law-enforcement regime should be, because it differs greatly between different member states of the Council of Europe?
All this provides a huge opportunity, albeit with a reduced budget, for the Government to make a mark, using their chairmanship of the Council of Europe and using the fact that they have prioritised the internet, starting in a few days’ time with the Foreign Secretary hosting this conference. I urge the Government to make sure that the balance is struck between freedom of speech, which is vital for democracies, and tackling the hate crimes that permeate the internet. If that balance is in their chairmanship, the Government will doubtless do a good job.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is my next-door neighbour across the Trent, so I hope that there will be a sort of symmetry to our speeches; I will balance his speech for the purposes of the Gainsborough Standard. He is, of course, an ornament of Parliament, not least because he succeeds in irritating his own side as much as us, which is very good.
You, too, are an ornament of Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are also a former member of the Council of Europe. We all recall you often flying the flag for Britain on a Friday when everybody else had gone home. We are very grateful for all the work you did in the delegation. I am not sure that anyone has yet thanked you, so I wanted to put that on the record. In the Council of Europe we are restricted to three-minute contributions. I cannot promise that I will take as little as that, but I shall try to be as quick as possible because I know that others want to speak.
I am very proud to be a member of the Council of Europe. When we go there we see some marvellous history laid out in the foyer, with pictures of Winston Churchill speaking to one of the first sessions, if not the first. There is something very noble about this concept which, as we know, arose out of the second world war. The Council of Europe was a tremendously powerful mechanism in saying that we were never again going to have the horrors of Nazism and fascism. We should also be very proud of what the immediate past generation of members of the Council of Europe achieved in the whole transition to democracy in eastern Europe, of what the Council of Europe has achieved in eastern Europe and of how we are really defending human rights in eastern Europe, where there have been the most appalling and profound abuses, as there were in western Europe before 1945. To me, that is what the Council of Europe, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 are all about; it is about the fundamental freedoms that, from Magna Carta onwards, we have built up in this country. We have become a beacon of those freedoms. We all know what they are: freedom of expression and of religion, the right to privacy and a family life—wonderful, basic freedoms. That is what I believe Winston Churchill was talking about, but what we have now seen is judicial creep way beyond anything ever envisaged when the convention was agreed.
There is a misunderstanding about this issue. Nobody on the Government Benches is suggesting that we should leave the convention. I am proud of the convention that we signed in 1949. All we are attacking is the incorporation of the convention into our law under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was passed by the Labour Government. That is our gripe. Nobody is denying that we should be a member of the Council of Europe or that we want to reform it, but this has become a very serious issue. If one looks on the front pages of the newspapers today one will see, just to take one issue, that the population of this country is due to rise within 20 years to 70 million people—a figure that the Labour Government said was quite unacceptable and would never be reached. Two thirds of that increase comes from immigration—that will put a severe strain not only on services but on good relations and human rights. This issue of immigration is therefore important.
If the Minister for Immigration were here and were allowed to speak openly about what is happening in his Department, I am sure that he would have to admit that he is severely constrained in what he can do to deal with this problem of immigration in order to foster good race relations because of the incorporation of the convention into our law. Although he cannot tell us, because he is a Minister, what is going on inside his Department, we have, as I mentioned earlier in a couple of interventions, now heard from a former Minister for Immigration. His diary really is worth revealing because it tells us in great detail what is going on. This is not some right-winger speaking: it is a former Labour Minister—a person who voted for the 1998 Act, was then put in a position of responsibility and was, frankly, driven mad by it.
Martin Horwood
I am tempted to discuss the issue of immigration and suggest that it is more to do with providing the skills in the right jobs, as that is what is drawing in immigration—that is something that the coalition is tackling.
The hon. Gentleman talks about getting rid of the Human Rights Act, which effectively means taking the ability to interpret the convention out of the hands of British judges and giving it back to European judges. Does he not trust British judges or does he think that by doing that we will somehow not be implementing it as fully as we would be if it were in British law?
Mr Leigh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because this addresses precisely the point I want to make. I believe that the convention as we understood and implemented it from the late 1940s to the late 1990s was about the protection of fundamental rights. It was understood to be a matter of last resort. If somebody was really dissatisfied with the way that their human rights had been treated in British courts, for example in the immigration process, they could, if they wanted—frankly, after they had been removed—take a case to Strasbourg. What has happened since then—since we have incorporated it—is that we have had a tidal wave of cases coming to our own judges, and they have interpreted the convention in such a way that makes it very difficult for Ministers to do their job. Members of Parliament might not worry about whether it is bad to make it difficult for Ministers to do their job, but Ministers are responsible to this Parliament. This is the democratic forum of the British people. This Parliament should be supreme—not the courts.
If hon. Members do not believe me, they should listen to what Mr Woolas said. I have already mentioned the case. For years we had been working on both sides of the House against forced marriages and we had been trying to raise the age of women coming here. I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) how that had been overturned by judges. I ask hon. Members to listen to this quote from Phil Woolas, the former Labour Minister for Immigration, which directly mentions the European Court. He said:
“We have four people wanted for genocide in Rwanda (there are 100 but the four are the test case)”—
so we have here four people who are wanted for quite serious crimes, so not very nice people. The quote continues:
“The magistrates had agreed to extradite them but the High Court had disagreed on the grounds that they would not get a fair trial in Rwanda.
I am advised”
by my civil servants
“that I should grant six months leave to remain in the UK ‘in the hope that the legal system in Rwanda improves’.
I had asked why we couldn’t try them in The Hague and was told as they were not British, I couldn’t send them there!
So a person accused of committing genocide in an ‘unsafe country’ (which country that has genocide is safe!) simply has to get into an ECHR country and they will get away with it. The ECHR is providing cover for people who commit genocide. Madness.”
That is not me speaking—it is a Labour Minister.
I will refer to another case and then I will stop. There were many others, and I recommend that hon. Members read what is going on inside the Department, because it is our only insight into what is actually happening across Ministers’ desks.
“The French Navy detained some drug smugglers in the middle of the Atlantic. It took 14 days to get back to France because the ship was on patrol. But the…gangster took the French government to court for unlawful detention under the ECHR, saying he should have been dealt with sooner!...The smugglers have been released…I have now asked why we can’t change the law to stop this abuse but the MoD don’t want me to as they are using the same defence to protect six British soldiers, now back in the UK, who are being sued from Iraq after being accused of unlawfully detaining suspect insurgents in Basra…So, we cannot detain suspected gangsters at sea and the Human Rights Act applies in Basra. Unbelievable.”
That is not me speaking; it is a Labour Minister.
That is what we have come to, and it is now affecting national policy in a very profound way. The House may not agree with me about immigration, but I think it is a very serious issue for our country. We have to grapple with it if we are going to ensure good race relations in the future. I believe that a population of 70 million is unsustainable. You may not agree with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but surely you agree that this House, and Ministers responsible to us, should have the right and the power to deal with it; you do not believe that at all times their hands should be shackled behind their back because of a European convention that has been interpreted in such a way that it goes way beyond what anyone envisaged when it was set up.
Bob Stewart
The Human Rights Act also has a direct impact on operations for our armed forces, and often constrains the way in which our commanders can operate. They spend a heck of a lot of their time working out how not to offend the Human Rights Act rather than working out how they can carry out their operations. It is a very big difficulty, which we must also overcome.
Mr Leigh
I am grateful for that; my hon. Friend speaks with personal knowledge.
I shall end in a minute. I think I have made my point and I hope I have made it in a way that the House understands. Yes, I do believe that the Council of Europe needs some reform; the Court certainly needs some reform. There are obvious things that we could do to fillet the number of cases. A backlog of 160,000 is ridiculous and unsustainable. The Court should deal with fundamental abuses of human rights, which are still going on in some countries; let us be fair about that.
We have had recent debates in the Council of Europe about massacres and persecution of Christians in the middle east. Those are things of the sort that I think the founding fathers were thinking of—the horrible events, the disgusting and vile abuses of human rights that have been taking place in Libya within the past year, or in Syria in the past few weeks, or in Iraq over the past 10 years, and if those countries were part of the convention in the Council, that may be a good thing. That is what we should be focusing on, not these absurd, trivial cases—tens of thousands of them.
I cannot believe that a filleting process cannot be developed. I cannot believe that we cannot have a process similar to that which our own ombudsman uses. We are constantly being approached with requests to go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and there is a very quick process which fillets out immediately all cases that are obviously not applicable to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Then the Court really could be something powerful, noble and great, which would be a beacon to the world. It really would defend human rights, because it would focus its attention on those very real abuses, which, I am afraid, are still taking place in the rest of the world and even, I suspect, in some parts of Europe in limited circumstances.
Having done that, I believe that we should repeal the 1998 Act and replace it with our own Bill of Rights. That Bill of Rights should be based on a fundamentally British understanding of how our common law has developed since the Magna Carta. It should protect people’s individual freedoms, but not take the whole process to a ridiculous conclusion, the sort that states that I cannot say what I believe or speak my truth if it might somehow insult the sensibilities of, for example, an hon. Friend. For instance, there was an absurd case concerning an argument about Islam that took place over the breakfast table in a bed and breakfast. The owner made a disparaging comment about Islam, suggesting that it was a violent religion—not a comment I would have made—but it was said in the course of a normal conversation. He was promptly taken to court for somehow infringing the human rights of the person with whom he was arguing. We all know that this is profoundly un-British and that it is not working. It is preventing British Ministers carrying out what a British Parliament wants. I believe that we should replace the 1998 Act with a British Bill of Rights.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I start by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on being made an honorary member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is well deserved? Of course, many of us are very sad that you are not so frequently there, partly because we now have to speak on Fridays, and you were always extremely good at that.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said. The European Court of Human Rights has a very important function. The European convention on human rights was designed by English lawyers and expresses what were seen to be the fundamental rights of English common law—the right to a fair trial and so on. It is therefore ironic that the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the convention into English law, has somehow been seen as a new departure and used to extend the law, which I think is the mistake. It is the way in which it has been incorporated that is the problem.
I am chairman of the executive of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, which for some years has produced publications and pamphlets arguing for a British Bill of Rights. The secret of why that approach is the right one is that it would be possible to have some kind of route map explaining how the rights should be interpreted in English law, which is what is needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have established a commission to consider that. At the Conservative party conference the Home Secretary talked about the immigration rules and how they comply with the convention. She made the point that it is not the rights themselves that are the problem, but the way they are put into English law in the immigration rules. She is now going to change those rules to ensure a more sensible approach that explains the interaction between the right to a family life and the national interest, which I think is the right way forward.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) should spend a little more time researching what the Council of Europe does, because although it is an unusual creation, it is an important one. It is multi-layered: it has the Parliamentary Assembly, which does one sort of work, and the organisations allied to it, such as the group of states against corruption; it also has a congress of local and regional authorities, which involves local government across the 47 countries; then there is the Court, which deals with matters that have been presented by individuals complaining about how countries are implementing the convention. He should look at the effect of all those institutions acting together, because he will find that they are doing a very useful job. The Council of Europe is not an expensive institution in the way the European Union is—I agree with his criticism of the lavish expenditure on the EU and the need to cut it considerably.
The issues that the Council of Europe as a whole addresses, such as migration, are the great issues of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has just expressed his concerns about migration. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is chair of the Council’s committee on migration, refugees and population, recently produced a major report on migration and how we should tackle it right across the Council of Europe area. It is easy to think that that is the same area as the EU, but it absolutely is not: the Council includes Russia and Turkey and so covers a vast area. As a result, it is able, if its reports are implemented, to have a serious effect on the problem of migration. It is an institution that can cope with that sort of big issue. Equally, the culture, science and education committee is looking into the very issue that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is concerned about: the internet.
If all 47 countries sign up, it is possible to effect change. The hon. Gentleman should not think of the Council of Europe as an institution like the EU; it is not. The Council covers a wider area, it is multi-layered and, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) said, its Parliamentary Assembly also has peace missions. If we think back to the Russia-Georgia conflict a couple of years ago, we find that it was the Council of Europe that sent in a team to try to broker peace in that very dangerous situation. The Council also monitors elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was in Tunisia last week doing valuable work. The Council is spreading democracy and tackling some of the big issues as only it can, and the hon. Gentleman ought to take a more serious view of it. He spends a lot of time planning mountaineering expeditions—indeed, I once met him at the top of Scafell Pike—and he ought to do that sort of preparation on this subject.
John Mann
The hon. Gentleman has spent too much time on top of mountains, I think; he needs to listen a little more carefully. Election monitoring is also done by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and by the European Union, so there is some overlap. It is not a criticism of the work of the Council of Europe to suggest that it can take a bigger haircut along with everyone else; indeed, it is the pro case, just as it is the pro-European case to suggest a big haircut for the European Union. A credible organisation like that can get away with a haircut—because it is credible.
Oliver Heald
The hon. Gentleman made his speech, and I have disagreed with several points that he made, so we will probably have to leave it at that.
The Government are right to make Court reform a priority, however. With a backlog of 162,000 cases, there is a need for a filter to provide some way of getting through them, and we are right to try to introduce more subsidiarity. I agree with our delegation leader, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), that we should have a system in which one needs leave to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, although personally I think that one would need also the right, if leave were refused, to apply directly to the Court. That would not open a great floodgate of cases; it would just mean that, if a particular case were decided for political reasons, which is what can happen in some countries, there would be a further way through.
On the Human Rights Act, I have mentioned my support for a British Bill of Rights, but the other issue is the quality of the judges. I have been a member of the Council’s Parliamentary Assembly for only two-and-a-half years, or perhaps three now, but that problem has been raised in the Assembly throughout that period. Some judges just do not know the Court’s law base, and there is a concern that some countries’ candidates are just not adequate. We should find ways to improve the quality.
Sir Alan Meale
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, so that the House is not left with the wrong impression, that we refuse candidates at every session? If they do not meet the language, experience and gender balance criteria, we do not appoint them. We send them back, time and time again to some countries.
Oliver Heald
Yes, and of course the answer is not to find a way of letting unsatisfactory candidates through; it is to secure an improvement in the quality of candidates. Knowledge of the Court’s key languages is vital; otherwise it is not possible for the judges to interact with it.
My impression of the European Court of Human Rights is that it takes a slightly diplomatic approach to its cases and almost sprays round the judgments a bit. There is a need to act entirely on the basis of serious human rights abuses and not to feel that every country of the 47 must have a judgment against it. More focus on serious abuses of human rights would meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and other hon. Friends.
I support Secretary-General Jagland’s programme of reform, which will save money—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw will be pleased about that—and streamline the organisation, reducing the number of committees. It is worth giving credit to Mr Mignon, who is rapporteur of the committee on rules of procedure, immunities and institutional affairs, and involved with the Assembly’s bureau. He has played a major part, and his report on changing the rules is a major piece of work. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset played a big part in that. Those changes will improve how the Assembly works.
The rule of law is an important priority for the Government, and I want to mention two issues. The first is migration. If we are to tackle migration, it is important to follow the approach that the committee on migration, refugees and population set out in its recent report, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was the rapporteur. That involves sticking by the Dublin agreement. Asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in; otherwise they may be sent back to that country. There is talk in the Council of Europe about flexibility and shared responsibility, which suggests that some people who apply for asylum could be waved through to other countries for their case to be dealt with, but that would drive a coach and horses through the regulation of migration in Europe. Many people already cross external borders illegally. It is important to stick by the Dublin agreement. We should also have better arrangements for patrolling the Mediterranean, and I know that the Government are supporting moves in that direction. I support the idea that our Government could send officials to help to deal with immigration cases in Greece and Italy, rather than going for the shared responsibility, wave-them-through approach. I hope that the Government will continue to offer that support to our southern neighbours in the hope that there will be no weakening of the Dublin agreement.
On extraordinary rendition, Dick Marty, the Swiss parliamentarian, recently produced “Abuse of State Secrecy and National Security: Obstacles to Parliamentary and Judicial Scrutiny of Human Rights Violations”. It is his last report, because he is standing down from the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to human rights, and his campaign against extraordinary rendition. In his latest report, he pays tribute to the all-party group in the House that deals with the issue, and describes its efforts as untiring. It is right to pay tribute also to the all-party group.
The key point about Mr Marty’s report is that it builds on what we have been doing in this country. He says that legislation should not be a cloak for wrongdoing and highlights the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of secret services, as we do here—although, obviously, there may room for improvement in that. He points to the need for courts to develop procedures where secret information can be used without damaging state security. He also addresses the settling of the cases that arose out of Guantanamo and the report that is being produced by the special inquiry led by Sir Peter Gibson. In doing so, he acknowledges that this Government are taking the issue seriously and approaching it in a way that could be a model for other parts of Europe.
The committee on culture, science and education is in the process of producing a report on internet governance. There has been and continues to be a good deal of argument about exactly what the report should contain. I am glad that the Government are making the issue one of their priorities. I hope that when the report comes out, assuming my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) gets his way on exactly what is in it, the Government will take it seriously and use it as part of their approach.
Finally, I welcome the Government’s concentration on tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. What we do in this country is very seen much as the model for the rest of Europe. Some other countries are way behind—examples have been given with which I agree. It is good that our Government are going to build on the work that has been done in this country and try to spread it across the 47 countries of the Council of Europe.
In conclusion, it is very wise of the Government to have reached agreement with Ukraine and Albania—the countries whose periods of chairmanship are on either side of ours—because that means that, over an extended period of 18 months, the chairmanship can concentrate on some issues and get a result. I wish the Government well and hope that the Interlaken process is the success that it should be. The fact that 47 countries are involved, the largeness of the geographical area covered, and the way in which the organisation is led mean that if something is done right in one country, best practice can be spread right across Europe.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is leaving his place, for reminding me that I need a haircut this weekend.
I am a member of the Council of Europe—and a proud member, actually. I am rather surprised by how much I am enjoying it, but you will understand the reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome many of the Minister’s remarks. I was especially pleased to hear his comments about a Bill of Rights and about subsidiarity. The Government seem to have a real programme to implement over the six months of our chairmanship, and most of us in this House would welcome that. However, we shall be scrutinising his work and keeping an eye on him. That is the job of this place, and I know that he will welcome it.
Mr Binley
I am sure he will.
The European Court of Human Rights has a proud history of defending the rights of individuals, but there is no doubt that there have been several questionable judgments that raise issues about its competence across the piece. I refer to the membership of the judges’ bench. It has already been said that a number of judges have little judicial experience, and indeed that some of them were political appointees. That does no good for the whole concept of jurisprudence. We ought to be making an effort to ensure that a court of this importance is matched by the quality of the judges who sit on its benches, and the sooner we get down to that, the better it will be. One judge was reported not to understand the concept of legal precedents. When one gets that sort of ignorance in a court of this kind, one begins to wonder what sort of justice it imparts. Indeed, many people in this country have begun to believe that some of its judgments are, to say the least, beyond the pale. Those people are responsible for overturning the decisions of this House and our courts, so we have a right to expect a greater degree of competence and better qualifications. I know that the Minister will take those thoughts on board.
My next point is about languages—a subject touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald). The 2005 Woolf report made 26 recommendations on the working methods of the European Court of Human Rights. One was the provision of language training, and yet that has not been implemented. We all know that interpreters can change the nuance of language dramatically when they interpret one language into another. Because the nuance changes, the meaning can be totally different. That is simply unfair to the people who put their trust and faith in the European Court of Human Rights. I urge the Minister to put language training for judges on his little list as an absolute priority.
The 2010 Interlaken conference and declaration stressed the need to preserve the high quality of the European Court of Human Rights. I have already referred to the lack of quality. This matter is consistently asked about, and it is consistently recorded that we need to do things. No wonder the people of this country get a little impatient when nothing happens. I want to send the European Court of Human Rights the message that it must get its act together, because it is undermining the confidence of the people of this country—and, no doubt, that of the people in other countries—which is so necessary for it in doing its work.
I was going to talk about prisoner voting, but we had a big debate on that recently. Suffice it to say that I believe that prisoners are in prison by choice. They are not forced to break the law; they choose to break the law. Therefore, there is no problem with the removal of that human right. They choose to deny themselves that human right. We ought to do some plain talking when this matter comes before the Committee of Ministers.
I also question the judges’ appreciation of our values and legal procedures. This nation is lucky to have a common law based on almost 1,000 years of life experience—a common law that has served this nation well. To my mind, it covered all the necessary protections of the people of this country. Indeed, they seem to think that it covered the necessary protections themselves. The fact that there are so many different codes of law in a 47 nation-strong Europe underlines the need for greater knowledge of the various codes of law in those countries. If necessary, that might require a division of the judges’ bench. We certainly need them to understand our code of law if they are making judgments about our citizens.
Martin Horwood
In arguing for an awareness of our code of law, cultural traditions and values, is the hon. Gentleman therefore arguing in support of British judges having the right to interpret the Human Rights Act 1998, and therefore the European convention on human rights, in British courts?
Mr Binley
I am delighted to say that most senior judges believe in the primacy of Parliament, and I have no concerns about that. A few judges have tried to argue differently. Only recently, I noticed the remarks of a senior judge in the Court of Appeal that underlined the importance of the primacy of this place.
Mr Binley
I want other people to be able to speak, and many Members have spoken for a long time, so I will reject the hon. Gentleman’s request on this occasion.
I wish to touch briefly on the 162,000-case backlog in the European Court of Human Rights. We all know that it is farcical, and that something must be done about it. I am glad that the Minister has decided to do something. However, I must ask him something. I was once told by a fortune teller that I would live to beyond 80, which would be another 11 years. Will the measures that he puts in place during our chairmanship be completed, and will the list be eradicated, in that time? It worries me, and I want to go to meet my maker with a clear and untroubled mind.
Finally, I wish to say that I know the Minister cares about these matters and is well placed to represent us in respect of them. I look forward—for the first time in many years—to action on the European Court of Human Rights that will give the British people confidence. If the Minister comes away after the six months of the British chairmanship having achieved that objective, we will all be prepared to say, “Very well done, Minister!”
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
May I, too, begin by congratulating the Europe Minister on a speech that I think united not just all on the Government Benches but many members of all parties? It is obvious that he intends the chairmanship of the Council of Europe to be used in a positive way and to reform the European Court of Human Rights, which I fully support. That institution was set up in 1949, as we have heard, when we had just come out of a war against dictators and other dictators were still ruling parts of Europe—as they did until well into my lifetime, in the 1970s. It was right that a country with 1,000 years of democracy and a history of supporting human rights should be part of that process, and we should be proud of what we have done and achieved. However, there are things that have come out of the Court that rightly give everyone concern. I wish briefly to mention two with which I have had a personal involvement.
First, a lady came to speak at a meeting I organised about four years ago. I have not spoken to her this afternoon, so I will not mention her name, but she has been in the papers. She was the victim of a sexual assault by somebody who had five convictions for sexually assaulting women, but who was successfully able to use article 8 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that he was not deported back to Sierra Leone. That is a very good example of the human rights of women in this country not being put first. We are putting the rights of rapists and serial sex attackers first, and that has to be wrong.
The second issue, which has also been mentioned today, is the interference in the Government’s decision to try to raise the age for marrying a foreign spouse from 18 to 21. When I served on the Home Affairs Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was here earlier, we took part in an inquiry into forced marriages. We heard terrible and shocking evidence that they were widespread in some communities, and that some young women had said in private to British embassy officials, “Please don’t give this man a visa. I don’t want to marry him,” but were unable to say that in public because of family pressure. As a result, judges in immigration tribunals did not take account of evidence that had been given in private, and they granted spouse visas. That is why the Government wanted to raise the age—to protect the human rights of young females in certain communities in this country. That should be a priority.
I absolutely support gay rights and think it is totally unacceptable that anyone should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. I sometimes think, though, that that battle has already been won. I would not have thought that many people would think that acceptable any more, certainly in this country. I therefore wonder whether we should prioritise what I think is an even bigger issue for all of us—the thousands of young girls in this country and across Europe, and young males in some instances, who become the victims of forced marriage, domestic slavery, genital mutilation and other such completely unacceptable things.
I am not a member of the Council of Europe, although I would be more than happy to support it in any way if I were asked to do so. None the less, I look forward very much to the UK’s chairmanship of that organisation, and to seeing some of the reforms that have been mentioned today.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called, and a privilege to have the chance to play a small part in this debate. The UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe comes round not very often, so we can truly say that we will not see the like of this parliamentary occasion for decades to come.
I concur with many colleagues who have spoken, particularly on the urgent need for reform of the European Court of Human Rights and the terrible problems caused by the large backlog of cases. I am sure that all hon. Members know of constituents who simply do not know whether a case that they have submitted will ever be heard, and who do not know where they stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) and others commented on the importance of internet governance in Europe. That is important in terms not only of internet freedoms, which were an important part of the Arab spring, but of personal security and trade. We need the internet to work as an open common trading environment. People who seek to pass off goods or to break copyright and intellectual property protections on goods and services in the EU, and who use the internet to facilitate that, should know that the force of law will come down on them. That is a challenge for the Council of Europe, the Government and the EU.
I should like to use the time allowed not to go over some of the matters that have already been covered, but to ask the Minister to consider ethics and integrity in sport—another important matter—as part of the work of the UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The debate is timely, given the Council’s work on match fixing, on which it has engaged with UEFA. It is also part of the general debate on the reform of FIFA, the governing body of world football, about which members of the Council have also had things to say.
Sport and the ethics of sport have played an important role in the Council of Europe since it was started in 1949. Through the years, the Council has built up significant competence in specialised areas such as quality assurance in sport, and agreements adopted at world and European political levels. The Council of Europe has a unique and important role to play within the sporting environment. It is not a member state Government, an EU institution or an international Government or body, but a forum that brings together people who have concerns about the future of Europe, how countries work together, and the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy. It works across the political spectrum, including in the world of culture and sport.
The Council passed the enlarged partial agreement on sport, which provides a forum for a discussion of ethics in sport and for championing those issues. In 2005 the Committee of Ministers adopted a recommendation that called on the Council to consider that
“good governance in sport is a complex network of policy measures and private regulations used to promote integrity in the management of the core values of sport such as democratic, ethical, efficient and accountable sports activities; and that these measures apply equally to the public administration sector of sport and to the non-governmental sports sector”.
The Committee also called on the Council to consider setting up
“mechanisms to monitor the implementation of good governance in sport principles, and put in place mechanisms to deal with inappropriate or unethical behaviours in sport, including prosecution where necessary.”
Those are fundamental points, and I am pleased that the Council considered them in its working activities. It could bring those recommendations to bear and raise the issue of good governance with FIFA, the world football body. An active debate on that has been led by Members of this Parliament—the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport this year produced a report on FIFA reform and allegations of corruption against senior officials within the game.
FIFA is based in Europe, and as we have heard, almost every country is represented in the Council of Europe. One country that is not represented is the Vatican, which FIFA is like in some ways. It has an extremely powerful global figure—Sepp Blatter—who is beyond the protection of government. He certainly moves around the world like a latter-day pontiff or monarch, and is above the counsel of both court and Parliament.
People who love the game of football, which is played around the world, including within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, ask, “Is that right? Is there a role for international bodies such as the Council of Europe and parliamentary bodies and Parliaments to speak up?” Allegations of corruption against senior members of FIFA and members of the FIFA executive committee have been made in this Parliament. It is right that we take those allegations up with such governing bodies, and that we challenge the president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter. It is also right to ask whether FIFA is putting its house in order, and whether the concerns of the citizens of Europe, including citizens of this country, are being dealt with by governing bodies. Should we not seek to prosecute people who have done wrong, and launch independent investigations into allegations of wrongdoing?
FIFA is a particularly good—or rather, bad—example of a body challenged by allegations of corruption against its most senior people. In the past 12 months, of the leading 24 FIFA members who make up the executive committee, 11 have faced serious allegations of corruption, two have been suspended, one has been banned for life, one has resigned and four are currently under investigation. This is a body in considerable crisis. In June Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, committed the organisation to leading a process of internal reform. I believe that that process needs to move a lot more quickly. I believe that no real progress has been made. At the FIFA congress earlier this month, Sepp Blatter set out a taskforce.
Mr Binley
My hon. Friend knows that I am very interested in football, and in fact played for a long time. Does he not think that Sepp Blatter is part of the problem, not part of the answer, and that the review of FIFA ought to be independent and made up of a global group of people who really understand football?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For a review of FIFA to have any meaning, there needs to be a fully independent investigation into all the allegations made. Transparency International, which conducted a report for FIFA, said that this should be the first step towards cleaning up FIFA. It should involve people from outside the organisation and from different walks of life—perhaps judges, people in politics and people with experience of governance in other sporting institutions—who could take the lead and have the power to initiate their own investigations, produce their own reports and do so in public. FIFA has set up a taskforce to look at good governance within FIFA. I think that that needs to move faster and that it should consider commissioning people from outside the organisation to lead the investigations internally. That is absolutely key.
We know of the concerns expressed by some of the judges who have served on FIFA’s ethics committee. In January one of Germany’s most respected judges, Günter Hirsch, left the committee in disgust and said:
“The events of the past few weeks have raised and strengthened the impression that responsible persons in Fifa have no real interest in playing an active role in resolving, punishing and avoiding violations against ethic regulations of Fifa.”
These are legitimate areas of public concern, and it is legitimate for Parliament to take an interest in them too. FIFA has taken some steps forward in the past few weeks. The idea that the location of the World cup should be decided not by an elite few people in the game, but by representatives of every FIFA member, is a step in the right direction. However, widespread investigations are needed into all the allegations of corruption made so far, so that there can be a clean slate.
There has to be greater transparency in the work of FIFA and in how its money is spent, particularly in developing football countries around the world, so that it can be audited and publicly accounted for, just as the work of Parliament or the Government is. The backgrounds of people who serve on international bodies such as FIFA should be clear. If they have any conflicts of interest those should be made clear, as is the case for a member of the Government or a Member of Parliament. If they have financial interests, or their family members have financial interests, in football, it should be on the public record. Any pounds spent by FIFA anywhere in the world should be accounted for. We should know where they go. That is what is required to put football’s governing body back on an even keel and to restore faith in it. However, because of how it is constituted, that change has to be driven by FIFA and Sepp Blatter.
The pace of that change and reform must be greatly accelerated, and it must have a degree of transparency that it simply does not have now. The Council of Europe, and the UK’s chairmanship of it, could consider that matter as part of the work of the Council’s sub-committee on youth and sport. We should debate those issues within that forum, alongside its work on other areas of ethics in sport, particularly match fixing, as I mentioned earlier. It should produce its own report and view to add to the external pressure that must be placed on FIFA, if the necessary reforms are to be put in place and we are to have confidence in FIFA as a world governing body. That would be an incredibly important and popular thing for the Council of Europe to do, and a great way for the UK’s chairmanship to demonstrate its commitment to ethics and sport, as well as the other important areas of work that the Minister outlined.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I am sure that football supporters throughout the United Kingdom would echo his remarks—as an England supporter, I certainly endorse what he said—and I am sure that everyone shares his concern about how our beloved game is being administered internationally.
I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) for his sterling work in leading the British delegation to the Council of Europe, but I would also like to pay tribute to Opposition Members who have led the delegation while I have been a member of it. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is the chairman of the Council of Europe’s migration committee, on which I have the pleasure of serving, for all his hard work in that capacity, and in such an important field. It has been instructive and interesting for me to see how other European Union member states and their representatives view migration. For my part, I am concerned that the questions of who should be permitted to cross borders, who should be permitted to reside in countries, settle in them and become citizens, and who should be removed from them should principally be a matter for member states’ Parliaments and not determined by European law. We must be careful to ensure that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights does not obtrude unnecessarily in the field of migration.
I want to make three points about what lies ahead for the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The first concerns the European Union. I have already made one speech in the Chamber about the European Union this week, and Members might feel that one is enough for a week—I certainly feel it is. However, it is not me who is bringing the European Union into this debate; rather, the European Union is bringing itself in. It seeks to accede to the European convention on human rights and wants Members of the European Parliament to participate in some of the Council of Europe’s activities. I have many reservations of principle about the accession of the European Union to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights. I am not clear on what basis the EU seeks to accede to the convention, because every other member of the convention is a nation state and the EU says that it is not one. I am not clear as to whether the change is needed, because the member states of the European Union are already members of the Council of Europe and the European Union already has a charter of fundamental rights, to which the treaty of Lisbon gives legal effect, covering much the same ground as the European convention on human rights. As a result, the prevailing legal position on human rights in Europe could be complicated by the two sets of conventions.
Mr Clappison
I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is an enthusiast for the convention if nothing else.
Martin Horwood
Surely the point is that the European Union institutions should not be beyond the reach of the convention. Is the hon. Gentleman not missing the opportunity to take the European Commission to the European Court?
Mr Clappison
I think it has been conceded that any citizen in the European Union who feels that their human rights have been breached can already take the European Union to the European Court of Human Rights through the activities of their member state. That can already be done, and it is not clear what the effect of the European Union joining the convention will be.
However, having said that, I deal with this issue in a pragmatic way. We are where we are; the European Union is going to join. The question for British representation and our chairmanship of the Council of Europe is how we make a success of things and smooth out some of the difficulties. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to pay careful attention to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset raised about the way in which the European Union members in the Committee of Ministers will operate. There should be no question of any caucusing or any departure from the representation that normally takes place, where every member state on the Committee of Ministers sits as an individual member state. If we depart from that principle, we are in danger of creating two classes of members in the Council of Europe: those that are members of the European Union and those that are not. That would be damaging, so I hope that it does not happen.
I feel confident that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will work hard to ensure that that does not happen, so that we obtain whatever benefits are to be obtained—at least there is one Member in the Chamber, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, who thinks there will be some benefits; I think it will be more a question of mitigating the damage—and make the best of things. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is not approaching these issues as one who is a completely hardened Eurosceptic, as we know from his speech on this matter the other evening. His voice on this should be listened to, as someone who wants this to succeed and who is taking a pragmatic point of view. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will pay attention to that, and work hard, as I know he does in every other field of the European Union, to make this a success.
My second point that the British chairmanship could take forward relates to the emerging democracies on the borders and in the neighbourhood of Europe. I am thinking particularly of those that have been involved in the Arab spring. The Council of Europe has built up a good record over a long period of helping to promote democracy in newly democratic states in Europe. Indeed, that is part of its history that has perhaps not been emphasised sufficiently this afternoon. It started in the dark days of the cold war, when it had a small membership. As the cold war ended, and we began to have more democratic states in Europe, the Council of Europe did a very good job of promoting and safeguarding democratic values.
Obviously, the countries on the borders of Europe in the Arab world are in a different position, but there can be a role for the Council of Europe in promoting democracy in those countries. It has already established its partnership for democracy scheme, which is now in operation in Morocco, and it has agreed to give the same status to the Palestinian Authority. This can only be a good thing, and it is in everyone’s interests to promote human rights in countries that have had a political culture of dictatorship and have not been democracies in the recent past. I would therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take forward that good work, as it will be to the profit of the Council of Europe and of this country.
My third point is a more general one, and it echoes some of the points made already this afternoon, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). May we have a tighter focus during our chairmanship on what are generally regarded as human rights? It would be quite an undertaking to try to define human rights in the time that I have available, but I would like us to focus on those things that members of the public, our constituents, would recognise as human rights. They include the right to life itself, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of assembly. Those are generally accepted as human rights.
It has to be said that, today in Britain, human rights have rather a poor image compared with the one that they had 20 or 30 years ago. Today, if one raises the issue of human rights with the general public, one is more likely to elicit a groan than a cheer. That was not always the case, however. Certainly, in the 1960s, 1970s and—dare I say it—the 1980s, people regarded human rights in a positive way. They associated them with admirable organisations such as Amnesty International, with the dissidents in the former Soviet Union and with the people fighting apartheid in South Africa. Human rights had a positive image, but things are very different today.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made some important points about the perception of human rights. I have to say that there is a clue as to what the turning point was. It seems to have come at about the same time as the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. I remember this because I was in the House at the time. There were those who said that we should be careful about the effect of incorporating the convention on human rights into British law. They pointed out that our legal system was very different from other European legal systems, and that the effect of its incorporation could create considerable difficulty. They also said that it could lead to more and more judgments of a political nature masquerading as judgments on human rights. So far as the Council of Europe is concerned, if Ministers can bring the focus on human rights more tightly on to what people regard as human rights, that would be a good thing.
There is still a need for the safeguarding of human rights in Europe, and even—dare I say it—in this country. Even after the passage of the much-vaunted Human Rights Act, there have been serious violations of human rights affecting this country that were not even covered by the Act. They have, however, been the subject of very good investigations by the Council of Europe. I am thinking particularly—this took place during my time on the Council of Europe—of the very good investigation into extraordinary rendition, which was carried out by the Swiss senator, Mr Marty, and the relevant committee of the Council of Europe. At that time, the question of extraordinary rendition was not terribly fashionable. Only a few lonely voices, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), raised the issue here, and he was met by a wall of silence when he did so. It was denied that there were any problems for this country with extraordinary rendition. My hon. Friend tried to shed light on it, but not much light was shed.
It has turned out to be the case—not least through the work of the Council of Europe and Senator Marty—that there were indeed matters that needed to have light shed on them at that time. I believe that apologies or acknowledgements have been made that there were problems involving extraordinary rendition, which were denied from the Dispatch Box but were in fact taking place. There certainly were issues of extraordinary rendition on British territory, and there were the “black sites” and the circuit flights used for that purpose in Europe more widely. All of that was brought to light through the work of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has indeed played a very good role, as torture is something that I think we would all accept as a breach of human rights. My hon. Friends who served on the relevant committees did a very good job in helping to reveal the facts.
The Council of Europe does not receive a great deal of publicity in this country, but I think it does a very good job in dialogue with other member states, including the new democracies in Europe. It does a good job also in dialogue with the states that have observer status on the Council of Europe, including the state of Israel. It has certainly worked hard with those observer countries to promote human rights through them.
The question of the cost of the Council of Europe was raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I think we all need to be vigilant about the costs of these international assemblies, but as has been said, the Council of Europe has not had its expenditure increased, so it has had a real-terms reduction over several years. We should all look carefully at this.
Perhaps a better place to start in the search for cost reductions in our representation in international organisations would be with the European Parliament, which has—today, as it happens—submitted a request for a 5.2% increase in the European budget, coming on top of a claim for an increase of 6% last year, which resulted in an actual increase of 2.9%. I hope that our Ministers will continue to work as hard as they have—it is very much to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they were at the forefront of the effort—to keep the European budget down. They fought hard, but of course they have to work with the other member states and the other institutions of the EU. There was certainly no lack of effort. In light of the comments from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends’ work to control these budgets will get support from all parties. I hope we will not hear something said from either side of the Dispatch Box that is not then followed up in the activities of the MEPs of the parties in question.
I wish the Minister for Europe well in his role. I know he is very busy, with many other matters to attend to. I hope that Britain makes a success, as I am sure it will, of its chairmanship of the Council of Europe. There will be some big issues to confront. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will rise to those issues and that we will showcase our own very good record in these matters, while also giving impetus on the important challenges that lie ahead—not just in Europe, but in the countries near to Europe—in promoting and safeguarding human rights at this very sensitive time.
Mr Lidington
With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker.
First, let me thank every Member who has taken part in what has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion of issues within the remit of the Council of Europe.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), in which he dwelt on how the Council of Europe addresses questions of sport and seeks to root out corruption in sport, served to remind us of the breadth of the remit of the Council and its various committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who referred to Russia and other countries whose human rights records have been subject to a great deal of criticism, reminded us that, although we who live in countries with long and well-established national traditions of human rights sometimes find it irksome when judgments are made against us, the principles that are incorporated in the convention, and subject to judgments by an independent court, still matter hugely to citizens of countries that do not have established, centuries-old traditions such as those that we are fortunate enough to enjoy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) rightly drew attention to the way in which the Council of Europe is already contributing to the development of democratic traditions and the growth of the rule of law in the fledgling democracies of north Africa. We strongly support that work, and hope that it will continue. When he pointed out that in this country, until fairly recently, human rights were regarded universally as something that should be welcomed and supported, I was reminded of the fact that the European convention on human rights was, and is, based on noble ideas. At the end of last month, I met in Warsaw members of the opposition parties from Belarus, one of the few countries in Europe that are not party to the convention. That brought home to me the importance of our not taking for granted the liberties and rights that we and our citizens enjoy. My hon. Friend’s comments about extraordinary rendition were a salutary reminder that, however strong our traditions of human rights in much of Europe, we cannot afford to be complacent about them.
As has emerged during the debate, there is a range of views about how human rights are best protected, and about the respective roles of national authorities and the European Court of Human Rights. That is, of course, one of the issues that we intend to address during our chairmanship. The principle that we will advance is that national authorities of member states—their Governments, legislatures and courts—have the primary responsibility to guarantee and protect human rights at a national level. The role of the European Court of Human Rights is subsidiary in achieving those objectives.
During our chairmanship, we will work with all the member states of the Council of Europe to see how that agreed guiding principle, which was built into the Izmir declaration earlier this year, should work and can be strengthened. However, it is important to note that the corollary of the principle is proper implementation of the convention by national authorities. Of course the United Kingdom should still be subject to judgments of the Strasbourg court, but the court should not normally need to intervene in cases that have already been properly considered by national courts applying the convention.
I am under no illusion about the fact that agreeing on the necessary reforms will not be easy. Consensus among all 47 member states is required. I am, however, struck by the degree of consensus that already exists. Virtually everyone agrees that the current situation is unsustainable and undermines the court’s authority and effectiveness. However, we have already made progress. In April this year, all 47 countries called for the court to exercise restraint when interfering in national decisions on the deportation of asylum seekers and others who have exhausted fair and effective domestic court procedures. Since then, we have talked to many member states and to key individuals in the Council of Europe. We know that there is an appetite for further reforms. We will work energetically to gain agreement on a reform package, and will give it the highest priority during our chairmanship. I shall respond to as many points raised as possible. I apologise to any colleagues whose contributions I do not have time to address, and I undertake to write to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) asked several questions. On the budget of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the UK has long-stressed the importance of the EU not duplicating the work of the COE, which we believe is, and should remain, the prime European focus for work on human rights. While the FRA of the European Union does some interesting research, the COE does far more valuable work, and does so with fewer resources.
My hon. Friend also questioned the figures I gave on the backlog of cases. I have had the latest figures checked and there are approximately 155,000 cases in the backlog. That figure has dropped slightly in recent times, from about 160,000.
My hon. Friend focused on the accession of the EU to the COE, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere also mentioned that. This is a complex matter, and negotiations are still ongoing. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, giving further details on this, but for now I shall briefly explain where we are at present. As the House knows, EU accession to the COE was one element of the treaty of Lisbon, which was ratified by all 27 member states in 2009. There is considerable fear that the interaction of EU accession in its own right to the COE with the duty of sincere co-operation, which applies to all member states of the EU, could lead to the creation of an EU caucus within the structures of the COE. The British Government’s position is that while we accept what is written in the Lisbon treaty—that the EU should accede to the COE—and while we can see the advantages of placing the institutions of the EU clearly within the remit of the European Court of Human Rights, we will only agree to the detailed instrument of accession when we are completely satisfied about the detail not only of the drafting of the instrument of accession itself, but, importantly, of the drafting of the EU’s own set of rules on how its membership of the COE would be made operational and how, in particular, that would interact with the duty of sincere co-operation.
Mr Clappison
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach to this matter. Can he confirm that in his discussions at the European level, we will have a right of veto? In other words, will this be subject to unanimity, so we can insist on the very important points he has just made?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right: there has to be unanimity within the EU before accession can take place. Further, there must also be an important role for our Parliament. Under the European Union Act 2011, once agreement is reached on the detail of EU accession, the Government would be required to place that decision before each House of Parliament, and there would have to be a debate and a vote in this place and in the House of Lords before the UK could ratify EU accession to the COE. So not only the British Government but Parliament have to agree before that can happen.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) asked, first, whether British Ministers would report to the Parliamentary Assembly during the six months of our chairmanship. The answer is yes. I have agreed to attend the session in Edinburgh in November and those in Strasbourg in February and April next year to report on the progress made under our chairmanship.
The hon. Lady also asked for examples of cases in which the Court had substituted its judgment for that of national courts. An issue that came up in the Interlaken declaration on the removal of people from a country when their case had been properly considered by the national courts is key here, as all 47 countries agreed that the Court was looking in too much detail at matters that had been quite properly considered by national authorities. In recent judgments against not only us but Sweden, the Court has checked findings of fact made by national courts in cases about removing people from the country. For example, it has insisted on considering the applicant’s credibility or family situation, but those are not matters that should be considered at the European level.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary went to Izmir, and the declaration adopted at that conference in April called for a stricter approach to interim measures under rule 39, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is often used to halt deportations, with the Court intervening only exceptionally if cases have been considered by fair and effective national procedures. I hope that the marker put down by all 47 countries at Izmir also gives some comfort to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and others who have expressed particular concern about the impact of Court judgments on immigration policy.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South and for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) asked about the appointment of judges and whether the Interlaken process would diminish the democratic element regarding the election of judges to the Strasbourg court. The key part of the process that requires reform is the national procedures by which each state selects the list of three candidates whom it proposes to the Parliamentary Assembly. If we get this right, concerns about the quality of judges should fall away. We have welcomed the establishment of a panel of the Council of Ministers to ensure that all states put forward three well-qualified candidates for those posts and it has already taken France to task on this very point. We are driving forward work on a recommendation that would lay down standards for national procedures in all 47 states, and I am pleased to report that according to the Parliamentary Assembly itself the United Kingdom is a beacon of good practice in this regard.
My hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Gainsborough asked about the recommendation by the Bill of Rights commission that the Strasbourg Court should consider only the most important cases. Our position as a Government on this is that the Court should focus on areas where the convention is not being properly applied or where there is a genuine need at the European level for authoritative guidance on its interpretation. Where member states are applying the convention effectively, the Court should intervene less.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough also raised a number of concerns about immigration. He will understand if I do not comment on individual cases, especially on the basis of Mr Woolas’s memoirs. My hon. Friend said that his arguments were not so much about the principles embodied in the convention—indeed, he spoke up in favour of the convention—but about the means by which it is implemented and applied in this country. I take his comments in that spirit. I remind him again of the work of the independent commission and encourage him to make representations to Sir Leigh Lewis and his colleagues. I would also recommend, if he has not done so already, that he have a look at the very thought-provoking speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at Lincoln’s Inn on Monday, in which, among other things, he discussed the relationship of the United Kingdom Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights and indicated how his thinking was developing on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) made several criticisms—more, I think, of the implementation of the convention in this country than of the convention per se. I took her points seriously. When she and other hon. Friends make those criticisms, they are speaking on behalf of large numbers of constituents who have expressed concerns. But I would caution my hon. Friend and the House about one of the statistics that was deployed—the claim that the Court finds a violation in 87% of all cases and in 61% of cases against the United Kingdom. These proportions are only of the cases where there is a judgment. We must remember that 97% of cases against the UK are thrown out without even having their merits considered, because they are ruled inadmissible. If we look at the raw figures for 2010 and 2011 so far, the Court has decided 1,713 cases that were brought against the United Kingdom, but only 33 of those 1,713 were decided by a judgment; the rest were simply ruled inadmissible by the Court or struck out completely. Given that only 33 went to a judgment, it is not wholly surprising that a relatively high proportion of those 33 cases were decently arguable and led to the finding of a violation.
My hon. Friend also spoke about how one set of rights was seen to be overruled by another set. I know that comes up frequently at public events. As the House knows, and members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe know all too well, the convention expresses a number of different human rights and it is a clear principle that where those rights conflict there is a duty on the countries that are party to the convention to balance those rights in a way that is just and proportionate in the circumstances of a particular case. There is a legitimate debate about where the right to take a final decision in any case should lie—with Strasbourg, with domestic courts, with legislatures or with the Executive in a particular country. Then there is a further argument about whether, in any individual circumstances, whichever authority it is has achieved the right balance in finding a judgment that is right, just and proportionate. We will never get away completely from that type of argument, any more than we do when we read reports of judgments in domestic civil and criminal cases.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked whether I would support Finnish and Spanish Ministers’ work on local government reform. I can guarantee that the Government will work towards a more effective and efficient role for the Council of Europe in supporting local and regional democracy. We want to see the Council’s work in this field streamlined and more carefully targeted. We are looking forward to Mr Chavez’s report and we will ensure that its recommendations are given serious consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) raised constituency cases as illustrations of a general complaint that countries party to the convention allow people to be detained for far too long without charge or trial. He fights fiercely on behalf of his constituents whom he believes have been treated unjustly. He knows from discussions that he and I have had that the individuals concerned can make an application to Strasbourg regarding an alleged violation of articles 5 and 6 by their detention without trial. The problem is that the text of the convention does not define what a reasonable period of such detention is. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to campaign vigorously on this matter.
My hon. Friend also asked about a convention on transfrontier broadcasting. My understanding is that the European Union has exclusive competence in this area, so there would be problems with an EU member state signing a Council of Europe convention on the matter. On that basis, the Committee of Ministers has agreed to discontinue work on that convention, pending further consultation. However, I will consider my hon. Friend’s point further, consult colleagues in other Departments that are more directly responsible for broadcasting policy and then write to him on the matter.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and Falkirk—
Mr Lidington
I do not wish to accuse him of having further territorial ambitions.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) asked about two other conventions. On the European framework convention on youth rights, the Government still take the view that we do not recognise the need for such a convention as all the matters described in the draft recommendation are already covered by the UN convention on the rights of the child, which actually goes further than the proposed Council of Europe convention. On the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, we agree completely. That is an appalling crime and a form of child sexual abuse. Tackling it is an absolute priority for the Government. The convention sets standards to ensure that countries criminalise sexual exploitation and the abuse of children and adopt similar standards of investigation and prosecution of these crimes. Officials across a number of Departments are currently considering in detail the steps that would be required to ratify the convention. I am sure that a report will be made to the House as soon as decisions have been taken.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw asked about next week’s cyber-space conference in London. I have been unable to check the guest list, but the conference will encompass the issue of cyber-crime and a lot more, too. It will deal with economic growth, the social benefits of using cyber-space, safe and reliable access to it, and international security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South asked about the European Court’s backlog. We certainly aim to ensure that a time scale is set for the implementation of any measures agreed during our chairmanship, including clearing inadmissible and repetitive cases from the backlog. We will also learn from the experience of previous attempts to reform the Strasbourg Court. I completely take the point that we must not be timid in the measures we take. We will ensure that the long-term context is considered when agreeing short and medium-term measures. I very much hope that he will be able to see the fruits of the work that he supported today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) raised a number of issues, most of which related to the implementation of the convention in this country. Like him, I have had some cases of forced marriage in my constituency surgery, and I think that the basic principle is less about the convention or the Human Rights Act, and more about the fact that it is a principle of any British court or immigration tribunal that evidence given to a judge by one party must be shared with the other party. Like him, I have had the difficult situation in constituency cases where the person who says that she is the victim is afraid to speak out in public, but the immigration judge cannot be asked to take account of evidence in secret without the other side having the chance to respond to it and to rebut it.
The Council of Europe has been enormously successful in promoting common standards and values among its membership, not least as a result of the convention system, which the United Kingdom has had a hand in creating. It matters a great deal to the Government that human rights, democracy and the rule of law flourish in all member states of the Council of Europe. In this light, we see our chairmanship as a genuine opportunity to strengthen further a rules-based international system and to further British interests by strengthening the global rule of law and championing human rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
BAE Systems (Lancashire)
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
BAE Systems recently announced 1,423 job losses in Lancashire, including 822 at the Warton site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), 565 at the Samlesbury site in your Chorley constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a further 136 elsewhere in Lancashire. Many of the highly skilled workers who will find themselves out of work live in Preston and the surrounding area of central Lancashire.
The chief executive of Preston city council, Lorraine Norris, has written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Friend of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who is here to reply to this debate, and in a fairly detailed letter that makes its points quite strongly, Ms Norris, with the support the Labour administration in Preston, says:
“Lancashire provides the greatest number of direct and indirect aerospace jobs in the country and while individuals affected by BAE redundancies may be able to find work elsewhere by moving to other parts of the country, their skills will be lost to the local economy and the Lancashire economy weakened. Because of their long lead in time, skilled jobs lost in this way cannot easily be replaced when the country’s economic fortunes improve.”
She goes on to say:
“Preston has been successful in moving away from an economy dominated by low-value manufacturing linked to the textile industry”—
like Yorkshire—
“and broadening its economic base. We have been able to retain and expand high value manufacturing jobs linked to advanced engineering, with strengths in both the aerospace and nuclear sectors. With our partners we have been working hard to improve links between industry and the Higher Education sector—particularly with the Universities of Manchester and Central Lancashire… As a result in the decade up to 2008 we have been able to demonstrate the third highest increase in private sector jobs in the country.”
The Government talk about rebalancing the economy. Nobody and no area has done more to rebalance it than Preston and central Lancashire, given that many civil service and public service jobs were located there, and that of course it has a large private sector.
Unemployment is at a 17-year high. In Preston it stands at 5.2%, compared with 3.9% nationally, and almost 5,000 people are seeking employment, which is the highest level since jobseeker’s allowance was introduced. BAE Systems employs about 40,000 people in the UK, down from 42,000 in 2009. Many of those jobs are based in the north-west, and given the work’s technical nature the majority of workers are highly skilled.
Let me give the Minister some facts and figures. In Preston and Fylde, one in four residents working in manufacturing works at BAE Systems, principally at the Warton and Samlesbury sites. Between 2008 and 2010, Preston lost 4,800, or 5.1%, employee jobs, against a fall of 2.4% in the 12 districts of Lancashire and a drop of 3.4% nationally. That is a tragedy. The success of the company is therefore vital to the regional and national economies. BAE makes a direct contribution to them, and many other jobs in Lancashire are dependent on BAE. It has been independently estimated that each aerospace job creates four or five related jobs in the supply chain. There is therefore a multiplier effect on unemployment and the economic picture is far worse than the headline figure suggests.
The announcement of more than 1,400 job losses is a devastating blow, first and foremost for the workers and their families, but also for the local economy and Britain’s wider manufacturing and defence industries. As cuts are made and contracts go overseas, a highly skilled work force are being lost. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills some weeks ago to ask what steps the Government are taking to limit the impact of the job losses, but I am sorry to say that, despite the urgency, I have yet to receive a reply.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I asked the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about an employment impact assessment, but have yet to receive a credible reply. It seems that no such an assessment has been made. Does my hon. Friend agree that it appears that employment is considered to be a price worth paying? EADS and the Italian workshare contractors are making no one unemployed—that was reported in the Financial Times on 3 October—but the Government seem to think that it does not matter if 3,000 people are made unemployed.
Mark Hendrick
I agree. Although the enterprise zones are a welcome addition to Lancashire, they are a sticking plaster to try to cover the running sore that the job losses have become in Lancashire. The announcement of 1,400 job losses is a devastating blow.
A key area of development at the Warton and Samlesbury sites is the manufacture of the Eurofighter Typhoon jet. It recently flew its first major combat mission, serving in the skies over Libya to help the national transitional council in its war against Gaddafi, which is testament to the need for the aircraft. The production work is taking place in three tranches. Tranches 1 and 2, involving the production of 384 Typhoons, are now complete, and include 144 jets ordered by the previous Labour Government, with the remainder going to our European partners. The Labour Government also signed up to tranche 3A, which is the subject of the current defence cuts. The coalition Government are now planning to halve the UK’s tranche 3 order. BAE will cut its production from 61 to 36 jets annually, resulting in thousands of job losses. How can the Government justify massive cuts to our defence industry when the economy is edging towards recession? These cuts go too far, too fast and are resulting in the slowdown in production of the Typhoon aircraft.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware that the disappointment and support for those workers is shared throughout the north-west, not least because of the synergies in the defence industry in that region? Is he also aware that Barrow shipyard is an example of how the submarine supply chain could be damaged as companies that supply the Typhoons lose orders and their workers are put under threat?
Mark Hendrick
I am well aware of the synergies, the skills that are employed in the submarine and shipbuilding industries and the implications for aircraft carriers. They are connected, and everyone who works in the defence industry throughout the country is worried.
If the Government made more finance available, BAE could ramp down production of Typhoons more gradually, instead of the step-down transition. That would enable the company to mitigate the impact of job losses by steadily reducing its work force as workers now in their early 50s approach retirement. That would coincide with the conclusion of tranche 3A production in 2015. The unions at BAE are in favour of that approach—a gradual ramping down while meeting the country’s defence needs, instead of a drop from 61 aircraft to 36 a year from January next year—but that is not happening. As in so many other areas, the Government’s strategic defence review was rushed and ill thought through. Labour Members recognise that some savings must be made, but they should be part of a carefully constructed industrial strategy, not a rushed and ideologically driven SDSR.
The decision to cut production has wreaked havoc with BAE’s medium-term and long-term plans and produced a great deal of uncertainty. A highly skilled work force will be lost forever. Thousands of years of accumulated experience and skills will be thrown aside, and although orders may arrive in future from India or, possibly, Japan, the loss of these workers will be tragic. Many will go to work in other parts of the country and take up new positions; many will take early retirement and be lost to the industry for ever.
Simply put, this Conservative-led Government do not understand the consequences that their policies have on workers, on businesses or on the manufacturing economy as a whole. Typhoon could be made more competitive and attractive for export by improvements to its radar capabilities. Will the Government fund the development of the E-Scan radar system? If so, will the Minister update the House on whether funding has been allocated for that development and whether the finance has been sent to SELEX or to BAE Systems? I invite the Minister to intervene to deal with that point.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the assessment is under way between the Government and industry, and it would be a mistake to pre-judge its outcome. We are funding and engaged in that assessment programme and we are hopeful that it will be advantageous. It is important to bear in mind that this will be at the forefront of European technology; it is an important long-term investment.
Mark Hendrick
I am not sure whether that was a yes or a no on whether the funding was made available. When trade unions met the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), at the Conservative party conference—the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, was also present at the meeting, but arrived late—they were assured that the money had been allocated for E-Scan radar, but Ian King from BAE Systems has said that no money has been allocated or transferred to the company, and SELEX says the same, despite the fact that the Defence Minister gave assurances that that money was going to the E-Scan programme.
It is imperative that the Government provide a coherent plan of action to help Britain’s defence industry and the wider manufacturing sector as a whole. The longer BAE is able to keep workers, the better prepared it will be to meet demand should other countries order Typhoon jets. Will the Minister tell the House what steps his Government are taking, not only at ministerial level but through UK Trade & Investment, to secure defence contracts from India and Japan, both of which have been linked to the Typhoon project?
In his first major speech after the general election, the Prime Minister pledged to make the next decade
“the most entrepreneurial and dynamic in our history”
and said that he wanted to
“give manufacturing another chance in this country.”
Speaking of his desire to rebalance the economy, he said that Britain had become
“heavily reliant on just a few industries and in just a few regions—particularly London and the South East.”
The actions of his Government in the past year have demonstrated that those were empty words.
BAE is a world-leading manufacturer that contributed £4.9 billion to UK exports in 2009—about 2.1% of Britain’s total goods. Half its UK employees are based in the north, and it is being forced to cut jobs. The manufacturing industry base of this country is in crisis and the Government have no clear plan of action—indeed, by squeezing the life out of the economy, they are significantly contributing to the problem.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor claimed at the Budget to have a plan for growth. Is it not the case that the cuts will not help growth in this country, but will achieve the opposite by reducing production and GDP to make the economy worse off, not better? Time and again, this Conservative Government have shown a complete lack of support for the manufacturing sector in this country. We saw it with Bombardier, we saw it with Sheffield Forgemasters, and now we are seeing it with BAE Systems. I promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Britain will not recover from the global economic crisis without a strong manufacturing base.
We know that the cuts are going too far and too fast. We know that there are problems in the eurozone that Governments are grappling with. Those problems will make us much more likely to go into recession. The measures that the Government are taking in cutting the defence budget are also causing problems in keeping the economy moving. When are the Government going to realise that and start providing the support that the manufacturing industry in this country is crying out for?
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) for being generous in allowing me to take some time in an important debate for all our constituencies. Your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, and mine share a plant. I have the proud home of BAE Systems in Warton and you have Samlesbury. We do not need to think too long and hard to know how important those jobs and those plants are. We also know how devastating such job losses are for local communities.
I want to use this debate to remind the House of what the Government are doing and to focus on what is still to be done. The Government are supporting Typhoon exports in a way that no Government have in recent history. There are some positive stories and some potential contracts that could come home.
Graham Jones
I ask all Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), whether there will be a displacement of the RAF orders into the export orders. That is the big question.
Mark Menzies
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Some of the orders that were originally planned for the RAF could well be displaced into other orders. My main concern is ensuring that aircraft are being built. Who the end customer is is a secondary matter. I want aircraft to be built in my constituency, and I want its world-class work force to be employed.
We saw the world-class Typhoon aircraft coming of age in Libya. I would like to ensure that systems such as the E-Scan radar are fully available for export orders should the customer require them. On the Typhoon, I know that the Government have given a commitment to tranche 3 upgrades. It is important that those come through in a timely manner so that BAE Systems can manage the work flow. On the unmanned aerial combat vehicle programme, the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with France. That is hugely important, but we must get it moving quickly so that BAE Systems can plan the workload and allocate people across the programmes.
Let us not forget that BAE Systems is an incredibly profitable private global defence company. It has made more than £1 billion of profit this year. Therefore, this issue is not just about what the Government are doing; it is about ensuring that BAE Systems is doing everything necessary. I would like to sound one note of caution. When BAE Systems is entering into work-share agreements for global deals, it must ensure that it always acts in the interest of the work force, not just in the interests of the shareholders. We must ensure that work that could be done in the UK is done in the UK, as opposed to being exported to other countries. I want BAE Systems to stop and think about that, because it has a commitment to Lancashire and to UK plc.
Finally, I welcome the enterprise zones that have been identified for Warton and Samlesbury. They can be much more than a sticking plaster. In a meeting that I had with the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference, we got the commitment that UKTI would be fully engaged to ensure that those are not just glorified business parks, but that they attract the very best the world can offer. Yes, there is a tough economic climate, but we have to be ambitious for Lancashire because its people deserve no less. We have a world-class work force who have the full range of skills. We have to go out and sell those sites and that work force—I call on the Minister to help us in this—so that when people invest in the months and years to come, they offer jobs and a future that we can be proud of.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects his constituents and those of other Members who are in their places, both in Lancashire and across the border at Brough. Of course, it also affects your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Alan Johnson
I appreciate that. The Minister will be aware that some of the work going to Samlesbury and Warton is going from the East Riding. Is he also aware that the view of workers at Warton and Samlesbury is that they do not have the capability or capacity to deal with the Hawk? There is suspicion that the Hawk will eventually be built abroad. He will know that I, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and all other local MPs are determined to stop the closure of a plant that has manufactured aerospace equipment for 100 years. Will he agree to consider imaginative proposals, which may include the civil aerospace industry, to keep that manufacturing plant open?
Mr Prisk
I do not want to get ahead of myself on the broader issues, and I will come in a moment to the fact that we are in a 90-day consultation process and the company has to demonstrate a business case. The right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) have made it very clear—rightly so, in my view—that the company has to make that case. I have said that to the work force, and I say it to Members throughout the House. Members, particularly those with the experience that the right hon. Gentleman has, are well placed to challenge that business case. The Government need to ensure that we strike a balance so that we are ready to act if, at the end of the 90 days, it turns out that we have the problems that he has described. I will not get drawn into the pros and cons now, because I will want to see the business case, as will the Secretary of State.
Before I was interrupted on that important point, I was about to put on record the fact that I want to extend my sympathy to all those affected by the announcement. The Government recognise, and I recognise, the human cost involved in such cuts, and how they affect individuals, families and communities. I fully recognise that BAE Systems is, as the hon. Member for Preston pointed out, one of the largest employers in Lancashire. I am acutely aware of the depth of the local impact that will affect many people.
I wish to address a number of issues that have been raised. First, the hon. Gentleman referred in his opening remarks to a letter that he had written to the Secretary of State. I have asked my officials to check, and we have no record of receiving such a letter on BAE. We have a record of a letter about supermarkets dated 4 October, but I assume that is not the one. Perhaps at the end of the debate he could give me a copy of the letter so that I can ensure that it goes to the Secretary of State.
There was quite a lot of party political discussion from the hon. Gentleman, implying that the Government have no interest in the manufacturing industry. I strongly refute that. He did not mention the changes to the tax law to ensure capital allowances, the improved investment in the manufacturing advisory service or the changes that we are making through the advanced manufacturing technology and innovation centre, alongside the other work we are doing on aerospace. I hope that we can get the party political banter out of the way and focus on the issue that affects his constituents, but I think he will understand that I am not prepared to ignore remarks suggesting that the Government do not take manufacturing seriously. We do, and I do.
I now turn to the causes of the problem, and some of the things that the Government intend to do and are already acting on. The company has advised us that the problem was caused principally by changes in key international programmes and the need to remain globally competitive at a time when defence spending in many nations is under huge pressure. We are all well aware that public finances are tight, and defence budgets are not immune. I think even the Opposition Front Benchers understand that. Although a decision of this nature is a commercial issue for the company, it is therefore absolutely right that the Government should do all they can to help those affected.
I have talked in the past few weeks to Members—including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your role representing your constituents—and they have all understood those concerns. I also had the opportunity to meet workers while I was in Manchester. I re-emphasise that I understand that during the 90-day consultation process, Members and workers will wish to challenge the business case, and rightly so. We will see what the outcome of that is. However, we must ensure that the Government have a plan in place if those redundancies are made, and I should like to set out the practical help available to hon. Members’ constituents.
The first step is to ensure that the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service is available. It has already offered access to Next Step one-to-one careers advice, which complements the support available from the company. I know from dealing with previous cases how valuable that practical help can be to individuals.
Secondly, and more broadly—this important question was raised by the hon. Member for Preston and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies)—how do we ensure that our country does not lose those skills for good? That consideration is why, back in January, the Secretary of State and I established the talent retention team. The intention is that Government and industry ensure that we do not lose those key specialisms, whether in BAE or elsewhere. The team matches the skilled employees who are facing redundancy to vacancies in other companies. I can tell the House that so far, 200 UK companies have registered. Those who have signed up and are recruiting include Rolls-Royce, Siemens, Nissan and Airbus. I understand that several thousand jobs will be listed in the next month.
Although I appreciate that taking one of those jobs is not a straightforward decision—it might involve commuting or relocation—that system is important, because it will help us to avoid losing those key design, engineering and manufacturing jobs, which are important whether they are in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle or in Lancashire, which is the subject of this debate.
The third question, which is just as important, is how we help local economies. On this subject, the Chancellor listened carefully, in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, who argued that there needed to be a kick-start for the locality in addition to help for individuals. That is why last month the Government responded positively by inviting both the Lancashire and the Humber local enterprise partnerships to submit proposals for two new enterprise zones. They are important, because they provide real advantages for areas such as Warton and Salmesbury—and Brough, if I may stretch the geography of Lancashire temporarily.
Mr Prisk
I will get to E-Scan in a moment.
The business rate discount, the retention of the money for a 25-year period, the radical simplification of the planning system and the support to ensure superfast broadband are crucial to enterprise zones, but there are a couple of aspects of LEPs that I often feel are lost in some of the coverage—the use of tax increment finance to ensure the long-term viability of the zone, and the UKTI support for inward investment and trade opportunities. Given the civil and military nature of aerospace, we are looking to talk to both the Lancashire LEP and the Humber and Hull LEP about those two enhancement aspects, to see whether they can be a core part of the offer.
One hon. Member asked a question on Typhoon. The four Typhoon partner nations have decided to extend the programme, so that both domestic and export orders can be dealt with in a way that means we can sustain capacity. That means that the programme’s production has slowed; it has not been stopped. Clearly, we must agree that with all partner nations, because it is a partnership project.
On E-Scan radar, the point is that the Ministry of Defence and the industry are working on an assessment programme. Electronically scanned radar is on-the-edge technology. If we get this right, it will be Europe’s first and only second generation scanned radar. Therefore, we need to think about how it works. The reason why we are not committing on long-term development is that we need to see whether the assessment works in the first place. In my book, that is a sensible pattern to follow. Clearly, we would not have taken that first step had we not seen the opportunity. That is an important leap in capability for the Typhoon, and it could well mean that although there will be tighter pressure on the domestic Typhoon programme, there will be opportunities for better exports in the long term.
Let me now bring my remarks to a close. I want to assure Members and their constituents that the Government are determined to take all the necessary action both to support individuals and to ensure that the UK’s defence and manufacturing base can prosper over the long term.
Question put and agreed to.
Khalsa Academy (Slough)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
NHS Care of Older People
(13 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have the debate this afternoon, and I am grateful to colleagues on both sides of the divide for supporting it. I look forward to hearing the views of other people who have a great interest in the subject.
We are here because of troubling reports about the care of older people in the NHS. I was prompted to confine our debate to the NHS by the report from the Care Quality Commission two weeks ago, which studied 100 NHS hospitals. The report was by no means an isolated study; it came on the heels of the ombudsman’s report in February and Age UK’s “Care in Crisis” report in May.
That we have a worrying problem is beyond doubt, but I hope to bring a balanced view to the debate. It is important to note that even when reports give cause for serious concern, there are significantly more examples of good and acceptable care than there are of bad. Indeed, the ombudsman’s report stated that the overwhelming majority of patients say they receive good care. I will return to the balanced view that I promised, but first I will outline the concerns raised by the latest findings of the CQC.
The Secretary of State commissioned the CQC to undertake a series of unannounced inspections in response to the ombudsman’s report. The inspections focused on outcomes, interviews with patients and staff, and observation on the wards. Two outcomes were measured: respecting and involving people who use services, which includes care, dignity and respect for privacy, and meeting nutritional needs. Forty-five of the 100 hospitals met both standards in full; 35 met both standards but needed some improvement, and 20 were not even delivering care that met minimum legal standards. Of those 20, Sandwell General hospital and the Alexandra hospital in Worcestershire—both quite near my own constituency —were found to be putting patients at unacceptable risk of harm.
If we look in more detail, we see that 60 of the hospitals were found to be meeting a good standard in respecting the dignity and privacy of patients on both the wards observed by the CQC. Staff behaved in a way that respected patients; they were positive, sensitive and respectful; they involved patients in decision making and explained treatment options properly. Where there were problems on this measure in the other 40 hospitals surveyed, not one of the hospitals was found to be failing on both the wards observed. It is noteworthy that the report found a large degree of variation in practice, and I will return to what I think that says about management and leadership later.
On the nutrition outcome measure, 17 hospitals were failing to reach an acceptable standard. Patients in need of assistance at mealtimes were not getting help; food was placed out of reach; there was no monitoring of whether patients had eaten their meal and there were constant interruptions during mealtimes. For example, a clinical round would suddenly start during lunchtime. Age UK’s report, “Still Hungry to Be Heard”, found that 157,000 people left hospital malnourished in 2008, and that the figure had increased to 185,000 in 2009. Astonishingly, 239 patients died from malnutrition in 2007.
New research published last month found that across the NHS, 9 million meals are returned uneaten per year at a cost of £22 million. One of the problems is whether we can serve three appetising meals of decent nutritional value for less than £5 per patient, which is what my own local hospital budgets for. I would say that we cannot.
As I see it from the two reports, when the scale of the problem is considered across the entire older population who are being cared for in our hospitals, it is not as great as is often reported by the media in the immediate aftermath of yet another report. However, for the older patient on the end of the worst care, it amounts to cruelty and neglect by staff.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a very good case. On the key findings of the CQC report, which the media seem to report as a failure of nursing when the bulk of them are really issues of care, will she also cover the issue of the resources that appear to be going into hospital wards, particularly with the increasing acuity and turnaround of patients, and nursing and care staff to patient ratios, which appear to be on the edge in many cases?
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for making a very good point. I will return to the resourcing issue. I do not have statistics on the staff to patient ratio, but it is noticeable that it is much better in paediatric wards than in wards with large numbers of older people. Perhaps we can learn from that.
I was talking about cruelty and neglect. Staff are paid to care in institutions that are for the most part monopoly public services; the patient has no choice but to be there. In Age UK’s 2010 research, 21% of patients said they were not always treated with dignity and respect, and there has been no improvement in that figure since 2002. The figure is fairly consistent with the CQC findings and it seems to be consistent with other reports. It leads me to think that the problem we must address is twofold: first, the overall figure of one in five being essentially ignored—or worse—in our hospitals is simply too high, and secondly—the worst aspect—nothing ever changes that figure. Despite all the reports and information, nothing actually changes that figure.
Care is failing one in five of our older patients two or three times a year. The new research confirms that failure, but no effective action is taken to remedy it or to reduce the problem. I hope that as a result of our collective ongoing efforts, we will finally make a significant impact on the problem. It is likely that one of the reasons for the inaction that has persisted for a decade or more has its roots in a wrong or partial diagnosis of the causes of the problem, so I will turn to the various causes that have been advanced by research and informed commentators on this state of affairs.
The causes that I have read about can be grouped under the following headings: leadership, management, resourcing, training and what I loosely call societal. The leadership of individual hospitals such as Stafford—to take the worst example—sets out daily through a series of explicit and subliminal messaging what it is important for staff to deliver in that institution. At most, the focus from the top will resonate further down the line in only one or two areas. Staff know, either consciously or unconsciously, that if they deliver on one or two variables, they will not be seriously picked up for partial or non-delivery elsewhere. That is the same in any large organisation. Often, the overriding concern at the top in NHS hospitals is about meeting financial targets, just as it was in Stafford. In other cases, rigidly applied clinical outcomes might bear little relation to how a patient is treated by staff before and after their care or surgery.
Leadership does not come only from the chief executive and key board members. I served on the board of an NHS trust that was answerable, in a mechanistic, command-and-control way, to the Department of Health, which in turn was accountable to the Secretary of State—I am going back 10 or 12 years. Political pressures on a Secretary of State are principally financial, but they also concern global outcomes in politically sensitive areas such as cancer. The day-to-day treatment of patients is often delegated to a regulatory quango, but irrespective of the party in power, the Secretary of State will survive the occasional embarrassment and discomfort caused by yet another report. That explains the extraordinary situation whereby the care problems at the James Paget University hospital in East Anglia were serious enough to warrant a warning notice from the Care Quality Commission, but nurse training at the same hospital was well rated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Although overall management and culture is set by the board, the main divide between good and bad management depends on the effective deployment of resources, the motivation and discipline of staff, and the systems for gathering customer—or patient—intelligence. The CQC noted that in some wards, levels of under-resourcing made poor care more likely—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). Patients commented to the CQC about how hard pressed the nurses seemed, and that was confirmed by comments about the report by nurses writing on blogs. Even allowing for a certain amount of, “They would say that wouldn’t they?”, some of the remarks seemed heartfelt and genuine.
Interestingly, however, none of the hospitals where care was found to be poor was found wanting in all the wards inspected. Unacceptable levels of care were seen on well-resourced wards, and excellent care was found on wards that were understaffed. That indicates that the issue has more to do with ward leadership and the personalities and values of nurses in leadership roles than with the overall budget at the disposal of hospitals where problems were encountered.
Andrew George
I am not sure that I draw the same conclusion as my hon. Friend. She suggests that resourcing is not particularly relevant when considering the quality of care achieved, but surely she accepts that the situation is far better, and high levels of care more likely, when resources are adequate.
Margot James
I agree that care is more likely to be good when resources are adequate, but poor care has been observed on wards that the CQC regarded as well resourced. I do not draw a neat and fast conclusion, and having worked in business for many years I accept that resourcing is important. It is difficult to generalise from the available research, but I take my hon. Friend’s point.
On nurse training, the CQC found that half of hospitals were ailing in the areas of privacy and dignity; staff had little training in matters of privacy, dignity, rehabilitation and dementia. Training, and the lack thereof, is a symptom of the growing and unregulated use of health care assistants. In a report out today, the Royal College of Nursing states that in some parts of the country, 40% of staff on a ward are health care assistants. I will return to that point.
Another important issue is the general training of nurses. Consensus seems to suggest that although Project 2000 brought benefits to nursing status and career paths, the effect on care has been less positive. Earlier this year, Camilla Cavendish, a journalist from The Times, undertook extensive research across the country. Her observations suggest that Project 2000, which moved training from hospitals to universities and gave it degree status, has led to nurses spending too little time on wards during their training, and they are under-prepared to deal with patients when they graduate. Project 2000 has also led to gaps on wards, which have been filled by health care assistants. Such assistants are supposed to be supervised by nurses, but although I have no evidence either way, I wonder whether nurses have the training for such supervision.
Patients often think that health care assistants are nurses, and it is not always easy to distinguish the two posts. Health care assistants, however, have almost no training and perform non-medical tasks such as providing help with feeding and washing. I am sure there is a degree of mission creep into areas that require some form of training, and I shall return to that point. Perhaps it is no wonder that many nurses feel that certain aspects of caring are menial work.
Andrew George
My hon. Friend suggests that nurses see caring as menial, but that is not an observation I would make. I had the opportunity to shadow nurses in four wards, and they told me that they wished they had more time to perform a caring role in addition to their clinical duties. Such a role would fulfil the observational function that nurses are trained to perform in order to continually assess a patient and review their diagnosis. That nurses believe themselves to be above a caring function is not a conclusion that I would draw, and I believe that it besmirches the professional standing and pride felt by a lot of nurses.
Margot James
My hon. Friend makes some good points. Camilla Cavendish visited hospitals across the country as part of her research and spoke to many patients and nurses, and the view I have mentioned was expressed not only by patients but by nurses. I am sure that such cases are in a minority, and I certainly do not intend to besmirch the good reputation of the majority of nurses. However, the research leads me to believe that a minority of nurses either do not have time for care or feel that although care is not beneath them, it should be carried out by staff at a different level. That is a legitimate view and has been expressed in a variety of nursing journals and other forms of media by retired nurses who have visited hospitals. My hon. Friend should not dismiss that element of concern, and I emphatically do not wish to besmirch the reputation of our many good nurses. However, when we read in the CQC report about the problems engendered by the very poor care that some patients receive, we realise that we cannot afford to dismiss any of the conclusions reached by people who have done a lot of research.
I want to move on to some societal observations. The ever-increasing use of scientific and technological advances brings many benefits, but it also creates a work environment that requires nurses to concentrate on aspects of treatment and care that isolate them from the patients whom they are serving. The workplace in general outside hospitals is becoming more mobile. People connect with one another far more via devices of various sorts. That presents a risk to the caring professions that needs managing.
Then there is the issue of the pool of talent from which nurses and other caregivers are drawn. This summer saw an explosion of violence, avarice and selfishness on our streets on a major scale. Although work is ongoing to identify the cause of that phenomenon, it is clear to many of us that the fault lines in our social fabric are every bit as wide and deep as suggested by the research undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, before he came into government. These incidents affect all walks of life. Much more could be said on that point, but I do not intend to elaborate on it now. For the purposes of this debate, the implication is that nurses are as much a reflection of modern Britain, with its drawbacks—a society in which a significant minority seem to be more aware of their rights than their responsibilities—as well as its strengths.
Likewise, patients and their families reflect society. Melanie Reid, a columnist for The Times, spent a year in a spinal injuries unit following a tragic accident. She wrote an excellent piece on the nursing debate three weeks ago. She said:
“If you want to change nursing, you have to change society. You also have to change the patients. Today’s sick are…not deferential sufferers in silence. They and their relatives can be aggressive and unreasonable.
Everyone’s a professional complainer. During my spell in hospital, I saw some patients whom, had I been forced to cope with their constant demands, I would have smothered at dawn. Instead, the staff treated these people with civility and good humour.”
I shall turn now to some conclusions and recommendations. I shall conclude with what I think needs to change and I hope that the list of areas to which I refer will provide a platform for further consideration by the Government. I note that the Government are already making positive changes in some of the areas, and that is welcome. My priorities for change would centre on the importance of food and nutrition in hospitals and the standards in that respect; the accountability of boards and chief executives for the care of patients; resource allocation; the inspection regime; hospital complaints procedures; and nurse and health care assistant training.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady’s final point before she reached her conclusions and recommendations made some quite clear criticisms of the values in society. Will she add to that list how she would like the values in society to improve?
Margot James
I welcome that intervention because whenever one is preparing for a debate such as this, one is conscious of how much more there is to say than one has time for. I was not intending to draw too many conclusions on what needs to change in society. I was concentrating on what needs to change in the domain that we are discussing, but perhaps the hon. Lady would care to call for a debate on the topic to which she has referred. I am sure that we could fill an afternoon with such a discussion and I should be delighted to take part.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
One matter that needs to be thought about carefully in this debate if not elsewhere is, of course, the integration of the NHS and social care, because that will help the process along and deal with many of the issues to which my hon. Friend is referring.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very good point. The integration of health and social care should, with the weight of joint commissioning behind it, make quite a difference. My speech has concentrated on care in hospitals, but I hope that other hon. Members will bring out issues to do with care at home and other aspects of what the NHS delivers.
I shall go through my list of recommendations briefly. On nutrition, the Age UK report, “Still Hungry to Be Heard”, advocated that ward staff needed to be “food-aware”. Training should include nutrition and the importance of assistance with meals when needed. I agree with these recommendations. Older people should be assessed for signs of malnourishment on admission, during their stay and on discharge. Hospitals should introduce protected mealtimes. Where they are using a red tray system, which involves a red tray being given to patients who require assistance with eating, staff should be trained in how to use it. It sounds as though that system works well where it is used properly.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way to me again. Does she question, as I do, the red tray system, in that if nurses and nursing staff understand the needs of a person, surely they should understand what their nutritional assistance needs are without the use of a red tray? Surely they should know patients well enough already. Is that not a question that we should ask?
Margot James
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent point. In an ideal world, I would strongly agree with her. I agree that what she has suggested is to be desired. The trouble with relying on that is that the throughput of patients through wards these days is quite fast, the rostering system for nurses is very complicated and the continuity of care is certainly not as good as it used to be. Many nurses work intensively for a week and then have a substantial amount of time not working. Therefore the personal relationship, which is so desirable, has been compromised to the extent that we can no longer rely on it to ensure that patients’ nutritional needs are met. That is why I believe that the red tray system is useful. However, I am very concerned that people could easily think, “Oh well, that sorts the problem out,” and not feel that they need to relate to the patient in the way that the hon. Lady suggests.
I come now to accountability. I realise that this is not something that the Government can mandate, but chief executives should come on to the wards regularly—every day that they are in work. Nurses used to be accountable to a matron, who would turn up unannounced to check on standards. We must replicate that discipline again, and I recommend starting at the top.
Managers need to ensure that budgets are used wisely to support front-line staff and that front-line staff are not distracted by other, non-patient-care “priorities”. I looked at nurse blogs when I was preparing my speech and I sympathised with one nurse who said that nurses are
“at the beck and call of so many departments who wish to give work away and have no qualms in ‘getting the nurses to do it’. Loan stores, training, HR, to mention a few who seem to have forgotten that their role is to support us—not the other way around.”
I have sympathy with busy nurses who are pulled in all directions.
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me a fourth time, which shows how patient she is with me. Quite apart from falling into the trap of conflating care with nursing in some of her remarks—she did make the point about needing to ensure that there is a clear distinction between care assistants and nurses—does she not also agree that in terms of the management on wards, a lot of nursing time is taken away from the patient interface as a result of the enormous amount of bureaucracy and paperwork required and the pressure that many nurses come under from bed managers, who appear to overrule them when it comes to determining when a patient should be discharged or admitted to a ward?
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his observation, and I certainly agreed with the first point he made. I shall conclude in a minute as I am aware that many Members wish to speak.
The CQC should be resourced to ensure that its inspections include weekend visits. All the observations it makes in its recently published report were based on visits it paid during the week—for cost reasons, I imagine—but I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce yesterday that there will be more inspections. I hope, however, that the Minister will discuss with the CQC the possibility of visits being paid at weekends, when—I hear—care can sometimes deteriorate rapidly.
Some complaints are very serious, and I am not commenting on serious medical negligence, but with many complaints the system comes over as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A patient or family member should be able to make an informal, non-legalistic and reasonable complaint and receive a sensitive hearing from a senior member of staff, rather than be instantly given a form that starts a three-week process of churning and often ends in Members’ surgeries. I ask the Minister to discuss with the Justice Department how we enable that but avoid opening the hospital to legal challenge, which is one of the motivators to the heavy-handed system we have at present.
We must be able to distinguish between the training needs of nurses and health care assistants.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It seems that the nursing profession lacks some accountability. What does my hon. Friend think about the idea of bringing back matrons, who are visible on the ward and who manage nurses?
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am attracted to that good idea. Somebody must be in charge of the ward—a nurse manager or a matron. Although that happens in the best wards, it is not universal.
We must look at the training of health care assistants, who increasingly perform sensitive, caring roles; the system cannot be left as informal as it is at present. There must be minimum standards and training. We know that there is pressure to register health care assistants. I am not sure that that is necessary, but training and minimum standards certainly are.
I challenge where Project 2000 has got us. Nurse training could remain at degree level but follow a more apprenticeship-based model. I ask the Minister to meet the Nursing and Midwifery Council to discuss how the nursing degree can learn from the apprenticeship model so that far more time is spent on the ward, alongside the academic study that has brought such benefits.
There is much more to be said, and I look forward to hearing from other hon. Members and learning from their contributions. I thank the many organisations that have been in touch with me and helped with my research since I secured the debate last week.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. There are slightly under two hours before the winding-up speeches start, so if Members take no more than about 10 minutes they should all be called.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate when you, Mr Betts, are in the Chair.
The full title of our debate is “NHS Care of Older People”, and the fact that that distinction is made shows that there is an issue in the care of older people by the NHS that needs to be discussed. It is right, therefore, that we are debating this matter today and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing this debate and on the way in which she opened it.
A number of reports made to Parliament this year on the failings of NHS care of older people have shocked us. The health service ombudsman, Ann Abraham, reported in February on a
“picture of NHS provision that is failing to respond to the needs of older people with care and compassion, and to provide even the most basic standards of care”.
Her report told the stories of 10 people over 65—partners, parents and grandparents: individuals who put up with difficult circumstances and did not like to make a fuss, compared with those who, as we have heard, were difficult—who wanted to be cared for properly and, at the end of their lives, to die peacefully and with dignity. Ann Abraham tells us that what the people involved have in common is their experience of unnecessary pain, indignity and distress while in the care of the NHS.
The second of the 10 stories is that of Mr D, and it particularly focuses on the last five days of his life. He was admitted four weeks earlier with a suspected heart attack but after tests was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer. He was to be discharged from hospital on the Tuesday after the August bank holiday weekend, but it was brought forward to the Saturday. The summary of the story in the report is harrowing. The discharge of, we must remember, a man with only a few days to live was a shambles. The report goes on:
“On the day of discharge…the family arrived to find Mr D in a distressed condition behind drawn curtains in a chair. He had been waiting for several hours to go home. He was in pain, desperate to go to the toilet and unable to ask for help because he was so dehydrated he could not speak properly or swallow. His daughter told us that ‘his tongue was like a piece of dried leather’. The emergency button had been placed beyond his reach. His drip had been removed and the bag of fluid had fallen and had leaked all over the floor making his feet wet. When the family asked for help to put Mr D on the commode he had ‘squealed…’ with pain. An ambulance booked to take him home in the morning had not arrived and at 2.30 pm the family decided to take him home in their car. This was achieved with great difficulty and discomfort for Mr D.
On arriving home, his family found that Mr D had not been given enough painkillers for the bank holiday weekend. He had been given two bottles of Oramorph (morphine in an oral solution), insufficient for three days, and not suitable as by this time he was unable to swallow. Consequently, the family spent much of the weekend driving round trying to get prescription forms signed, and permission for District Nurses to administer morphine in injectable form. Mr D died, three days after he was discharged, on the following Tuesday. His daughter described her extreme distress and the stress of trying to get his medication, fearing that he might die before she returned home. She also lost time she had hoped to spend with him over those last few days.”
The summary of this case sounds terrible, but the detail was much worse. The family were my constituents and I supported the family’s complaint after meeting Mr D’s daughter. Every aspect of this case showed the NHS in a very negative light.
Let me give a summary of the detail in Mr D’s case, as reported to the ombudsman. Mr D was not helped to use a commode and fainted, soiling himself in the process. He was not properly cleaned and his clothes were not changed until the family requested that the following day. The ward was dirty, including a squashed insect on the wall throughout his stay and nail clippings under the bed. He was left without access to drinking water or a clean glass. His pain was not controlled and medication was delayed, sometimes by up to one and a half hours. Pressure sores were allowed to develop. No check was made on his nutrition. His medical condition—the fact that his illness was terminal and that he had only a few days left—was never properly explained to his family. He was told of his diagnosis on an open ward, overheard by other patients.
I spoke about this case in a debate about the NHS Redress Bill, and I agree with the comments that the hon. Member for Stourbridge made about accountability. Where was the accountability in this hospital? Where was the ward manager or matron figure who was letting these things happen?
At this point, Mr D’s daughter, a constituent, came to me for help. She desperately needed an answer and an explanation of what had happened. As her MP, I felt the hospital needed to admit its errors and take measures to ensure that what happened to that patient did not happen to anyone else. Regrettably, in the months that followed, the hospital seemed unable to do that. In fact, the dreadful failures in care and communication were made worse by the inadequate way the hospital dealt with my constituent’s complaints, as I reported to the House in that earlier debate.
After raising her complaint with the hospital, my constituent found that responses from it were not sent in keeping with agreed time scales and often took three or four weeks longer than it had promised. Copies of responses from the hospital were never sent to me, and I had to chase every single one of those responses, which were often inadequate. That was the worst thing for this bereaved family, because the delayed answers and prevarication from those investigating the complaints left the family feeling more angry and upset. Their anger was originally due to what they perceived as delays in diagnosing Mr D’s terminal condition and the poor treatment and care he received, but the whole thing became worse because of the way the case was handled.
The complaints the ombudsman’s report details are very serious, and I am talking about just one. In making their complaint, the family know that nothing can bring back their loved one—their father—or change the way he was treated, and families often tell us that. However, the family desperately want explanations and an apology, and they desperately want to ensure that no other parent is treated the same way.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly moving speech. I pay great homage to the work Ann Abraham has done in her role as ombudsman, and yet another fantastic report came out last week about the complaints procedure. Does the hon. Lady agree with the recommendation in that report that there should be far greater partnership working with organisations such as the Care Quality Commission? Does she agree that the Government could take steps in response to the findings of the consultation they have just held on the information revolution? Such measures would really help improve the complaints procedure, which would drive up standards of care.
Barbara Keeley
Yes, indeed. We discussed those issues in relation to the NHS Redress Bill. The difficulty we have with the most extreme cases, as I am describing in relation to my constituent, is that the medical establishment seems to close up when facing such complaints, and people become fearful that they will be sued and have problems in their careers. We must remove that way of handling such awful cases, because it is just not acceptable.
Like every MP, I understand that the Government cannot manage every consultant and every ward to make sure such things do not happen. However, they do happen, and there are many more cases than the 10 the ombudsman reports on. We must bring about a change of culture to allow for an acknowledgement of the fact that there must be better redress than there was in this case when a whole system of care and treatment fails a patient and his family, and when standards of professional practice and communication fall. The MP and the family should not have to battle the complaints system and eventually take their case to the ombudsman because only the ombudsman can ever make a hospital do what it should have done in the first place.
The family were looking for an acknowledgement, an explanation and an apology, and they wanted to make sure that these things did not happen again. It is very reasonable that they should expect that.
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly important point about how complaints are handled in the NHS. In highly effective organisations, complaints are considered to be gold dust, because they are part of how those organisations drive up standards and improve services. That benefits not only the patients, but staff. It is so demotivating if staff working on poorly managed wards, or in the NHS more generally, raise complaints, even through protected disclosures, and nothing happens. That can cause them stress and great personal harm.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. I do not distance myself in any way from the excellent point the hon. Member for Stourbridge made in opening the debate: this is about leadership, management, training and accountability, all of which failed in the case I have outlined.
Andrew George
The hon. Lady is making a strong case. On the point about whistleblowing, or protected disclosure, her own research may have shown that when a nurse, for example, suggests to senior management that there is a resource problem on a ward, that does not necessarily enhance their likelihood of improving their job prospects in the hospital. Often, they are told, “Other members of staff seem to manage, so why don’t you?” Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to look at how whistleblowing can be done safely?
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of people clearly want to speak, and I do not want to stop or discourage interventions, but if they are made could they be brief and to the point so that we can keep things flowing?
Barbara Keeley
It is clear that what I said about culture must apply right through to things such as whistleblowing. It is a sad aspect of this case that none of the people involved with Mr D’s care or with dealing with the complaint could even rescue the situation by handling the complaint reasonably.
I understand, and we must be clear, that this case represents the NHS at its worst, but it did happen, and it happened to my constituent. I have never had a case as bad as this one again, but I have had others that have given me cause for concern, and I am currently pursuing cases with similarly bad aspects on behalf of constituents. Sometimes, however, there are cases where everything goes wrong and all the problems I have mentioned come together.
MPs’ interventions and the intervention of the ombudsman can remedy the injustice of such inadequate treatment to some extent, but we must accept that it is not possible even for such interventions, much though our constituents are grateful for them, to overcome the distress and anguish experienced by families such as my constituents. However, a swift apology would have helped, and we must have a system whereby an apology can be made swiftly, because that never happens.
The ombudsman talked about the need to listen to older people and to take account of feedback from families. One of my conclusions from having looked at this case is that it took many months—in fact, years—to get to the point where the family were anything like happy with the response to their complaint, and that made things worse.
I felt it was important to outline a case I had personal experience of, and there has not been time to touch on much else, but there are many things that could improve this situation. In the briefing for the debate, I was heartened to see a note from the Women’s Royal Voluntary Service describing ward support services it is setting up for older people, which is a wonderful idea. It wants to improve the experience of older people by using trained volunteers to support them and their families and carers. That would include training in dementia, which could be important.
Hospital support for carers is also important. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers has a carers centre in Salford, which the Minister knows, because he has met some of its staff. The centre has developed strong relationships with primary and secondary health care and works closely with Salford Royal hospital, which does excellent work—it is not the hospital I was talking about earlier; that was a different hospital. The centre supports carers in the hospital and on important issues around discharge. How could the discharge I described have happened if people had been there—even volunteers and people from a carers centre—to help the family? Such initiatives can help.
Developing awareness of family carers on hospital wards and giving them support might help to head off, or somehow deal with, dreadful situations such as the one I have described. NHS care is important, but it is important that we understand that it does not end when a person leaves hospital, particularly if they are terminal patients going home to die.
I hope the debate contributes to the improvement of NHS care for older people. As a Member of Parliament, I would never want to see another case like the one I have described.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and all hon. Members who supported the call for it—as I did.
I do not pretend to be a health care professional, even though I use the title “Dr”. Nor do I profess expertise in that area. However, the care given to those older people who need it—I tend to use the word “elderly”, although it may not be politically correct—is important. Usually, the start and end of life is when we use NHS care the most, and those people should be given the best care possible. We should make sure failures are dealt with, and we should speak up about them in Parliament.
Given the time constraints, I had thought of spending a little time on talking about the terminally ill. Hon. Members may know that I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the provision of hydration and nutrition. We have also had Westminster Hall debates about palliative care in eastern England, and I recognise the valuable work that is done. However, it is right to focus on the Care Quality Commission report and individual hospitals, so that our constituents know we are speaking up for them, and so that their voice is heard in Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge went into great detail about the CQC report, and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) went into detail on a particular case. The view of representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, given in informal discussions, about evidence given or sentiments expressed in submissions to the Francis inquiry, was telling. There was concern about leadership and about how people would be treated if they stood up and spoke up for patients—that they would be ignored, or, worse, demoted. I am sure that that shocked the nursing profession and other people, and I recognise that attempts are being made to deal with that, so I do not mean to be condemnatory.
My constituency has the 15th highest proportion of pensioners. Some 55% of my constituents are over 55, so the issue we are discussing is important there. The constituency also covers two primary care trusts—NHS Suffolk, and Great Yarmouth and Waveney—and we have three hospitals that provide care. They are the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, Ipswich hospital and James Paget university hospital. I am afraid that two of those were on the list of failing hospitals and, understandably, local residents were very upset. That is reflected in the number of complaints made to me, or copied to me, about people’s experiences when they are trying to get care.
As to Ipswich, after the first failure, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) met the chairman and director of nursing. I was impressed straight away that the director of nursing recognised absolutely that there had been failings. That recognition and acceptance of failings was important to me. The suggestion was made at the time that not all the staff accepted, initially, that there were failings, and that the feedback was met with an element of rejection. However, every member of staff quickly recognised that things had to change.
An action plan of changes and improvements to local ward leadership was set out, and fresh training was provided. A high focus was put on that, including additional support for patients with dementia. The hospital was inspected on a second occasion and, although the report has not yet been formally issued, I understand that it will pass—it should be congratulated on that—that a marked improvement was noted and that patient satisfaction was much higher.
Neil Carmichael
It is worth distinguishing between acute and community hospitals. That would inform the debate, because, obviously, chronic and non-chronic conditions are different. It would be helpful to know which hospitals are which, and whether that will help us to think about the subject.
Dr Coffey
Ipswich hospital is a district general hospital, if that helps my hon. Friend. It provides acute care, and is not just focused on community care. I want to say thank you and well done to the director of nursing and all the medical teams at the hospital for the changes they have made.
In contrast, James Paget hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has failed a second inspection. The second report showed improvements, but not consistent improvements. There were still minor concerns in several areas, and continued moderate concerns on meeting nutritional needs and the management of medicines. The second report is complimentary about staff and training, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has already mentioned, the hospital was cited in a Nursing and Midwifery Council report as having good training levels. To reinforce that point, the CQC suggested that patients’ needs were generally met. At times it was possible that not all the staff were available or deployed in the most effective way, but generally patients had the staffing appropriate to their needs. The third inspection has taken place. Its outcome is not yet formally known, and the hospital has not received the draft report, but I have not heard positive vibes so far.
As to my interaction with the leadership, I must say at the outset that I recognise that it was limited. My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Great Yarmouth have taken a much greater role, because a relatively small number of patients from my constituency go to the hospital in question. After the first inspection, however, I was assured that the failures were just a blip, and that things were already under way. Doubt was cast on the quality of the inspection carried out by the CQC—that was said to me by the chairman of the hospital trust. I did not accept that, because those CQC inspections are intended to be a snapshot and to take a view. Frankly, if one patient experiences bad care, that is an automatic failure. I think that hon. Members would recognise that.
I was reassured, however, by the expectation of changes, which were under way; but, as I have mentioned, the second inspection continued to find failings in dealings with older patients. I did not meet the hospital manager and chairman after the inspection, but my colleagues did and I was not reassured by the report of that meeting. Yet again it seemed that doubt was being cast on the validity of the CQC inspection by the chairman of the trust—though not, I understand, by the chief executive.
We three MPs have together agreed a course of action to press the hospital on its improvements for our constituents, and it has responded. As I said, a third inspection has been held, and I am highly concerned that a third failure will be reported. Monitor has now issued a red governance rating, which I believe is automatic, but I understand that it has also had conversations with the leadership. I have received copies of constituents’ complaints, and seen a whistleblowing letter from GPs from the consortium Health East. The letter says:
“As a group of concerned GPs we have been forced to pursue this whistle blowing option, because we are concerned that our new GP consortium ‘Health East’ may fail to be successful due to the failings of our main, acute provider the James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Health East will be depending on the Trust to provide the acute care for most of our patients and we have lost confidence in the ability of its leadership to correct its current failings. Please act quickly before we have yet another Mid Staffs on our hands.”
It ends:
“We apologise once again for having to take this whistle blowing option, but we need you to put pressure on appropriate organisations to put the issues right before our patients suffer.”
I do not suggest that someone going into the hospital will automatically suffer poor care, but that is the reaction of GPs who are expected to work with patients to ensure that they receive the best care.
In the circumstances, it is my role to press the leadership of the James Paget hospital on constituents’ behalf. In particular, the chairman of the hospital trust should consider his position. I appreciate that the financial risk at the hospital is low, and that that may reflect good financial governance, but patient care is key. The chairman has provided useful leadership, but—after two failed care inspections and with the possibility of a third—it is time for him to step aside and allow new leadership to come forward.
I will apologise to the chairman of the trust, because although I sent him a communication about what I would say in this debate, I could not speak to him personally. I should also say that I do not make my suggestion on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney—who is in his place—and for Great Yarmouth. I do not make such a call lightly, but there is concern that patients may be reluctant to go to that hospital. Perhaps that is not a widely-experienced feeling, but often people worry about going to a particular hospital because of the perception of concern. We cannot afford that, and must not stand quietly by without expressing a view.
I have spoken for 10 minutes and understand that others want to speak. There are other issues, such as community care and confidence in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and others, including myself, have pressed the case about ambulance services and response times. Some of our constituents live more than an hour from the nearest hospital, so concerns about failure to respond within the eight-minute target are appropriate. I am meeting Ministers another time to discuss that matter.
I do not make the request that I made about the James Paget hospital in Parliament lightly, but I believe that it is necessary for the safety, well-being and protection of patients in Suffolk Coastal.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing this debate and on her thoughtful contribution. Other hon. Members have also shown great insight in their representations.
Like others, I was sickened by the reports that we received from the Care Quality Commission earlier this month about the treatment of elderly people in the NHS in England. Unfortunately, we are now receiving a catalogue of such reports. In March, the older people’s commissioner in Wales told us that the treatment of some older people in Welsh hospitals is “shamefully inadequate”. The commissioner found instances of people not being helped to the toilet, poor communication and inadequate attention to patients’ need for food and drink.
One son reported how his mother begged for water after an intravenous drip was removed. Elderly patients in a Cardiff hospital day room were given tambourines to attract nurses’ attention. Again and again, we hear stories of patients not being treated with sufficient care, dignity and respect. Having said that, I should point out that there were also many examples of good practice. My own father has received good care in the Royal Gwent and Caerphilly District Miners hospital in recent years.
Nevertheless, given the blizzard of bad news on treatment for older people, the NHS Confederation succinctly says:
“We are well aware of the problems of poor care. What is less clear is why this has not always been tackled and what needs to happen to effect change.”
People have talked about a culture of indifference or, worse, of neglect, and ask what has happened to common compassion and kindness. It will take time to turn care around, but change must come. Recommendations in the report “Dignified Care?” include four key points: empowering ward managers to run their wards in a way that enhances dignity and respect, equipping staff to support people with dementia, prioritising continence care and looking further at whether there are sufficient numbers of the right kind of staff to care properly for older people in Wales.
We must ensure that we make things better this time. It is unacceptable that hospitals and care homes can flout their legal responsibilities to patients and residents and just be told to do better.
In Wales, the older people’s commissioner has reminded health providers that she has the legal powers to effect necessary change. Those powers must be enforced, key staff must be seen to be accountable and, most of all, patients should be heard. The Minister for Health and Social Services acted swiftly to increase spot inspections in Wales and I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Health has followed that course in England.
Strong professional leadership at ward level is of the utmost importance in securing change. We need the right skills mix in our hospitals and care homes to deliver the care that elderly people want and need. The involvement and feedback of patients and relatives is crucial, but we should not have to rely on relatives and friends to provide basic care, even if it were practical.
As someone who has spent some time working in the voluntary sector, I know that it can be a sensitive and sensible provider. The WRVS has informed us about some of its voluntary services on wards, which include befriending patients and help with feeding. I understand that it is keen to expand those services, which is something that I support.
Residential care is in some flux. One of the largest UK providers, Southern Cross, has collapsed. After a year of worry and anxiety for elderly people in its homes, we must now seize the opportunity to ensure that companies in the sector have a sound business model. They must invest for the long term and deliver high quality care for our elderly.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I recently talked to Department of Health officials about the future of the social care market, which has changed dramatically in the past 20 years from a local market with single owners of individual homes to consolidation of ownership. Southern Cross owned about 9% of the UK market, and 30% of that was in the north-east.
I am not saying that all individually owned homes are perfect. Operation Jasmine is an ongoing investigation in Gwent, looking at the maltreatment of elderly residents in care homes in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The investigation is also looking at some small homes. The first prosecution of an owner and a manager is expected soon.
The position of Southern Cross, which was the subject of a number of takeovers and a massive profit grab by the venture capitalists Blackstone, is perhaps summed up by the reported admission of a former executive, who said:
“It really did seem like we were in a land flowing with milk and honey.”
The money men were working on a substantial projected increase in the elderly population. This week, for example, the Office for National Statistics predicted that the current number of people over state pension age will rise from 12.2 million to 15.6 million by 2035, which is an increase of 28%. The money men thought that with a growing elderly population and the subsequent rise in local authority funding, a rosy future with a rosy profit was guaranteed. The Department of Health’s director of care services said:
“Arguably, the people who invested took this to be an infrastructure project, like toll roads, rather than a care business.”
As someone once said, “If it looks too good to be true, it usually is.”
Southern Cross ran into the buffers, as the squeeze on local authority spending saw referrals and fees go down and occupancy rates drop to unsustainable levels. Given that the budget squeeze is likely to continue for some time, the stability of the care sector is of considerable concern. Yes, it is a business, but it is one that looks after frail and vulnerable people, so low cost and low quality is not an option, nor is it right for such people to live with the constant fear that they may have to move home; some certainty must be part of the care package.
I have said before that the Department of Health was slow to act on Southern Cross. I wish I was confident that Four Seasons, which is taking over a large number of former Southern Cross homes and which has more than £1 billion in debts, has a sound business model to deliver long-term care. It is unlikely to be the only operator under pressure as all private providers are dependent on revenue income from cash-strapped public authorities. Of course, as the PAC was told, the Department of Health does not commission services; such decisions are made by local authorities. None the less, the Department of Health sets the framework for social care providers and that must be robust.
The Department is now consulting on what measures it may need to ensure the effective oversight of the social care market. I hope that we will have more comprehensive measures in place early next year. The challenge for us now is to ensure that wherever our elderly are treated or looked after or helped to look after themselves, quality is embedded in the service, and dignity and respect are accorded without question. Together with our high-tech surgery and sophisticated drugs, we must ensure that we feed patients properly and give them the time, company and comfort they need, so that they can cope with the chronic ill-health, dependency, or terminal illness that will at some point come to us all.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I will try to keep my comments brief because I know that others wish to speak.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing the debate and on raising such important points. It is a tribute to her and the importance of the issue that so many colleagues have stayed behind on a day when the House is otherwise empty.
This is an important subject at national and local level. Mid Norfolk is a rural constituency with a very high ratio of retired and elderly folk. The subject is also important to the families and friends of patients and most important to the patients themselves, who often have no voice or people to speak up for them. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently of the problems that need to be addressed, including those of nutrition, courtesy, privacy and hygiene. I was struck by one or two of the statistics that she mentioned, particularly the 9 million meals left uneaten and the shocking number of deaths from malnutrition. Although one must not overstate the problem or get it out of proportion, which the media sometimes love to do, for those who are affected it is, as the Care Quality Commission report makes clear, nothing less than cruelty and neglect. As Nigel Edwards, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, has said:
“It is of course important to put these 10 examples”—
from the CQC report—
“into perspective. The NHS sees over a million people every 36 hours and the overwhelming majority say they receive good care. But I fully appreciate that this will be of little comfort to patients and their families when they have been on the receiving end of poor care.”
At the risk of testing colleagues’ patience, it is worth highlighting some of the examples given in the CQC report and other reports, because we have had the privilege of reading them and other people may not have been able to do so. By including those examples in the report of this debate, perhaps we can help to highlight them. I was particularly struck by the following examples from the recent CQC report:
“The patient constantly called out for help and rattled the bedrail as staff passed by…25 minutes passed before this patient received attention.”
“We saw a staff member taking a female patient to the toilet. The patient’s clothing was above their knees and exposed their underwear.”
“Two members of staff who were assisting people with their meals at the time were having a conversation between themselves.”
Although in some ways the third is perhaps the least obvious example of poor care, it demonstrates what is often the source of patients’ frustration about lack of personal care when they need it.
Some other case studies were highlighted in the report of the health service ombudsman. I do not want to go through them all, but I shall mention two. The first was referred to as “Mrs H’s story”:
“When Mrs H was transferred from Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust to a care home, she arrived bruised, soaked in urine, dishevelled and wearing someone else’s clothes.”
The second case study was “Mr C’s story”:
“Mr C died two hours after undergoing heart surgery at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust.”
Well, that happens, but the case study continued:
“His family was not told that his condition had worsened and staff turned off his life support, despite his family’s request to wait while they made a phone call.”
It is easy to highlight emotive examples that shock, but it is important that people’s attention is drawn to the specific nature of patients’ experiences, because it is in the details that we will begin to find the solution to the problems.
Two other issues that I have come across in my time as a parliamentary candidate and MP merit raising. The first is the difference between care and medicine. I speak as someone who has come to the House after a 15-year career in biomedicine, so I have some experience of the extraordinary advances that have been taking place in genetics, biomedical innovation, diagnostics devices and pharmaceuticals, but of course care and medicine are not the same thing. I have some sympathy with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge earlier about the occasional tendency in our modern health service to neglect, amid the busyness and professionalism involved in often extremely high-tech clinical care, some of the older skills of traditional nursing. I do not think that anybody has suggested that it is as straightforward as, “Modern nurses don’t care”, but given the specialisation and the clinical elevation of nursing we might need to consider whether we have left behind something rather more old-fashioned and traditional. In many ways, one cannot turn care into a specialism; care needs to be at the heart of everything that is done in the NHS.
The second issue is the integration of health and care. In my county of Norfolk—I dare say it is true of other colleagues’ counties too—we have an ageing population, and more and more of our constituents experience health and care needs that mean they often spend short spells in hospital before returning to the care system. That creates a number of challenging issues around the transition from health to care, and often back again, particularly relating to patient records and continuity of treatment. I know that the Government are looking at the integration of health and social care, and the commissioning reforms may provide some useful opportunities in that regard and for developing and accelerating best practice.
I will end with the observation that this topic is not one that lends itself to the creation of extreme differences between parties. It is important that today we have had a really good debate on cross-party terms and I suspect there would be wider interest in the House in taking the debate forward. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, and to reading those that I cannot hear myself as I may have to leave before the end of the debate, for which I apologise.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. Like the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), I must apologise that I have to leave at 4.30 pm, so I may not hear all the contributions that are made.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing this vital debate and on asking many important questions about quality of care and patients’ experiences of hospital. In addition, I welcome the contributions that have been made by other Members, which have been very important in fleshing out those issues.
I will make quite a brief contribution to the debate. Hon. Members have rightly recognised that, although there are some serious concerns about the care of older people within the NHS, there is also good practice that we can build on. So I will limit my remarks to giving one example of good practice that I hope will be of interest to hon. Members.
Earlier this year, I visited Queen’s medical centre, which is one campus of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. For those who are not familiar with it, it is a major acute and teaching hospital in Nottingham. While I was there, I visited ward B47, which is an acute medical ward for patients with dementia and delirium. Ward B47 has received a national health and social care award for mental health and well-being, and it was highly commended for putting patients and the public first.
While visiting ward B47, I met Professor Rowan Harwood, who is a consultant in health care of the elderly, Caron Swinscoe, who is the clinical lead for dementia, the ward’s matron, Ali Cargill, and Louise Howe, who is an advanced practitioner in occupational therapy, specialising in mental health services, and who spent 10 years working in mental health before she came to work on the ward.
Queen’s medical centre set up the medical mental health unit as part of a collaborative research project between Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the university of Nottingham, which was funded by the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health. The unit at Queen’s built on earlier work in 2005 by the Royal College of Psychiatry, which had shown that patients with dementia and delirium formed a large proportion of in-patients in acute general hospitals and that they had much worse outcomes than those in-patients with less complex problems. The unit was specifically designed to start to address that situation.
Ward B47 is a 28-bed ward, with three registered mental health nurses, a specialist mental health occupational therapist and an activities co-ordinator. Those staff members are working together with an existing multidisciplinary team, which includes an occupational therapist with experience in discharge planning. That new team was set up in January 2010. In addition, the environment of the ward was changed and all staff were given additional training in person-centred care.
In this debate, hon. Members have quite rightly spoken about the Care Quality Commission’s findings in relation to quality of care and about what are, in some cases, the extremely distressing experiences of their own constituents and families. Even where care is good—I am pleased to say that, in most cases, it is good—hospital admission can be a distressing and frightening experience. For older people with dementia, hospitalisation can be even more difficult and confusing. Families often report concerns and anxiety about the effect that a stay in hospital has on their loved ones, even where care is good.
My first impression on entering ward B47 was that it was different from other wards that I have seen. It was a calm but stimulating environment, and I will say a little more about the physical aspects of the ward. The most obvious difference was that there was a central activities room where a number of patients were taking part in activities supported by the co-ordinator and other staff. Even in the short period that I was there, I could see that the activity that was under way—patients were playing a game that involved throwing beanbags on the floor—encouraged physical activity. Obviously, people’s abilities were different, but the staff encouraged those who could participate to do so. The activity prompted conversation, interaction and engagement, preventing people from becoming isolated and allowing other staff to spend time with the more unwell patients who required more attention—a subject that other Members have touched on.
The ward’s staff explained how and why they were doing things differently. In making my remarks, I draw specifically on an article by Louise Howe, the occupational therapist, published in OTnews in May 2011. In it she states that the staff had observed that many patients lost their ability to function independently during a stay in hospital, and she gives a typical example. An elderly woman who had been living independently was admitted to hospital and, although forgetful, was able to carry out daily tasks such as preparing a meal. After a month, the occupational therapy team carried out an assessment and found that she was having difficulties recognising and using everyday items. The team was concerned that when she was discharged she would struggle to live safely in her own home—to cook and be around hot objects—and that prompted Louise and the OT service to come up with an approach to maintain patients’ abilities while in hospital. Essentially, they would assess patients’ level of function on admission—how able they were to wash, dress and self-care—and develop an individual care plan that all staff would work to, to help patients to maintain activities and skills. Patients would then be reviewed on discharge to see whether the actions had been successful.
The team also started to change the environment to make it more enabling for patients with dementia, with clearer signage on the ward, large clear clocks—people like to be able to assess how long things take—redecoration to make the individual bays look unique so that patients could distinguish their own beds, and memory boxes above beds to display personal items and make the environment more welcoming. The ward also commissioned photographs, showing staff and patients talking, completing self-care tasks and participating in group activities, and they were displayed around the ward to provide comfort and reassurance. Although that might sound like a small thing, staff and patients and their families reported that it was a welcome and positive move.
The occupational therapy team has strengthened links with community mental health services to ensure continuity of care after discharge, and has built links with bodies such as the Alzheimer’s Society, which provides a weekly advice and support service on the ward. The unit’s work is being researched by the university, which is looking at a number of measures—with a properly assessed control group—to compare mental state, delirium, pre and post-admission function, quality of life and carer feedback. The response from staff and visitors has so far been positive, the findings look good, and the team is looking to develop the ward further, for example by providing a more comprehensive programme of activities, including in the evenings when patients can become particularly distressed. It is also considering breakfast and afternoon tea groups to encourage patients to maintain their domestic skills, and the provision of sensory stimulation for patients who find interaction difficult and relaxation for those who find the environment over-stimulating.
I appreciate that my contribution has focused on one ward in one hospital and that there are many issues to address, but I hope that where there is good practice in the care of older people in an NHS hospital it can be used effectively to improve quality of care and patient outcomes across the wider health service and that we have the resources to enable that to happen.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing this worthwhile and important debate.
The subject is of particular interest to me because the James Paget hospital in Gorleston serves my constituency as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). As we have heard, the hospital has received two unfavourable Care Quality Commission reports and a red Monitor warning, and a third report is awaited. Although improvements have been made since the previous visits, there are still areas to address because elderly patients are not being given appropriate support with eating and drinking, and people in need of intravenous fluids are not getting infusions. I do not propose to go through the reports in detail, but I will highlight a few concerns that we need to address, not only in the James Paget but across the country.
My first point specifically regards the James Paget. The hospital’s main asset is its loyal and hard-working staff, including doctors, nurses, care assistants and the volunteers provided by the very good league of friends. There is a very strong team spirit, and it is vital that the staff, who want to provide the best quality care, are given the resources, training, support and leadership they need.
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
My second point is about funding. A particular issue in an area such as ours—we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal—is that Suffolk and Norfolk is a popular area to retire to, and that puts pressure on the hospital. In Yarmouth and Lowestoft, there are pockets of deprivation, and the area is a popular holiday destination. Four or five years ago, when my late father was in the James Paget, he was probably one of only two local people on a ward of eight. That is an indication of the challenges that the hospital faces, and I hope that its funding generally takes that into account.
Hospitals need not only to tackle excessive bureaucracy but to look at areas of staff shortages. If the NHS is to survive, it must tackle social care, because otherwise we will face the prospect of more and more older people in hospital beds, creating a logjam and bringing the system to a grinding halt. It may well be that we should divert funds from the acute hospital sector and into adult social care to cope with the rising costs of health care and an ageing population; it is important to make savings wherever possible.
I do not like saying this, but there is a sense of déjà vu here. This debate is very welcome and we are all approaching the matter in the right way, but I sense that we have been here before. The CQC findings are similar in many respects to those in the Secretary of State’s 1998 report, “Not because they are old”, and there are parallels with the Patients Association study of two years ago. It is as if each new revelation creates a sense of outrage, and then nothing happens. We all have an obligation to ensure that this time is different.
There is perhaps an institutional ageism in our society to the extent that at times we do not understand the needs of the elderly, and are too condescending and dismissive. That needs to be replaced with a sense of kindness and compassion, with patients’ dignity respected. We should treat patients as people, not processes; perhaps in the past, in a drive to meet targets, patients were seen as procedures to be processed. There is perhaps a problem of patient care getting sidelined by targets, by finances and bureaucracy. The delivery of care has perhaps been regarded as a task to be completed, but it is a vocation, not a unit of work. More training and staff development is needed, with patient care at the centre of things.
On leadership and support, we must create a different culture in which good care flourishes. Leaders and managers in hospitals should work closely with staff in proper liaison. It should be a two-way relationship. Staff must receive the right support, and management must ensure that budgets are spent wisely.
Over the years, a poor understanding of malnutrition has crept up. There is a lack of awareness of the importance of good nutrition. Malnutrition costs the NHS £13 billion per annum. Inadequate food is a problem, as are inflexible regimes and a failure to meet basic physical care needs, which causes patients to become lonely and bored. Similar problems exist in some care homes; lack of attention to detail is a problem. Hospital food can at times be unappetising and unpalatable. We must examine food budgets closely. Are they too low? Should they be higher?
We need a fundamental look at the issue. The CQC does valuable work, but it cannot go back all the time, so we must consider giving patients an advocate who can fight their corner. Local HealthWatch organisations that carry out unannounced inspections have a role to play. Publication of malnutrition rates should also be mandatory, so that people can discover problems earlier and notify where they might be occurring.
Finally, I will mention an issue that is not the topic of this debate but is an elephant in the room: social care for our elderly in their last days. We need to integrate the health service and social care. The Dilnot report presents an opportunity to address a time bomb that has been ticking for a long time and that successive Governments have not grappled with. I hope that, in the spring, the Government will face up to reality and publish a positive response to what Andrew Dilnot said.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing this important and timely debate. I beg your indulgence as I tell a personal story about my mum’s recent journey through the national health service. As many colleagues will know, my mum had a bad stroke in June this year, and we have had a bumpy ride over the past four months. I want to make it clear at the outset that the vast majority of care workers, nurses, doctors and other staff with whom we have come into contact have shown my mum a great deal of loving care, but she seems to have been let down by system failures.
Mum is 86, but before her stroke, she was still working, teaching three yoga classes a week, doing reflexology, driving her car and leading a totally full life. As hon. Members can imagine, it has been devastating not only for her but for all of us. After the stroke, she was first admitted to Luton and Dunstable hospital’s accident and emergency department. At about 4 in the morning, she was medically ready to be transferred to a ward and was taken up to the stroke ward. However, when we got there, we were told that there was no bed. We were not too fazed at that point—it was the middle of the night—so we accepted it, and she was transferred back to the emergency admissions ward. At the time, the medics were not sure that Mum would survive, so it was a difficult time for us.
By the following afternoon, we were getting agitated—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mrs Brooke; you can tell how it made me feel. Anybody’s journey through the national health services in such circumstances is difficult, and ours has not been made better by what has happened to us. We were agitated by the following afternoon. Mum was still on the emergency ward, which was very busy and noisy. Eventually, we started the journey back to the stroke ward, to be greeted at the desk again with “Sorry, there’s no room.” At that point, I started to become six foot tall, thinking, “My mother is going to come into your ward.” Fortunately, a sister behind the desk treated us nicely, saying, “This woman will be admitted on to our ward.”
Some time later, concerned about her breathing, I called for a nurse. The nurse came in and said, “Well, you know she’s do not resuscitate, don’t you?” I said, “Yes, but I’m concerned about her breathing.” The nurse said, “Oh no, she’s fine. She’s actually in a deep sleep and things are good, but oh dear, I’ve not hung up the drip.” I spent the next half-hour holding up the drip so that Mum would get saline and holding Mum’s hand until the nurse eventually returned with the drip stand.
That is just the start of a chapter of system failure. It was a great frustration going to the desk and seeing all those people behind it, but being totally ignored. I did not know whether they were physiotherapists or doctors. When I said, “Mum needs the commode,” or “Please can you,” I was ignored. That was not just our experience but the experience of everybody on the ward.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Sorry, but I cannot believe I heard that. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the charge nurse said to the patient’s daughter that the patient was do not resuscitate? Please God, I heard that wrong.
Julie Hilling
No, indeed. That was what was said to me when I questioned her breathing. We knew that Mum was gravely ill and that they would not make extraordinary efforts to save her at that point, but the way that it was done did not make it the best thing that happened.
As I was saying, the great frustration was being ignored. One day I went to the desk, saw the doctor who was doing the round and said, “We really need to speak to you.” The doctor said, “I’m very busy at the moment, but I promise I will speak to you before I go home.” I went back to the desk a few hours later to discover that the doctor had gone home. We only got results by complaining. It was a difficult period.
Mum was on thickened fluids because she had difficulty swallowing. Each day when we went in, on her trolley would be a glass of ordinary, unthickened water. However, the good thing was that every day it was out of reach, so fortunately she could not choke on it. Then they complained that she was not drinking enough.
Food was a mystery. We would fill in the menu form, but each day it would be a lottery what turned up. Mum was on puréed food, but three times in one week, the lady in the next bed got no evening meal. Each time, they said, “Well, you didn’t fill in the form.” Her family said, “Yes, we did,” and they said, “Oh well, we’ll give you sandwiches.” Fortunately, that happened to Mum only once. Thank heavens my sister was there, because they said, “We’ll give her a sandwich.” My sister said, “Look on the chart over her bed—puréed food only.” Had she not been there, goodness knows what would have happened.
One day, Mum choked. They had got her out of bed, so she was sitting next to the bed, and she was choking. She was unable to ring her buzzer at that point, so another patient rang it, trying to get somebody to assist. Nobody came for about 10 minutes. The other patient’s young husband then had to assist my mother, mopping her up and getting her sorted out so that she was no longer choking.
For a few days, there was a lady in the bed next to Mum’s who sat on a pad that spoke every time she stood up. Clearly, she wandered, and they needed her to stay in place, but the message on the pad said, “Dear Mr Such-a-body, please sit down again and somebody will come to you.” Of course it was no trigger for that woman, as that was not her name. The name had not been changed. The lady opposite Mum could eat, but was not eating a great deal. She was not helped to eat or given prompts such as “Please have a bit more”; somebody would just come and say, “You need to drink a bit more,” instead of helping her.
I asked my assistant to send a card from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the Chief Whip. I nearly asked for a card from the Prime Minister. I thought that maybe if they knew that I was an MP—I have never in my life told as many people that I am an MP as I did during that period—they just might give my mum a bit of extra care or show more concern. I even took in a box of House of Commons chocolates, as if to say, “Look after this lady, please,” but that did not make a great deal of difference. The staff did care, but the system was not in place. We felt that we had to make sure that, every day, somebody stayed for the full length of visiting hours.
After two and a half weeks, mum was transferred to Biggleswade rehabilitation hospital. Again, the staff were very loving, but they also let us down. They loved mum, and we felt that that was partly because mum is a proud, undemanding and polite woman. She was in Biggleswade for eight weeks and, again, we did not dare to not have somebody present to visit for a substantial part of the day.
Mum had pneumonia, along with the stroke, and after a couple of weeks at Biggleswade, she did not seem very well to us. We had to tell the staff that, despite the fact that she was getting close personal care at this time, mum was not well. They took her temperature and, yes, she had a chest infection. Treatment was good, but why was it us—she was in hospital—who had to raise the alarm? Mum was losing weight—she ended up losing 3 stone during this period. She was supposed to have protein drinks, but the drink only ever turned up on one day. Mum came to absolutely hate meal times at Biggleswade.
The second major incident was equally frightening for us. Mum had bumpers put on the side of her bed, to prevent her paralysed leg from getting caught in the bars. One night the bumpers were not put on and her leg got stuck. She, of course, did not realise this and it was only in the morning when she said that she was in extreme pain that it became apparent that this was why. Why were the bumpers not put on? Moreover, if it was a mistake, why did not somebody on their night tour know that the bumpers were not there? It is an 18-bed hospital, not an enormous one with hundreds of beds. Why, indeed, did the nurse in charge not check on the patients throughout the night? When we went in, mum’s leg was hugely swollen. The sole of her foot was purple. We are not medics—we did not know what was the matter—but we thought that something was wrong, so we raised the alarm again.
I want to tell this story because I think it is typical of other people’s experiences. Mum needed close personal care, so why did the carers, who were putting her in a hoist and changing her clothes and pad, not raise concerns about her leg being three times the size of the other one? The unit at Biggleswade is nurse-led, so a GP was called. He thought that she had a deep vein thrombosis and tried to get a scan the next day. He did not think that she should wait 36 hours, which was the time we would have had to wait for the appointment on offer. He thought that he had succeeded in getting a scan for her the next day, but, sadly, he had not, so we had a desperate day of trying to get mum scanned. We asked whether there was any other hospital that she could go to, and—remember that I am a good socialist, Labour MP—I even asked, “Can I pay?” I am grateful to mum’s MP, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who also helped and pulled out all the stops to try to get mum a scan, but we only managed to get her in the next day.
I asked to see the matron to see whether anything else could be done. Although I remained at the hospital all day, I was told that they had seen a posh car drive away from the hospital and had therefore decided that I had left—I am not too sure why they thought I drove a posh car—so the matron had left the site without seeing me. The medics were not too concerned, because they said that they had started treatment—a treatment that we were later told should not have been started before mum had had a brain scan, because she had had a hemorrhagic stroke.
I also discovered that there are only four slots for GP referral scans at Bedford hospital. The hospital serves many thousands of patients, so why are there only four slots for that huge population? We went to the hospital and another chapter of problems started. I will not bore everyone with the full details, but suffice it to say that there was a lack of communication, which resulted in mum missing her slot to be scanned, and a full day of a woman, frightened and in pain, sitting around in a hospital.
The overwhelming feeling was that everybody blamed everybody else. It was said that the day ward at Biggleswade should have sent her on a trolley. Somebody else should always have done something, but very few people said, “I will do something.” Mum was diagnosed with a DVT from toes to groin and was in the ambulance about to go back to Biggleswade while I was still in the hospital demanding answers from the doctors and asking questions. Fortunately, the consultant appeared at that point—I am not sure whether he turned up or was asked to come—and said that, because of the medication that mum was on, she should stay in and they should not send her home. That was the turning point in mum’s journey—good care and good treatment in Bedford hospital. She started to eat.
After two and a half weeks at Luton and Dunstable hospital, eight weeks at Biggleswade and one week at Bedford hospital, mum went into respite care in Swiss Cottage care home in her home town. What a difference. She is eating well, has started to put on weight and is starting to walk. She is making amazing progress and we hope that she will go home soon.
There has been only one bad incident in the care home. It asked a GP to visit and the one who was on duty—it was not her GP—refused to come, because he did not know her case, even though all the information had been sent to the GP. He referred her to Stoke Mandeville hospital for another scan—another day of pain and distress for this woman. They said, “She’s got a DVT,” but we knew that. That seems to be another failure.
I am grateful for the opportunity to tell my mum’s story, because, sadly, it seems typical of that of so many older people. It seems that if people have something that is wrong and treatable, they get good service from the NHS, but if they are older and just need care, the results are not so good. There also seems to be little consideration given to who that older person is or was; they just become “an old person.” Yes, she is 86, but my mum was a working 86-year-old, teaching yoga and apparently fitter than me—she was not just an old lady.
A GP in Biggleswade told me that my mother is lucky to have a family who have been fighting for her. It should not be that way. Every older person deserves to be treated with respect and care. I am grateful for this opportunity and I hope that, through all of our efforts, a real difference will be made to the treatment of older people.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I am particularly grateful that you have allowed me to speak. I missed the beginning of the debate because my watch broke. It was immensely frustrating, so I appreciate you making an exception to the rule and allowing me to speak.
We have heard so many excellent speeches this afternoon and I agree with the contributions of all my colleagues. It is so refreshing to be part of this debate, which provides a contrast with yesterday’s debate on the NHS in the main Chamber. We are working together to highlight considerable concerns. I am sure that, considering the great passion that has been in evidence today, we can make a difference.
Other colleagues want to speak, so I will touch on only two areas that could be improved in the NHS. If they were improved, it could make a real difference in driving up the standard of care for elderly people. The first relates to improvements to the complaints process, and the second to a particular training need for people, whether they be doctors or clinicians, who come from overseas to work in the health service.
On the complaints procedure, highly effective organisations appreciate that every complaint is an opportunity to learn and improve. Such organisations have virtuous circles of continuous improvement, from complaint through to monitoring the improvements that they agree to make, to make sure that improvements result from every complaint that is investigated.
I have read with interest the recently published report of the parliamentary and health service ombudsman, Ann Abraham, “Listening and Learning”. It is a review of NHS complaints handled in England from 2010 to 2011. It is a hard-hitting and informative read. Ann says:
“In last year’s report…I concluded that the NHS needed to ‘listen harder and learn more’ from complaints. The volume and types of complaints we have received in the last twelve months reveal that progress towards achieving this across the NHS in England is patchy and slow.
This report shows how, at a local level, the NHS is still not dealing adequately with the most straightforward matters.”
We have heard that today. She goes on to say that two particular themes emerged. First, the most prevalent reason for complaints was a lack of effective communication, as every speaker today has highlighted. Poor communication can have a serious, direct impact on patients’ care and can unnecessarily exclude their families from a full awareness of the patient’s condition or prognosis. Secondly, in an increasing number of cases, a failure to resolve disagreements between patients and their GPs has led to their removal from the GP list. Her report cites a particularly harrowing example of somebody—a very vulnerable and elderly person—being excluded from the GP list in the last few days of their life.
More positively, Ann Abraham notes that there have been improvements in the attitudes of NHS senior management when tackling the issue of complaints handling and that there has been more partnership working with other parts of the NHS, such as the Care Quality Commission. However, clearly, much more effort needs to be put into showing NHS staff how complaints can drive up standards of patient care. The majority of doctors, nurses and other clinicians in the NHS in Cornwall, and I am sure around the country, get job satisfaction from delivering high-quality care to their patients. I have listened to nurses who suffer when they work in wards that are poorly led and monitored, and where bad practice is ignored. Worse still, when they try to tackle the situation by reporting their concerns and even making protected disclosures, nothing happens.
In remote and peripheral parts of the country, such as Cornwall, there is only one acute hospital, so staff are very reluctant to complain because there is nowhere else for them to go. That is stressful for staff and, obviously, far from good news for the patients on their wards and under their care. I am pleased and encouraged by the Care Quality Commission’s work in Cornwall. When all parts of the NHS and other care providers are registered, so long as they have the necessary resource, they will be highly effective in driving up standards of treatment and care. I would like the Care Quality Commission to have a far greater role in the NHS complaints process—for example, it should be given copies of all complaints, all protected disclosures and all death reviews in hospitals. That information is vital to helping the CQC to assess risks and manage improvements.
Where a complaint has led to an improvement being agreed, the CQC should have the opportunity to visit and spot-check to ensure it has been implemented. If the CQC were more involved in the complaints process, the quality of care and services, as well as job satisfaction for NHS staff, would be improved. The poor quality of care an elderly person might have experienced, either at home or in residential care, should also be dealt with by complaints processes that involve the CQC.
A more public communication of complaints data will also help to drive up standards of care and will give patients more important data upon which to make a choice. I am pleased that, from this month, the Department of Health has committed to publish complaints data by hospital, and that foundation trusts will also shortly be required to provide information on complaints. Like Ann Abraham, I hope that, following the Government’s consultation “An Information Revolution”, a framework for making that information available will be published. It is important to have standardised indicators and measures for both complaints and lessons learned, so that patients and staff can compare like with like. I hope that the Minister might be able to comment on that today.
The second point is about staff who come into the NHS from overseas and who have been trained overseas. Much has been reported in the media recently about the poor language skills of some of the doctors, nurses, clinicians and care workers who come into the NHS, and the problems that that causes. That is an important issue but the attitude of such staff, especially towards older people, is as significant.
Although I appreciate that the training of doctors is not the responsibility of the Department of Health, it could be part of the commissioning of services. Guidelines could be given to commissioners not only on training, but on ensuring that people coming from overseas had effective training on how to treat people with respect and dignity. The value assigned to elderly people is different in different cultures around the world, and that needs to be addressed when employing people in the NHS. I am aware that many colleagues want to contribute, so I shall conclude my comments there.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for timetabling it. There are few issues that mean more to me or make me more angry than the poor treatment of older people, especially by our NHS. Therefore, it is highly important that we focus on that today.
I shall begin where other hon. Members might not have had time to go—by questioning our values. The hon. Member for Stourbridge listed societal problems as being one of the causes of indignity in hospitals and, when I intervened to ask her about that, she said that she did not have enough time to go into the subject. I hope I can assist her by taking us on that journey.
I am afraid that I shall start by disagreeing with the hon. Lady. I find it hard to believe that there is a lack of moral value or preference in society. Part of the problem is that those values are not made explicit often enough. We have talked much about dignity today. That word is often used, but rarely explored. I question and doubt the point made by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about older people being treated differently in other countries. If that is the case, it is incumbent upon us as politicians to make our values absolutely clear. In many ways, the national health service is, for Britain, an expression of our moral choices and preferences. Whether or not we talk about the NHS in those terms, that is what it is.
Let us begin by asking what we mean by “dignity.” It means inherently respecting the other person because of their humanity. In practice, that means demonstrating they are listened to, cared for and thought of, no matter who they are or what their personal circumstances are. Let me quote from the CQC report to give an example of what I mean and why it is so important that we make that absolutely explicit. In the report’s overview by Dame Jo Williams, she mentioned that they found cases where they believed that staff stripped patients of their dignity. She says:
“People were spoken over, and not spoken to…left without call bells, ignored for hours on end, or not given assistance to do the basics of life.”
When we talk about dignity, that is what we really mean. I find it hard to believe that we live in a Britain where most people would walk past, look the other way or not consider the needs of somebody who is extremely vulnerable and stripped of the basic necessities of life. The vast majority of people in our country would consider that situation to be utterly intolerable.
The question is: what is going on in the health service that leads us to see cases in our surgeries and examples among our families where people are bereft of their dignity? Given that we set such high moral value by the appropriate respect given to people because of their inherent dignity, what is going on in the health service that allows such a situation to occur? I accept other hon. Members’ points about the level of frequency and the commitment of staff by and large, and I was also most taken by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is no longer in her place, about the best practice demonstrated to her. Given that we know what the right answer is, we need to consider what happens when there is a failure.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady, who spoke so well and so bravely earlier, for her intervention. I will come on to describe the differences within hospitals—a point at the heart of the debate.
Last year, the Wirral University Teaching Hospital Trust experienced some of the worst staff survey results in England. They were awful. The percentage of people who would recommend our local hospital to a member of their family was disturbingly low. I know I speak for other hon. Members in the area when I say that we are extremely concerned about this. The trust has a plan of action to try and put this right and there are many examples of the best quality of care being given to my constituents. However, some wards have been very poor. What we have observed locally relates exactly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Some wards are very good and some are extremely poor, and the CQC report also found that. Some of the places of most concern also had very good practice, so this is a problem.
We ought to ask the following questions about staff in the NHS, and I think that they should ask the same questions of themselves. The first question relates to the point that I started with: do they have the right values? Do they make the right moral choices? Do they have the right preferences? By and large, I think our answer would be yes. I do not believe that people in this country somehow just do not care—I think that that is wrong. The second question is: are NHS staff empowered to make choices in line with those values—the basic right to dignity and sense of humanity that we want them to? Are they empowered? Finally, in line with the points that have just been made, are they accountable if that does not happen? That is a crucial point.
The Front Line Care report is an important report written under the previous Government about the future of nursing. There is, perhaps, a missed opportunity. It covers, in detail, many of the questions that we have about nursing care. My mother was a nurse. Her line on nursing is that a nurse’s job is whatever the patient needs. That coheres entirely with both the Front Line Care report and the CQC report, which points out the problem alluded to by other hon. Members. Dame Jo Williams states that care seems to be:
“focusing on the unit of work, rather than the person who needs to be looked after.”
We need staff who are empowered to provide person-led care that looks at the needs of each person, and delivers for them what they need in the health service.
There is, of course, the question of targets. The Government have moved towards dropping some of the waiting list targets that were in place under the previous Government. Is this the kind of thing we can have targets for? I am not sure. However, I know that we know good quality when we see it. If the model of staffing for the dignified and respectful care of people is right, then that will drive up the quality of experience they receive. Leaving aside whether we have targets, quality of experience can definitely be monitored. There are some difficulties relating to monitoring older people, not least people who die in hospital. It can be very difficult to ask for feedback about the death of a loved one, but we need to find a way of asking. A good death is at the heart of what it means to be a dignified person. I encourage all hospitals to think carefully about how they ask for feedback from the relatives of a patient who has died. Even in the case of an older person with dementia, how do we get feedback on how the NHS has treated them?
As politicians, we need to back nursing staff and doctors. At the beginning of my speech, I tried to be very clear about the values that we espouse and I hope that they are shared across the Chamber. Those values give people absolute faith about what is expected. We can be clearer about the standards of care that we expect. I have concerns about systems, such as the red tray one, which rely on a tick-box culture, rather than saying, “Here is the standard that we expect people to live up to and it is your responsibility to do so”. How people in different wards meet those standards would be different, but they must meet them.
I would set the following test for the NHS. I believe in the NHS not merely through custom and practice, but as an article of my political faith. It is a fundamental expression of our values that everybody should be looked after if, through no fault of their own, they become unwell. Everybody should be taken care of. That means that if one person is not taken care of in the NHS—whether they are related to us, or nothing to do with us—in the way that we would expect for a member of our family, then that is not good enough. We should articulate that value. I hope—and know, in my case—that local leaders of hospitals share the belief that we should care for people in the NHS as though they were members of our family and give them the dignity to which they have an absolute moral right. We need to articulate those values and then make people empowered and accountable to living up to them in the NHS.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for securing it. I also want to thank all other hon. Members who have spoken and given passionate, heartfelt and thoughtful contributions.
Hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber have spoken with one voice. It is completely unacceptable for any older person to receive the appalling standard of care that we have read about in the CQC report and in the ombudsman’s report. We have seen that appalling standard of care in our own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has seen it in her own family. Although we may not have seen as poor a standard of care as she did, I am sure that many of us have been concerned about the care given to our own families. I would like to consider some potential causes of those poor standards of care, and talk about possible measures to tackle them and to ensure that every service matches the best standards.
It is important to look closely and carefully at this question and to avoid thinking that one issue, one group of staff or one set of problems is to blame. While there are some straightforward, practical steps that could be taken immediately, there will not be one simple quick fix that will solve the whole issue. There are deeper and more complex issues that are far harder to address. I will talk about five areas: staff levels and resources; staff training, which many hon. Members have spoken about; culture and leadership; the regulation of the NHS; and deeper issues that are very difficult to address.
Several hon. Members, particularly at the beginning of the debate, raised the issue of staffing levels and resources. If we talk to individual members of staff or organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, they say that the issue is of concern. Staff to patient ratios were referred to by the hon. Member for Stourbridge and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). Peter Carter, who runs the RCN, gave me a stark example. The figures are rough and not perfect, but he said that paediatric and children’s wards have one nurse for every four patients, while in the wards that specialise in care for older people the ratio is around one nurse for every 10 patients. Elderly, dependent patients have different needs from sick young children, but in many ways they are just as challenging, so we need to look at that, particularly because, with an ageing population and some of the problems in social care, more sick elderly patients are ending up in hospitals, many with not only dementia but two or three other health problems. That co-morbidity issue will be important as we see hospitals with big financial challenges, which we will over the next couple of years.
On staff training, we often hear commentators or senior people in the NHS, frequently medics, who question whether moving nursing towards being a degree profession has been an entirely good thing. It is vital to get the right balance between academic and practical elements in nurse training. Degree courses have been around for many years—40, I think. As many hon. Members have said, we see differences between and even within hospitals that are using nurses with the same qualifications, often from the same universities, and some have their problems and some do not. We need to look at the balance, but we should not think that that is the entire cause of the problem. A lot is down to the culture created in wards, which I will say more about in a moment.
Concerns have been expressed by many hon. Members today, the media and NHS staff about health care assistants. Health care assistants in wards provide more and more of the care, some of which is intimate, such as feeding older people or helping those with continence problems, but it is a positive development. As other hon. Members have said, our staff have the right values, and that is partly about the training they get. I think the hon. Member for Stourbridge said that health care assistants do not get any training and are not regulated, but they do, or should, get training from their employer, the trusts. Such training can be patchy, and we need to look at that.
In 2003, I called for the regulation of health care assistants—as many people did, way before me—in a project I did called “The Future Healthcare Worker.” If nurses are to take on some of the more clinical roles, and health care assistants more care, we need to look at that issue. I had hoped for more progress on that under the previous Government. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the current Government’s views on regulation. There are all sorts of issues around time and cost—for employers and individual staff—but it is something we need to look at.
Culture and leadership are woolly words, but in practice we know when we see good culture and good leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made this point. What is it on the ward that matters above all? Yes, it is about how long it takes to be treated, whether operations are a success or whether medicine is taken on time, but it is also, crucially, about the experience of the patient, whether they and their families feel that they have been given enough information and the time to think about it. When the information is given can be important. We have all been in situations where the doctor has said something quite shocking and we were not prepared for it. What matters is the simple things such as whether the patients are covered up when they go to the toilet and cleaned effectively afterwards.
There are places where the patient’s experience is at the top of the agenda, not only of the individual ward but of the hospital as a whole. Simple and straightforward surveys, developed by organisations such as the Picker Institute, can help individual organisations and services to get that across.
Another thing about culture is a bit more tricky and concerns how we build a team and being open to questioning. In a team, staff should value each other’s different experiences. That might not be the case with some of the old-fashioned hierarchies in a hospital—doctor, nurse, care assistant—where they do not dare question one another. Teams need to value each other’s skills and experiences but also be open to questioning.
Alison McGovern
One of the best examples of quality of care that I have seen recently was in one of my local hospitals, when I was shown around a ward in part by the cleaner, because she was deemed to be so important to the good functioning of that ward.
Liz Kendall
That is absolutely right. It is not that everyone has the same skills and experience, but that all those different skills and experience are important. In a proper culture of learning, mistakes can be admitted, because we all want to learn from them to ensure that they do not happen again. We need to see not only the different health professionals as part of the team, but users and families too. Peter Carter of the RCN raised the issue of families being involved, and it was sad that all over the papers he was reported as saying, “Come in and care—it is up to you to care for members of your own family.” What we need, though, is for families to be part of the process, particularly if their relatives are elderly patients suffering from dementia. Family members know them best. We might not be able to hear what they are saying but their family will know how they react, and whether they like or dislike something.
Such a culture and such leadership need to be in evidence not only on the ward, but on the board—a point made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge. As the boss, the board should want to know what is happening on the ward and its members should be getting the surveys and patient feedback. As with Members of Parliament, hopefully, what they will most want to know is what individual constituents think of them. Accountability is vital, from the top down. Also, in particular for old people who might not have family members nearby, the idea of volunteers who can be advocates and part of the process is important.
On regulation and the Care Quality Commission, I am concerned about the issue. More could be done immediately. The CQC has an important role to play, but I want to be clear that responsibility for the quality of services lies with the providers and not with the regulator. However, people want to have confidence that, if the CQC says that somewhere is okay, it is okay and, if it is not okay, that the CQC will go back and ensure that it is sorted out. I am concerned that, almost six months after the initial inspections, the CQC has not been back to a third of the hospitals it said in its report were failing to respect and involve older people, and it has not been back to two thirds of the hospitals that were failing to meet nutritional needs. I have written to the CQC, which has not written back, but it said on the phone that it had received written reassurances. That is not good enough. It should be going back to those hospitals. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether he could take action to ensure that we know which hospitals have not had a follow-up and what the timetable for action is.
There are clear national guidelines for people who work for public bodies such as the council or the NHS. There are guidelines on raising the alert and referring a person immediately—within one day—if it is thought that they are vulnerable or at risk of neglect or abuse. I have asked the CQC whether it referred people, or whether it required the hospitals to do that. If someone has seen children at risk of neglect or abuse, action would need to be taken or they could face the legal consequences. I am concerned about that matter.
I have spoken longer than I intended. I want to finish by addressing what I call “deeper issues”: our model of health care, the nature of medicine and the way we as a society treat older people. When our NHS was established, our population had very different health problems. People needed episodes of care for acute conditions that could be treated and increasingly cured. Our health services were based on the model of individual district general hospitals. However, we have health problems now that are related to people living longer with long-term and chronic conditions. Improving health is no longer solely about needing episodes of acute care that seek to cure people. It is about increasingly helping people to manage their long-term health problem, and, when they are very old or suffering from dementia, helping them to live to the end of their days as comfortably as possible.
Our model of health care has not kept pace with changing needs. One third of hospital admissions are for people over 65, but, because on average they stay in hospital twice as long, two thirds of hospital beds have an older person in them. Hospitals are not the place to care for older people, but hospitals are where we care for them. We must change that situation, which means shifting services out of hospitals and into the community. We need to focus more on prevention and joining up with social care.
There is a big challenge for medicine. We have talked a lot about nurses, but not about doctors’ mentality. They are trained to cure. There is a big challenge for doctors as well as nurses as our health needs change. In too many places, doctors are still at the top of the hierarchy. They are the ones who help to determine the shape of care. It is important to look at their changing role, too.
I want to talk about how we as a society treat older people. I hope we will have a proper debate about that one day. I want to say two things. First—I think other hon. Members have mentioned this—we are not used to seeing people get so old. It is quite a recent thing to see people living for such a long time, often in pain, and it is very painful for families, particularly if they see people whom they love suffering with dementia. Society shuts older people away too often. We say, “You’re just getting old” or we prefer that they are not seen and not heard. In other countries, it is not like that. Older people feel more part of the community and they are perhaps more visible than in this country. I can give a simple example. Care homes in Spain do not have opening hours—they are simply open—and people see them as part of the community.
The issue is about how our services cope with an ageing population and how we treat older people. If someone is very old and slowly dying, including from something such as dementia, which is awful to see, we need to find a new way to deal with that.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for securing it. We have heard personal testimonies and powerful speeches today. There have been thoughtful contributions and I want to make sure that the debate is seen by colleagues at the CQC. The relevant national clinical directors, the chief nursing officer and the chief executive of the NHS ought to read the report of the debate because it encapsulates in a very powerful way the challenges, as well as the opportunities to move on and make a difference for the people we are here to serve.
I want to address the problem and then describe some of the things that are happening and discuss what more needs to happen. Whether in the NHS or in our wider care and support system, poor quality care can never be acceptable and should find no hiding-place in our country. Many hon. Members have rightly expressed their serious concerns that such shocking and neglectful care can be—or appear to be—tolerated within our NHS, and that kindness and compassion can go missing on some wards. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) described her journey and the way the system almost seems to have imprisoned people with good intentions and disempowered them. The point about empowering staff to live their values in their practice is an incredibly important one.
I will not speak to the social care piece of the debate in great detail today. The Backbench Business Committee has scheduled a debate on social care on 10 November, and I look forward to that broader debate. I will talk about the problem that we have been wrestling with today. Sadly, it is not a new issue. The ombudsman report, “Care and Compassion”, is just one in a long line. Evidence of poor or variable care for older people can be found in major clinical audits on continence care or falls and bone health undertaken by the Royal College of Physicians; in the work of NCEPOD—the national confidential enquiry into patient outcome and death—and its inquiry into pre-operative care for the over-80s, chillingly titled “an age old problem”; in the findings from the national hip fracture database; in the parliamentary inquiry into the human rights of older people in health and social care; in the many reports by charities such as Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society on acute care and nutrition; or in the Mid Staffs inquiry. Taken together, those reports, audits and inquiries, which go back years not months, paint a disturbing picture that quite rightly has been rehearsed here today. They demand action.
Some people try to reduce the issues to problems that need simplistic solutions, of which there are none. Some people see the issue as an opportunity to make criticisms of modern nursing or the role of health care assistants, which misses the point of so many of the reports I just listed. Such issues do not have a single cause, so there cannot be a single magic bullet solution. However, I am clear that we have to move on from merely describing the problem. There is an almost constant cycle of revisiting the problem, but never actually solving it. We need to identify steps to solve it.
I shall outline some of the steps the Government are taking in concert with others—it cannot just be governmental action—to stamp out poor care and to embed a culture of quality care, and zero tolerance of behaviours and systems that do not facilitate that care. I cannot cover all the actions that are taking place; only some. The level of non-compliance uncovered by the CQC inspections in 100 hospitals was inexcusable; in my view, there are no mitigating circumstances that can relieve medical staff of the duty they owe their patients. I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who said that follow-ups by the CQC need to be rapid and proportionate. Matters cannot be left unanswered. Once concerns have been identified, they need to be properly followed up to ensure they are addressed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the James Paget hospital. I shall not usurp the role of the CQC, but its report has made it clear that the trust could face prosecution or suspension of services for the failures that have been identified. We must now await the next report, and expect speedy and timely action from the CQC as it discharges its responsibilities.
As part of the next wave of inspections announced yesterday by the Secretary of State, the CQC will carry out inspections not only on a nine-to-five, Monday to Friday basis, but outside normal hours so that we get the fullest possible picture. That is essential and it is right for that point to be raised. The CQC will undertake 500 inspections, also outside normal hours, to look at residential care for elderly people. It will look at the care and welfare of service users and their nutritional needs, which will shine an important light on issues of dignity and care in the sector. The CQC will not only highlight care homes that are not performing well; it will put those that are as they should be into the spotlight to take the applause they deserve when they get it right.
Let me put the debate into context. There is nothing inevitable about illness and disability in old age. Dementia or falling over are not normal parts of ageing; illness and ageing are not synonymous, and we must get that point across when designing our systems. That does not mean that an ageing population poses no challenges to our health care system because it does, but it is also a cause for celebration. The age shift taking place in our society is one of the biggest challenges we face, and it is right that Parliament should spend more time debating it.
Caring for older people is the everyday business of the NHS and a core part of what it does. People over 65 account for 65% of hospital admissions and 70% of bed days. We must, therefore, look carefully, critically and constructively at how the model of care needs to adapt to address those needs. We have an episodic model but we need one that reflects co-morbidities, complexity and long-term conditions. That is the challenge, and it requires the debate that we shall have on social care, which is the other side of the same coin.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred to dementia. We estimate that a quarter of people in every adult acute hospital suffer from dementia or confusion that is often undiagnosed and too often ignored. That failure to diagnose can add days to the length of a person’s stay in hospital, and create additional distress for the patient and their family. The hon. Member for Waveney spoke of a sense of déjà-vu, which I feel that I have shared for many years. In opposition, I repeatedly raised the issues under discussion and argued that at their root lie ageist assumptions and practices. Time and time again, I pressed for a systematic approach to ageism in the NHS, and for the law to state beyond doubt that ageism is unacceptable; one of my first acts as a Minister was to rule out any exemptions from the age discrimination duty for the NHS. In future, the arbitrary use of age cannot be used in the NHS as a means of limiting the care and treatment that older people receive.
The introduction of the equality delivery system across the NHS, involving leadership at all levels, means that for the first time a mechanism is in place to challenge and change the culture and behaviours that allow ageism to prosper. I greatly welcome the initiative led by the NHS Confederation, the Local Government Association and Age UK to look at issues of dignity, and the Department is working closely with them on that. We expect, however, that the work will look beyond analysing problems; we have done too much of that and there are too many reports sitting on shelves. The problem has been analysed but we now need practical steps to deliver change.
A debate such as this must go beyond discussing the problems; we must highlight the stories that are told less often. In many places, care is exceptional and excellent, and 45 of the hospitals inspected were fully compliant with the essential standards. Many NHS trusts take care seriously and want to get it right for older people. At University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, for example, the Southampton meal-time assistance study is evaluating the effectiveness of additional help from volunteers at meal times on acute medical wards for older people. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust is implementing a systematic trust-wide approach to improve dignity, which includes using the stories of carers and patients—the story related by the hon. Member for Bolton West would be relevant—in its clinical governance arrangements and regular dignity rounds. The Department has funded work by the Royal College of Nursing on improving dementia care in general hospitals. That initiative was launched in September, and the RCN spelt out its commitment to the care of people with dementia and noted the critical factors essential to delivering good quality care.
There is, therefore, no shortage of tools, guidance, ideas or initiatives that can be taken to tackle these issues. If we get safe and dignified care right for older people, we will get it right for the majority of those who use our health service. It is not always about money but about attitude, approach and doing things differently. Often, it can be something simple such as putting ourselves in the patient’s position and looking at the service through their eyes. At Sheffield’s Northern General hospital, for example, patients and carers were concerned because they could not tell the difference between different types of staff on the ward, so staff put up colourful and simple posters around the hospital that identified them by the colour of their clothing. That suddenly lifted a barrier to patients’ understanding of what was going on around them, and made a real difference.
Several hon. Members have mentioned staffing levels, which is an important matter. The CQC expects registered organisations to ensure that they have enough skilled and trained staff to deliver the care expected of them, and failure to comply carries all the relevant enforcement powers and consequences. The RCN has published guidance on staffing ratios, and we expect that to be consulted and used by nurse leaders, who should have the freedom to agree staff profiles for their organisations. We all recognise, however, that it is not an exact science, which returns us to the quality of leadership and culture, which many hon. Members mentioned.
The role of nurses and health care assistants has been mentioned by several hon. Members. At the heart of good nursing lie values of compassion, respect for the rights of the individual, empathy and kindness. The principles of nursing practice are clear and the Government believe that nurses must be recruited for their values, trained for their skills and empowered to practise their values in their work. That means that universities and NHS organisations must work together on the selection of students to ensure that requirements for education and practice are met, not least because the pace of technological and pharmacological change demands higher levels of knowledge and skills to deliver high-quality patient care. Having a degree-educated work force does not mean placing technical competence ahead of values; that is a key point in ensuring that caring does not turn into the specialist service that some hon. Members fear it is becoming.
Caring demands high standards, leadership, and a readiness to challenge poor practice and demonstrate good practice. I will follow up the suggestion about meeting the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and I will ask my officials to discuss the matter with the Minister responsible for nursing, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who I know takes a close interest in such issues.
The role of health care assistants has been raised, and it is worth noting that the Government have put into legislation for the first time the power to regulate health care assistants. We are breaking new ground, although I am sure some will feel that we are not doing so quickly enough. We are taking a measured approach, however, by legislating for the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence to establish a voluntary registration scheme that will set a benchmark for training, conduct and competence. However, it is our view that it is right to place responsibility fully and squarely on employers to decide whether to select staff on the basis of their registration. They must ensure that staff have received the necessary training for the role that they are undertaking.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made a very important point, which I encapsulate in this way. We have an NHS that all too often can be described in industrial process terms. We need an NHS that is all about personalisation and that is personalised to the individual. That is an important part of the transformation that we need.
Leadership has rightly been talked about a lot in the debate. It is critical. Directors of nursing, medical directors and other health professionals must deal with the issues raised in the CQC report. Just as the CQC has turned a spotlight on dignity and nutrition, so too must every NHS trust look at the report and take a long hard look at itself and the stories that this debate has highlighted. Too often after things have gone wrong, we learn time and time again—sadly, the debate has underlined that point—about the staff who tried to alert senior clinical colleagues or managers only to be ignored or, even worse, victimised, or about the patients and families who have been on the sharp end of appalling care and who are marginalised, with their experience not being used to challenge and change poor practice.
We all have such cases in our mailbags. We have all had constituents in our surgeries who feel let down because they have not been listened to and who do not feel that there has been any learning as a consequence of their experience. There can be no place in the NHS where staff feel unable to speak up when patients are being put at risk, and no place in the NHS where the voice of patients and carers is not heard loud and clear.
When the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) talked about complaints handling, she made very important points. Getting redress or an apology should not be a battle. People should not have to feel that the lessons are not being learned. It must be staff on the front line who work on the wards every day and see poor care—patients not being fed properly, privacy neglected, poor continence care or, as the hon. Lady said, pain relief overlooked—who change things for the better. That is why we are placing all providers under a duty of candour and why we are strengthening the NHS constitution to put beyond doubt the duty on managers to support staff who raise concerns about the quality of care. That point was touched on in the debate. We need to send a clear message that managers must support staff who raise concerns about the quality of care. It is also why we are establishing HealthWatch England and local HealthWatch to champion the interests of patients and carers.
There can be and should be no hiding place for poor care. The CQC inspections that the Government ordered are part of the work to take that agenda forward, but are by no means all of it. There is no magic bullet solution to this problem. We need a wide range of things: an effective inspection and regulation regime, which measures what matters to patients and carers and then takes action; guidance on what good practice looks like—for instance, the range of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality standards and guidelines on older people’s care; and the systematic involvement of older people and carers in the design of services from the outset.
We need greater transparency on complaints. We must ensure that we get it right the first time and that we value complaints as a way of learning and changing the way organisations and leaders in organisations behave. Feedback is needed to improve services. People must seek continuously to improve services. Another element is use of the law. We sometimes debate human rights in a very negative way. In this area, human rights are central, and we must deliver them for older people. We must use our equalities duty legislation as well.
Another requirement is effective advocacy and leadership from professions at every level—at ward level, at institution level and at the level of the Royal Colleges and specialist societies. We need a work force supported with the training and skills to make them fit to care for an ageing population. That is a new challenge, and we need to adapt to meet it. Other requirements are advocacy and support from the voluntary sector and—notwithstanding some of our debates about system change—system incentives, such as outcome indicators and best practice tariffs to drive the right behaviours. We need much more transparency around performance data, such as those provided by CQC inspections, audits and satisfaction surveys. We need a greater focus on integration—many hon. Members touched on this—so that older people are in hospital only when they need to be. Hospital is not the right place for most older people in most circumstances.
This is about culture and systems. The Government recognise that. We know that we cannot do it on our own. We are working with others to make the changes that are needed. Yes, there has to be action now. The Government are taking immediate action by casting the spotlight where it needs to be. We must then sustain the action to get the transformation that is essential to delivering quality of care and the dignity and rights of older people in the NHS and anywhere else they need care.
Margot James
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. We have had an extremely illuminating and, at times, distressing debate. I am very grateful to all hon. Members who took part, including those who have had to leave, for bringing so many aspects of this difficult problem into the open and for making so many constructive suggestions about how we might improve things. I should like to set out a few of the lessons that I have learned from hon. Members during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) set an example of the importance of the job that we sometimes have of challenging the institutions on which so many of our constituents depend. I wish her and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) every success in dealing with the hospital on their patch and working with the CQC to bring about a quicker resolution to the problems that they encounter there.
I found noteworthy the issues facing rural areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal referred, because I represent a suburban area. It is interesting to note that ambulance response times can be so long in rural communities. It is very important that the NHS is able to be flexible enough to cope with all the communities in our country.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) gave us the benefit of his experience as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I was pleased that he focused so much on the residential home sector, which is so relevant to the lives of many older people and about which a similar level of concern has been expressed in many reports. I was horrified, although slightly amused, I suppose, by the tambourine example. It was so powerful and so wrong. It will stay with me as a reminder of the many challenges that we have ahead in dealing with this issue.
I mentioned the issue with the James Paget hospital that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is dealing with. He raises the question that many Governments have grappled with—how to get resourcing out of the acute sector and into the community, the area of prevention and helping people with long-term medical conditions. That is very important. I wish the present Government well in seeing whether they can crack that pressing problem, which has been with us for least two decades, to my recollection. My hon. Friend also mentioned what I think is a very good idea—mandatory malnutrition rates and finding out what can be done to ensure that we target that area of deficiency in the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who has secured a Back-Bench debate on the Dilnot report to be held two weeks today, which I am sure as many Members as possible will attend, focused on the complaints process, which I touched on briefly. It is important that the Government learn from the ombudsman’s report, “Listening and Learning”, and implement improvements.
My hon. Friend also mentioned something I have come across in my work with older people in the NHS—language skills. It is completely unacceptable if any carer—any caring member of staff—cannot communicate competently in English with older people, and we should tackle that. She also touched on the rural dimension and on the fact, which was terrible to hear, that her constituents have only one hospital, which inevitably makes people frightened to complain; there is no other choice.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) talked movingly about dignity and about older people in society, on which I hope we will hold a debate at some point. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), whom I congratulate on her new role as shadow Minister, said that the topic could be a debate in its own right, and I am sure that a Member will secure one at some point. I share her belief in the importance of values: most people who work in the NHS have the values that we expect, and as she said, they have to be empowered to make choices and decisions that reflect those values.
The hon. Lady talked about many important areas and enlightened us about the Royal College of Nursing’s staff-to-patient ratios. It is quite wrong that the accepted ratio in a ward with a considerable number of older people is 1:10, whereas a paediatric ward is quite rightly staffed at a ratio of 1:4. The Government should also consider what can be done about concerns regarding the skill mix and the management of resources.
The hon. Lady made some interesting observations about the history of the NHS—how it began in response to cures and to treating people with illnesses that were likely to get better, and how it has not quite kept pace with the number of people who grow to an old age, some of whom need help with care and, perhaps, dying with dignity.
The hon. Lady made a point, on which neither I nor any other Member had focused, about doctors, who provide a huge amount of care in hospitals.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) commanded our attention with the moving story of the dreadful time that she and her family had experienced with her mother. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we wish her mother a continued recovery. It was impossible to determine how the story would end when the hon. Lady was speaking, but it is marvellous that after all the family has been through her mother is on the mend, and we hope that she will recover as much of her former joy of life as possible.
I am grateful for and most encouraged by the Minister’s reply to the debate. He reminded us of the Government’s recent decision to ensure that ageism is not tolerated in the NHS or the Department of Health, which is a good development. He cited many examples of good work and guidance, of which he said there was no shortage, of leadership and management and of spreading good work and guidance into more areas of the delivery of NHS care. I am particularly delighted that he has promised to discuss with the nursing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), my proposals on nurse training, and how an apprenticeship model should increasingly underpin the degrees nurses take to qualify.
I hope I have covered the important issues that Members have raised today. I thank those who supported my bid for a debate to the Backbench Business Committee and all those who attended this afternoon and made such an important contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
Apprenticeships (Progress and Delivery)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
As demonstrated by the statistical first release published today (http://www. thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/statisticalfirstrelease/sfr _current/) we have seen a record year for apprenticeships, both in respect of the volumes of people starting and completing their apprenticeship. Provisional data for the full 2010-11 academic year show starts increased by over 50% to 442,700 with increases at all levels. Completions also saw a strong increase to 181,700.
We have delivered increases in apprenticeship starts at all age groups. Provisional data show that numbers of apprenticeship starts increased to 128,300 for those aged under 19, 138,900 for 19 to 24-year-olds and 175,500 for those aged 25 and over in 2010-11. For young people in particular, these are positive figures in a time when they are facing particular challenges in the labour market. This is very encouraging and employers are continuing to use apprenticeships as a means of developing the skills they need for their businesses.
Apprenticeships are first and foremost sustainable jobs, which makes it a remarkable achievement to deliver growth in the programme on such a scale. We can be confident that the growth being reported today is in those apprenticeships which businesses value and are investing in. Growth is evident across sectors.
We will build upon this success and continue to improve and strengthen the programme further so even more individuals and employers can access and benefit from an apprenticeship programme that is world class. As we look to the future we will continue to improve access to apprenticeships; improve and drive up quality for all apprenticeships; reduce bureaucracy; expand advanced level and higher apprenticeships and give employers greater ownership of the programme.
Extraordinary ECOFIN
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
An extraordinary meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 22 October 2011.
The Council met to prepare the European Council meeting of 23 October as regards measures to stabilise the situation on financial markets, restore confidence, and foster economic growth and employment. It held an exchange of views on bank recapitalisation and funding as part of a comprehensive strategy to be defined by the European Council and by Heads of State and Government of the euro area.
I emphasised the importance of a decisive co-ordinated recapitalisation as part of a comprehensive solution to the euro crisis, and that this should be accompanied by reform of Europe’s banking sector. I also underlined that there should be no watering down of state aid rules.
The president of the Council presented the outcome of the meeting to the European Council, and it was reflected in the European Council conclusions as follows:
“The European Council welcomes progress made by the Council (ECOFIN) on measures for the banking sector and invites the Council to finalise this work at its meeting of 26 October. These measures will be an essential component of a broader package whose other elements will be agreed by the Euro Summit of 26 October.”
British Nuclear Test Veterans
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government are committed to providing effective, through-life health services for our service and ex-service personnel.
As part of that commitment, last year we commissioned an independent health needs audit by Miles and Green Associates. I am announcing today the publication of their report. I would also like to express my appreciation for the help and support provided to Miles and Green Associates by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA).
The audit records the direct experience and views of nuclear test veterans about their health and social care needs. Whatever their particular health needs, most respondents indicated that, in general, they felt their health and social care needs were being met by the NHS although a number of issues were raised about access to social care. The veterans also made suggestions for the future relating to general health and social care needs, those more specific to veterans and ways in which relations and communications with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) could be improved.
The MOD will now consider the report’s findings and suggestions made by the veterans in detail and in consultation with other Government Departments and will wish to work with the BNTVA going forward on looking at the various issues raised.
A copy of the full report will be placed in the Library of the House and will also be available on the MOD’s website at the following address:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/HealthandSafety/NuclearTests/
Submarine Dismantling Project
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The Ministry of Defence will tomorrow— 28 October 2011—start a period of public consultation on the options for dismantling nuclear-powered submarines that have left service with the Royal Navy, including those that are in afloat storage at Devonport and Rosyth dockyards.
Submarines in afloat storage are maintained safely, in a similar way to operational submarines. As they age, however, and as further submarines leave service, the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining them is rising significantly, and space to store them is running out.
This consultation will seek the public’s views on the proposals that have been developed by the MOD’s Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) for dismantling and disposing of the submarines in a safe, secure and environmentally responsible way. It will seek views on the three key decisions that need to be made about submarine dismantling:
How the radioactive material is removed from the submarines;
Where we carry out the removal of the radioactive material from the submarines; and
Which type of site is used to store the radioactive waste that is awaiting disposal.
The consultation will run for 16 weeks, from 28 October 2011 until 17 February 2012. This period has been extended from the 12-week minimum to account for the Christmas holidays and in recognition of the interest in the project.
A series of events, including exhibitions and workshops, will be held in and around the Devonport and Rosyth areas, where the candidate sites for the removal of the radioactive waste from the submarines are located. National workshops will also be held in accessible locations in England and Scotland.
Consultation events will be advertised in the local press and on the project website, www.mod.uk/submarinedismantling, where all relevant documentation, including extensive supporting information, will also be published. All the responses received during the consultation process will be considered by the MOD during its further analysis of the options before final decisions are made around 2013. Only then will planning applications for activities on specific sites be made.
Details of the MOD’s proposals and of the plans for public consultation are included in the SDP consultation document, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
Parliamentary Question (Correction)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I should like to correct my response to a topical question on the application of the Freedom of Information Act to the new waterways charity (the Canal and River Trust) by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on 13 October, Official Report, column 471.
The Government are publicly consulting on the point raised by the hon. Member, and have not yet taken up a position on the matter. The consultation closed on 24 October, and we are now considering the consultation responses, prior to making a decision. A copy of the consultation document can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2011/09/12/waterways-1109/.
The Government will publish their analysis of the responses and their own response later in the autumn.
Ascension Island
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and I are pleased to inform the House that the financial dispute between the Ministry of Defence and the Ascension Island Government has been resolved and that we have agreed with the Ascension Island Council a number of changes to the island’s finance model which will help to ensure a sustainable future for Ascension.
Earlier this year, we commissioned a review of service delivery and finance arrangements on the island. That review was carried out by FCO officials working closely with all stakeholders. The three key recommendations of the review which we have agreed, and to which all stakeholders have committed, are:
The establishment of a Budget Consultation Forum to make recommendations on the Ascension Island Government’s budget. The forum will comprise representatives of the Ascension Island Government and the major, externally based taxpaying Employing Organisations on the island;
The replacement of Property Tax with a Business Levy based on employee headcount; and
A year-on-year reduction of 7% over the next four years in the levy on the major Employing Organisations.
We recognise the role played by the Island Council in this process, who have already begun a programme of significant efficiency savings. They will now consider the remainder of the recommendations in the report which concern the increase or implementation of taxes and duties and other means of raising revenue, and continue to reduce duplication of services on the island.
We welcome this approach which we believe will ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery and the viability of Ascension Island’s finances.
Prevention of Torture 2011-2015 (FCO Strategy)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
I wish to make the House aware that the FCO has developed a Strategy for the Prevention of Torture. I have placed a copy of the strategy in the Library of the House and it is also available on the FCO website.
International action against torture has long been a priority for the UK. The UK considers torture to be an abhorrent violation of human rights and human dignity, and consistently and unreservedly condemns the practice. Preventing torture and tackling impunity for those who torture are essential components of safeguarding Britain’s security; and it is integral to fair legal systems and the rule of law. Torture prevention work also reinforces our consular work overseas when British nationals imprisoned abroad allege mistreatment.
The “Strategy for the Prevention of Torture” sets out FCO policy to 2015 and offers guidance to FCO posts on how they can contribute to preventing torture overseas. Our objective is to help international efforts to prevent torture globally by working to ensure:
Legal frameworks to prevent and prohibit torture are in place and are enforced;
States have the political will and capacity to prevent and prohibit torture;
Organisations on the ground have the expertise and training to prevent torture.
HIV/AIDS
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
We have today laid before Parliament the Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee’s report “No vaccine, no cure: HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom” (Cm 8190).
The Department of Health took part in the inquiry and the Government are grateful for the Committee’s report and agree with many of its recommendations.
Twenty-five years have passed since the Government’s first response to HIV and AIDS. At that time there was no effective treatment and an HIV diagnosis was seen as a life-limiting condition resulting in death. Today the availability of highly effective treatment has transformed the outlook for people with HIV.
As the report makes clear, we need to reduce undiagnosed HIV so people can benefit from effective treatment and to prevent HIV transmission. The Government’s modernisation of the NHS and priority for public health provides a good opportunity to improve outcomes for HIV and improve prevention.
The House of Lords ad hoc Committee’s report will also help inform the Department of Health’s new sexual health policy framework planned for 2012.
Copies of the Government’s response are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Rail Franchising
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
In May this year, the then Secretary of State announced that the next intercity west coast franchise would start on 9 December 2012. It was further announced that the Department intended to enter into negotiations with the incumbent franchisee (West Coast Trains Ltd and Virgin Rail Group) to secure affordable and value-for-money operations until the start of the new franchise.
I am pleased to announce that the Department has now agreed an extension with West Coast Trains Ltd and Virgin Rail Group. This agreement will extend their current franchise on the intercity west coast route from 1 April 2012 until the start of the new franchise.
Over the course of the extension three new 600-seat Pendolino trains will be added to the line. This is in addition to the new Pendolino train which entered service in July of this year. Also, 31 of the existing Pendolino trains will be lengthened from nine to 11 carriages, increasing the number of standard class seats on each train by almost 50%, from 320 to 470. In all, 106 new carriages are being introduced on the route making 28,000 extra seats available each day, an increase of 25%. This will relieve crowding on some of the busiest parts of the west coast main line which is one the UK economy’s most important transport corridors.
Virgin will also be responsible for providing important services enabling people to travel by train to the Olympic and Paralympic games next summer.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the Draft National Planning Policy Framework be considered, I remind noble Lords that the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider, rather than approve, the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.
Draft National Planning Policy Framework
(Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Government’s intention to hold a debate on the National Planning Policy Framework, consultation about which has just closed, was rather pre-empted by the Opposition in calling one last week. We have also had detailed discussions during the course of the Localism Bill, so we have had many bites at this particular cherry. However, I do not think that that is a bad thing. The views of noble Lords are always worth having and planning is of fundamental importance to our society. It is the bedrock of our country. It affects our environment and heritage. It affects where we live and where business is sited. It protects our countryside, heritage, green and open spaces and our environment in general. It helps to stimulate and grow our economy and provide employment opportunities for local people. In order to thrive as a society and as a nation, we need a planning system that works.
Through the development of the new National Planning Policy Framework, and the Localism Bill, which this House has spent a good amount of time debating, significant changes are being made to the planning system. In particular, local people will be given a greater involvement in the decisions about the shape of their area. We are also changing our approach to national planning policy. Over time, the volume of statements and guidance have burgeoned exponentially, becoming ever more wordy, complex and opaque. This Government inherited a set of national planning policies that run to more than 1,000 pages. Not even the most committed members of local communities can hope to navigate policies of that length and complexity without expert help. As a consequence, a great deal of power and decision-making rests in the hands of experts and too little in the hands of those who are affected by planning decisions. We have a system that has become bureaucratic when it should be democratic. This is one of the reasons why the Government are determined to streamline and focus national policy.
In July, we published our proposals to streamline policy to just over 50 pages. Our aim was to express clearly and powerfully the principles that should help guide local authorities in planning for their local areas. We think that anyone who wants to read and understand policy should be able to do so, and that the system can and should be made clearer and more transparent. That is the thrust behind the National Planning Policy Framework and the withdrawal of the current mass of directions.
At the very heart of our reforms is the idea that planning must be positive. It would be an abdication of responsibility to the next generation if we continue to fail to provide new homes. Already, partly because of a lack of affordable property and for a number of other reasons, young people struggle to buy without help from their families, and four in five under-30s have no prospect of obtaining a mortgage to buy on their own. Not only do we need housing and new homes, we need to deliver the infrastructure to support them from high-quality public transport to energy, which is vital to helping us make the transition to a low-carbon economy.
To achieve these aspirations, planning must not simply be neutral and passive. It must help communities shape their future. It must seek out opportunities for responsible, sustainable growth. This idea is not new. It is planning at its best, exemplified by the post-war Government that rebuilt towns and industries devastated by war.
Contrary to the views of some, planning has never been either simple or uncontroversial. It has long been recognised that without control of development, the uses of land, whether economic, environmental or for the community, cannot be reconciled. The emphasis on sustainability of land use needs to be guided through agreed plans.
The interpretation of what we are now trying to achieve has unfortunately been wildly misinterpreted over the weeks of the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework. It is easy to exaggerate the depth of contention over this. As the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Howarth, eloquently made clear on 13 October, the rhetoric of opposition to our proposals has become somewhat overblown. None the less, it is abundantly clear that the Government and many of those opposing the draft framework share a great deal of common ground.
We agree that economic development should not be the be all and end all, as the Prime Minister said. We need a balanced system, bringing together economic, social and environmental objectives. We are clear that planning decisions must and will continue to take into account those three factors.
We agree, too, that communities should wield real power and that local plans, developed by authorities in close co-operation with local people, should have primacy. The abolition of regional spatial strategies and the streamlining of approvals for local development frameworks will help this.
We agree that we should prioritise building on previously developed land. No one, least of all this Government, wants to see houses built on beautiful open spaces when there are previously developed sites crying out to be brought back into use. In other words, many opponents of the draft framework want the same outcome as the Government: perhaps we differ only in how it is to be achieved.
Our current draft framework states that authorities should prioritise land of “least environmental value” for development. We chose “least environmental value” rather than “brownfield” because in many cases previously developed land has turned into places treasured by local communities as oases of green and quiet where wildlife and nature have taken over.
The evidence suggests that local authorities use that flexibility responsibly. Councils have a strong track record of choosing brownfield first. The current national policy sets an ambition for 60 per cent of new homes to be built on brownfield sites, but some councils are already building 80 per cent of their new homes on brownfield land. They understand the arguments and go well beyond what is specified nationally because it makes sense locally.
As part of the consultation on the draft framework, we heard a range of helpful comments from many organisations including housebuilders, regeneration groups, English Heritage, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and many more. They raised important points. Some want to look in more detail at the definition of “sustainable development” to ensure that it reflects current thinking. Others have questions about implementation: whether there should be transitional arrangements between the abolition of the regional spatial strategies and the completion of local plans.
Other respondents examined specific sections with a fine-toothed comb: for example, the proposals for Town Centre First, where we see strong support for the principle of ensuring that there continue to be busy, bustling, relevant high streets. In the consultation we asked whether the right balance had been struck. Now we can give this close consideration in the light of views from shopkeepers, residents and planners. In London, we have heard that we need to be clearer about how the framework relates to the mayor’s London Plan.
The consultation has just closed and the proper thing for us to do is listen and reflect. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot set out any conclusions today on the issues on which we have been consulting. Indeed, it would be improper for me to do so. We will read every single submission that has been made and we will test and retest our wording to make sure the impact of our proposals matches our intentions. We will carefully consider the views expressed in this House both during the Bill and in these two important debates. We have made a commitment to publish our response by the end of April; if we can do it earlier, we will do so.
We need to seize this moment to make sure that planning genuinely does its job: not to create bureaucracy, delay and frustration, but to shape places that people are happy to call home, where they want to work and raise their children; to create communities that are not just functional, but inspirational, and to protect the green spaces and our heritage that are an inalienable and invaluable part of our past and future. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s broad sweep, particularly for the ideas underpinning the document. In contrast, I have a short contribution in only two areas of this wide-ranging document, but they are areas which are often neglected. I sympathise with the Government in trying to streamline planning guidance, and in one of the two areas the result is very helpful. This is the section on design at paragraphs 114 to 123. I quote:
“Good design is indivisible from good planning’.
This strikes exactly the right note, as does the stipulation for,
“high quality and inclusive design”,
and the full coverage of what a good place is makes it clear that well-being, security and economic viability must all go hand in hand and come from design. The earlier provision for an independent examiner to assess neighbourhood plans is also very welcome.
The very uneven spread of good planning design in the UK points to some strengthening being necessary. If people are not to continue to be condemned to live in unsatisfactory and socially destructive surroundings, two elements, I suggest, must be dealt with. One is the overwhelming power of developers, who should be deterred from taking the easy way out and building on greenfield sites by a stronger presumption for using brownfield sites. The Minister is reassuring, but I fear the risk remains if there is not a stronger restraint.
The other matter, arguably more difficult, is to deal with the lack of capacity in planning authorities to make well informed and design-sensitive decisions. For this, more about design review is required. Local authorities should have to take account of review panel recommendations; it should be clear that the review panels are independent and cross-professional, and planned developments that do not meet local or national design standards should be turned down. Incidentally, there is an apparent inconsistency with the recommendation for local authorities to use design codes and the discouragement of additional plan documents in paragraph 21. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain this. Good design procedures are going to be very important for housing quality, and particularly important for affordable housing. How are the Government going to make sure that local authorities work out what skills they need and obtain them?
Finally, on design, I make a plea not to junk all previous separate planning guidance documents. Many—in fact, I think most—were the product of expertise as well as consensus and consistently enjoin up-to-date best practice. If they had an authoritative guidance status there would be more clarity for practitioners, especially those local people referred to by the noble Baroness, and not least of considerations, for courts, as my noble friend Lord Hart of Chilton said last week.
The second area I put to the Government is alas much less satisfactory. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I refer to policy for Gypsies and Travellers to have somewhere legal to live. This is of course conspicuous by its absence from the NPPF. The Government have decided to deal with it separately in consultation, but end up with a comprehensive document, which last is, of course, a good idea. But rather than incorporate the widely accepted Circular 01/06, they decided to repeal it and put out a replacement light-touch draft. This was incompatible with the NPPF —no presumption in favour of sustainable development there.
Following the issue of Circular 01/06 there had been a measurable increase in permitted sites, although there was still a large shortfall and local authorities were still slow to carry out their needs assessments. There were a few things in this circular which needed amendment, such as the definition of Gypsies and Travellers, which needs to follow that in the Housing Act 2004, so that nomadic culture is respected and they are not expected to put up with either bricks and mortar or nothing. CLG's replacement draft did not follow this principle and contains many other prejudicial provisions, which make it ever less likely that local authorities will see it as their duty and obligation to provide sites or allow private sites. There is not really time to go into the detail of the proposed provisions now, but their disadvantages have been widely signalled to the Secretary of State and their combined effect has caused consternation in the Gypsy and Traveller community.
If the Government are bent on making a solution ever more difficult for that small proportion of Gypsies and Travellers who have no legal site to live on in their traditional—and legitimate—way, where are they supposed to go? Are they supposed just to vaporise? When they are continually moved on, where are their children to go to school? Where are the expectant mothers—already with the highest rate of mortality in the UK—to get antenatal care? Where are their diabetic patients, their cancer patients or their elders to have the treatment they need? It is unconscionable to so massively deprive fellow citizens in comparison with what other homeless people can expect. Or are they not thought of as really fellow citizens?
Can the Minister tell me, please, what the Government are going to do to align planning policy for Gypsies and Travellers with the progressive ambit of the National Planning Policy Framework?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I predict that this debate will fail to satisfy many people. None of us will be able to say everything that we want to say, and those outside this House with an interest will be frustrated that we have not been able to. I think that the Minister must have the hardest time on this, having to button her lip—which she does most graciously— as she of course cannot pre-empt the Government’s response to the consultation. The comments on the document have shot planning into the headlines and across the airwaves. I have found this—and I know I share this with many noble Lords—very distressing. As someone who wants to see more housing, am I now on the “wrong” side? There should not be sides, because growth and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. What an interesting task the Government have set themselves. They have reduced 1,300 pages or so into around 50. I have been wondering whether it is a sensible task and am not convinced that it is. It is overambitious, perhaps; or naive maybe.
I welcome making planning rules accessible and demystifying them. I have never thought that we should approach any sort of rules as job creation for lawyers. They should be intelligible to people who read normal language. However, simplifying is not simple. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, drawing on his experience as a practitioner, made the point far better than I on 13 October. Is the document too short to be adequate? Not necessarily, but it probably is. I am not qualified to assess what policies from the current draft of statements cannot be—or have not been—fitted into 50-odd pages. I assume that the Government have analysed in detail what has been omitted. It does not seem to me that the impact assessment that has been published, which identifies 18 headline points, I think, can be complete. Of course, we do not know and we will not know what went between the CLG and the Treasury—or, more likely, in the opposite direction.
A lot of money is associated with planning. When I was a councillor in a London borough and chaired a planning committee, it felt a very unbalanced position: a developer with deep pockets against an overstretched local planning authority acting on behalf of its community. There will be minute examination of the new framework—already cited as emerging policy—compared to the previous statements. Will it be made unequivocally clear that the previous statements have been cancelled when the new framework takes effect? The Government are never overjoyed when courts intervene, as they see it, in policy, but I fear that we will have another episode of what may be regarded as judicial policy-making when they attempt to interpret the framework.
A good deal of the document is welcome—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned design—but there are a lot of gaps between the lines and, indeed, between policy areas. The style seems to me to be more narrative than policy. My noble friend Lord Greaves called it a narrative when he spoke on 13 October. Either that or it begs questions. When is a local plan not up to date? Noble Lords will recognise that question from paragraph 26. What is,
“viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable economic growth”?
Viable means capable of independent life. Are not those two phrases contradictory to one another? Viable infrastructure is not my understanding of the role of infrastructure.
What should we understand by the need to,
“attach very significant weight to the desirability of establishing new schools and to enabling local people to do so”?
Leaving aside whether this is the place for a piece of current and very specific policy, is “very significant weight” weightier than a material consideration? There is a big body of case law on materiality. Where does that stand? I come to my last example:
“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.
Well, yes, but is that not circular?
Language is hugely important. The Minister reminded us that the very term “planning” has positive, forward-looking connotations, and I very much support the notion of a plan-led system. The language of public debate has been most unfortunate. I do not like saying it, but the Government have brought it on themselves by using the term sustainable development as if it simply means development. That is how it reads; certainly that is how it is being read. Both detail and tone are important here. It was only when I read the draft that I realised that “development control” has become “development management”. That change of language is suitable.
I add my voice to those calling for the retention of the carefully balanced definition of sustainable development. I will say today merely that what tend to be thought of as the fourth and fifth limbs, the responsible use of science and good governance, seem to me to be as appropriate to planning as to other areas of government.
Planning has to serve many demands, and those who have to operate it may in some cases be torn between concern over a lack of certainty—which we have always been told is so required in planning—and a welcome for opportunities, which uncertainty allows. Will developers, who used to call for certainty, find that uncertainty is their goal because it gives them so much more scope?
I will end on a mostly positive note. I welcome the approach which, to quote the introduction,
“sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary”.
I hope that what we end up with is not tilted towards development because development per se is said to be a good thing. Nor should it be so loose that we are left with knowing what is okay only when we see it. I say to the Government, and I hope that this does not sound impertinent or patronising, that there is nothing wrong in revising a draft. Very extensive revision is not a defeat. When the Government revise this draft, as I hope they will, they should claim it as being good at government.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a farmer and landowner in Somerset. I would like to entitle my intervention “The challenge of change in the countryside”. The challenges include the fact that our rural population is growing by about 100,000 per annum, which is faster than the urban population, and, as indicated in a survey of a few years ago, that 80 per cent of people who live in urban England want to live in the countryside, although it has to be admitted that most of them are not quite sure about that once they get there.
This massive influx throws up both opportunities and problems. Inevitably, the problems include a lack of jobs and a lack of housing. In terms of jobs, it is important to realise that agriculture now provides less than 5 per cent of rural jobs. This means that the rural economy is mostly dependent upon manufacturing, financial services, retail and tourism. Rural tourism was worth about £16 billion per annum the last time I looked. In that context, we have every right to be proud of how we have planned our countryside over the years and centuries.
England—not the UK—is, I believe, the fifth most densely populated country in the world, with a population of 50 million. They are not all based in the south-east. The Peak District National Park, for instance, situated mostly in Derbyshire, has 21 million people living within one hour’s drive. This is a very good example because, in spite of this density, it has some of the most beautiful and cherished countryside on earth, which continues to provide an inspiration for our nation and a boost to our rural economy.
The boost to our economy from the beauty of our countryside is not only through tourism. The real economic success of our planning system is seen in the statistic that 66 per cent of all businesses started in rural England are started by incomers. That is a pretty staggering statistic. People want to come to the countryside and do their business, to live and work there, because it has kept its beauty. Furthermore, while farmers mostly look after our woods and fields, the maintenance of our villages and built environment very much depends on these incomers and their businesses.
Business is the lifeblood of the conservation of our countryside. That is the meaning of sustainable development in this context. Destroy our countryside and you destroy its economy. Destroy the rural economy and you destroy our countryside and its social fabric.
Moving very briefly on to the social fabric, I made a mental list of the challenges of change in the countryside. As you would expect, they include deprivation—which often goes unrecognised—housing, training, providing better services for the young and the growing proportion of elderly. Transport, too, is a key challenge. In my view, in planning terms, the problems all come down to the need, as far as possible, for each village to have its own provision of housing, especially affordable housing, and, above all, workspace. This would not spoil the countryside.
Every village needs to work out what they want their village to be like in 15 to 20 years’ time—not just what it will look like, or where development will be allowed to go, because it is bound to be a visual disaster and design does not matter. I will leave that debate to others. They must work out what services they want to survive, what they want in terms of work and play, what they want their kids to be doing. Do they want their kids still to be able to live there? That is what planning is about. It is not just about development control or even development management.
That brings me to the NPPF. What I have just enunciated is what it, along with the Localism Bill, purports to do. But does it? Frankly, that could be anyone’s guess. It is not a developers’ charter, as some have claimed. Indeed, in the short term, my greatest worry is that the genuine, responsible doers of our countryside and their communities will be so lost in the mists of change that the necessary housebuilding and entrepreneurial activity which we currently so desperately need will be temporarily checked by the new rules.
It is also my experience that the more locally one makes planning decisions, the greater is the resistance to change. This applies in particular to affordable housing, where it is almost always the villages that say, “No, we don't want cheap housing in our village”. That worries me more than anything else.
We need a helpful transitional process from where we are now to where we are going to get to. We also need encouragement—and perhaps financial inducements—for local planning authorities to produce their long-overdue local development frameworks, and also to produce faster advice and decisions. Sadly, a lot of the current problems lie in the fact that many planning departments have been cut to the bare bone and find it hard to cope with their workload. In a nation struggling to emerge from recession, this simply will not do. The Chancellor needs to be told.
My final point concerns brownfield sites. They cropped up several times in the debate two weeks ago. I agree that greenfield sites should be avoided when there is a brownfield alternative. However, it would be helpful in the countryside if the definition of brownfield sites could include redundant farm buildings that are more than, say, 15 years old. I refer in particular to the often asbestos-clad Dutch barns, piggeries and the like that are a blot on our landscape and are crying out for either demolition or for the site to be used for housing or workspace. This may be a step too far, but in many cases it should be possible to do a deal to transfer their brownfield print to the most suitable site for development on the farm in question in return for total demolition and the restoration of the original site to pristine countryside. I hope that under the new system we can in this way maximise the use of all our old, redundant farm buildings for both workspace and housing.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to discuss the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. I welcome very much the rationalisation and simplification of our planning procedures that will follow from it. Nevertheless, the point of discussing a draft is to see whether we can improve it, and I share concerns about the dangers in the draft of a postcode lottery. Local decision-making needs to be balanced by proper safeguards so that the loudest voices in any particular locality do not dominate.
I, too, would like to see in the framework a more developed definition of sustainable development. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in wanting to check what the Government's view is of the Securing the Future quintet of 2005: living within environmental limits, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly. I have the impression that economic development is the priority of this framework. That needs to be set within the equally important drives of a healthy and just society and environmental care for the future.
The framework helpfully quotes Gro Brundtland defining sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations. It does not go on to quote the next phrases of the Brundtland declaration on the overriding priority of the needs of the poor and on the limitations caused by the needs of the future: namely, justice and environmental care. I hope that those principles will be more strongly stated in the final framework that the Government produce.
That would mean ending the idea that where a local plan is absent or silent, planning permission should be granted. Just because no one has thought about a proposal before does not mean that it should automatically be granted. A default answer of “yes” seems to be dangerous in legislation and could well lead to problems in, for example, the proper provision of affordable housing. We have seen recently what I believe to be the vexatious use of the village green legislation to prevent affordable housing being built. We need to be still clearer here about the need for such housing, especially in rural areas where depopulation continues to occur. People in many areas of North Yorkshire, for example, simply cannot afford to remain in their villages.
The stress on local decision-making is an encouraging development so long as it cannot degenerate into nimbyism. Parish councils and neighbourhood forums need to be required to take into account the needs of people who are not like us. There needs to be more here about the needs of those who may be perceived by local communities as a threat. That might include, for example, the provision of mental health provision or detention centres within a particular community. The proposal in paragraph 51 that a neighbourhood plan takes precedence over a local plan seems to be simply wrong. Surely there needs to be provision for an agreed resolution, with arbitration if necessary, but this will only be possible if we have a more developed definition of sustainable development, including both justice and the environment.
Paragraph 165 is about the natural environment and makes an interesting case study for some of my arguments. The aim, it says, should be to “minimise” adverse environmental effects. The aim should be to prevent adverse environmental effects. The paragraph states:
“Plans should allocate land with the least environmental … value where practical”.
Again, they should allocate land with the least environmental value and should seek to do that. It is a case of how much effort is put into overcoming the difficulties of that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that one of the ways this can be done in the countryside is to have another look at which land is of the least environmental value, because the present planning laws do not always define that appropriately. It is the tentative nature of the aims which gives something of an excuse for ignoring them. The paragraph goes on to say that the “adverse impacts” need to,
“significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”,
before planning can be refused. I think it should be the other way round. The benefits should have to be shown to outweigh the adverse impact significantly and demonstrably. There is a pulling back here from concern for the protection of the natural environment in the future. There needs to be a more positive framework for the environment here. In this respect, could the noble Baroness comment on the relationship between this framework and the natural environment White Paper? Some clear link between the two documents and the two policies would be immensely valuable.
Finally, I want to return to the major issue of justice highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. They do have a mention in the framework, but we need a much more positive attitude to the contribution they make to our society, and a determination to serve the needs of this most ignored of all our minority ethnic groups. There is an opportunity here to provide proper planning provision for settlement sites and the like. Dale Farm may have been the crisis that hit our newspapers, but time and again, Travellers feel harried and unwanted, and local communities become fearful and defensive. Neither of those helps in terms of community cohesion. Proper planning provision could reduce this serious blot on the inclusive nature of our society. I very much hope that we shall be able to see that and tackle this issue, which has been around for a very long time.
I believe that this is a good start. A fuller definition of sustainable development and a greater emphasis on justice and the environment could make it a still more valuable framework as we look to the future.
Lord Reay
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner. We are lucky—perhaps the Minister is not so lucky—to be having this second bite of the cherry following our planning debate on 13 October. I am relieved, myself, to be losing the PPSs and the PPGs and starting again with 50 or 60 pages, although I imagine that amendments in one form or another to the NPPF will follow in subsequent years. Meanwhile, I hope that the NPPF will be revised to reflect the concerns that we have all expressed and that the Government will not simply in the end insist that we have misunderstood what the document means.
On the question of the transition, local authorities surely need to be given reasonable time to complete up-to-date local plans, particularly as they dare not leave out anything, since silence will confer consent. We have heard that just under one-half of local authorities have completed their now to be renamed plans, but will these not automatically be all out of date once the NPPF has been adopted? I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question. And who decides whether they are out of date? Is it a planning inspector? And at what point?
Government Ministers, as we have heard today, have recently been deploying all sorts of arguments to explain why there is no mention of brownfield sites as such in the NPPF: that some are of high environmental quality and that they want to protect gardens et cetera. However, in the impact assessment, the talk is largely about the remediation costs of brownfield sites—the impression is given that the Government are concerned about the additional costs for the developer.
This is an enormously important issue as in recent years—as the Minister explained—the proportion of houses built on brownfield or previously developed land has been astonishingly high, frequently well in excess of the target, which is also to be jettisoned. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, pointed out in a notable speech in our last debate, there are towns, including seaside towns, that are crying out for regeneration. As the well known columnist Alice Thomson wrote in an article in the Times on 28 September:
“Young people, desperate to start on the property ladder, prefer buzzy town centres to suburbs”.
The Government should say in the NPPF that, other things being equal, brownfield site development should have priority. They should use the word brownfield even if qualified; otherwise the abiding perception will be that this priority is no longer intended to apply.
I regret the inevitable introduction of the word “sustainable”, which risks leading to all sorts of trouble. In the document’s 52 pages I counted 78 uses of the words “sustainable” or “sustainability”. It is applied so frequently and loosely as to virtually lose meaning. The Government do not always help when they set out to define it. I suggest a definition of “sustainable development” is needed that distinguishes that phrase from development without any qualification. That should be stated to mean after a balance has been struck between the need for development, on the one hand, and, on the other, after environmental and social factors—such as are mentioned elsewhere in the document—are taken into account.
My chief concern is regarding the countryside. I do not think that the document gives nearly enough weight to its protection. In contrast to the green belt, which receives extended treatment over three and a half pages, the national parks and AONBs receive only one sub-paragraph far down in a late chapter on the natural environment. This issue should be given far greater priority. No one could fail to note its demotion in this document. The policy should also be strengthened. The paragraph includes a sentence starting:
“Planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas”,
but then qualifies that by stating,
“except in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest”.
It then lists some factors to be taken into account when considering granting permission for a major development in a designated area, including its effect on the local economy. That is far too permissive. It also goes so far as to state at paragraph 75,
“applications for alternative uses of designated land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals”.
That could be read as an open invitation to develop designated areas. Instead, there should be an unqualified presumption of no development in national parks and AONBs and their settings and an explicit statement that wind turbines should be permitted in those designated areas and their settings only in exceptional circumstances, and then limited to a single small turbine.
In a previous debate, I described how developers have been testing whether they could break through the protection given to AONBs with wind farm applications. That struggle will be vigorously resumed unless it is perceived that the NPPF forcefully reasserts the priority of protecting designated areas from disfiguring development. The countryside outside designated areas also requires protection. The failure of the Government to recognise that has been one of the principal complaints of the National Trust and CPRE. Two-thirds of the countryside in England lies outside national parks or AONBs, but it contributes much to the country's reputation and its attraction to visitors.
The NPPF makes no obvious reference to the wider countryside at all. It states that valued landscapes should be protected without making it plain whether that refers exclusively to designated landscapes. Also, countryside is not the same as landscape, which includes urban areas. The NPPF should state explicitly, as PPS4 does today, that the countryside should be protected for the sake of its “intrinsic character and beauty” and that its protection, where relevant, should be taken account of in all development decisions.
Ministers keep telling us, here and elsewhere, that they want fewer planning applications decided on appeal. Let me tell the Government where they should start. The percentage of planning applications that go to appeal is not very high. According to the impact assessment, in 2009-10, it amounted to about 3 per cent of all applications received. That is very different for wind farm applications. According to a Written Answer I was given in August, in England, approximately one-half of wind farm applications are rejected by local authorities in the first place. The point was made in the Telegraph today that the percentage of those permitted has now fallen to its lowest point to date, at 42 per cent. Of those that are rejected, the proportion taken to appeal varies from one-half to three-quarters, so at least one-quarter of all wind farm planning applications are decided on appeal. Only a minority of applications which are rejected by local authorities do not go to appeal. That is despite the enormous expense for local opposition groups and small local authorities in contesting appeals.
Of course, the reason for that is that wind farms are hugely unpopular virtually wherever they are proposed as more and more people have become aware that they are a complete waste of time, despite the bluster of the Secretary of State; that they probably do not save any carbon emissions; and that they ruin the countryside, as well as the lives of those who are made to live close to them. Having read the recent House Magazine diary, I think that I will have the support of my noble friend Lord Cormack in saying that.
It is only possible for the Government to carry out their renewable energy policy, at least on land, by getting it forced through by the planning inspectorate at enormous cost—so much for localism. The NPPF should also state that local authorities may specify minimum separation distances between wind turbines and residences. I declare an interest as having a Private Member’s Bill that seeks statutory authority for such obligations. Compliance with planning conditions and obligations can also be an issue. The NPPF could emphasise that local authorities have a duty to ensure compliance with any conditions attached to permissions, whether made by themselves or on appeal.
Finally, paragraphs 148 to 154 are highly objectionable and seek to apply pressure on local authorities to carry out the Government's extremely damaging and ultimately unsustainable renewable energy policy. One day, but not yet, I am quite sure this passage will become redundant and that we will start, if we have not done so before then, on a new series of PPGs and PPSs. However, that moment awaits a wiser, or financially more desperate, Government. In the meanwhile, subject to those limitations, I hope that the Government will display sense and sensibility and give us an NPPF that we can live with.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for creating this second opportunity to look at some of the complex, wide-ranging issues raised in the National Planning Policy Framework. I was impressed by her saying how important it was to have a positive planning statement and planning service. I am sure that she will have listened closely to what the right reverend Prelate said about the nature of positive planning and what it can encompass as I think that the document could go further in that respect. It was useful to have a glimpse of what the consultation has brought forward. I am sure that there will be wide consensus around those issues.
I will try very hard not to repeat what I said in the previous debate but that is difficult because I have to declare my interest as the chair of English Heritage and there is some unfinished business to which I need to draw the attention of the Committee. However, I will speak principally about the role of planning and regeneration with particular reference to heritage, and then pick up on a few of the wider issues. I make it clear that in our high-octane debate on the future of the planning system, Ministers have been at pains to reassure English Heritage, and the whole heritage sector, that there is no intention of diminishing the protections around our historic buildings, settings and landscapes. We have responded to that by working closely with the Government to change the document so that this will, indeed, be the case. As the Government’s trusted adviser, it is our duty to do that and make sure that there is no compromise around that.
The public process around the consultation has finished and now the hard work begins for the Government to accommodate and answer the many excellent questions raised, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and to begin to reconstruct the language as well as the content and emphasis of this document. It is a big challenge. However, the major challenge is to redraft the document in such a way that the Prime Minister’s public assurances to the National Trust that the planning system is about balance, and, by implication, not about the preference for development at all costs over other considerations, are reflected in the document in such a way that planners, conservation officers, developers and the community as a whole know that that is the case, and thereby remove the confusion and recourse to the courts.
I wish to make a suggestion in relation to heritage. There is a very simple way of putting it beyond doubt that heritage protections stand undiminished and are absolutely central to achieving the wider ambitions for sustainable development. Much of the present confusion has been generated by the assumption that somehow economic growth, judged by development, is prevented or inhibited by heritage conservation when that is not the case. We could have a statement to the effect that the best, most sustainable, most popular and most desirable developments—ones which drive up the quality of the public realm as well as house prices—are those built around, and making the most of, historic buildings, our historic environment and our historic settings in terms of their character, perspective and distinction.
All the Government would have to do is to go and talk to the developers engaged in places like Kings Cross, Berwick and Snape Maltings, and in the reconstruction of the Roundhouse in Derby. Those developers and their partners, working at the heart of regeneration, will say that what makes these developments so successful as places to live or work is the marriage of heritage quality with the best forms of modern design. The problem with the present draft of the NPFF is not only that it seems to take a negative, even punitive, view of planning, but that it is perversely behind the times. It does not recognise that relationship. Changing this could make the document and the planning system much more successful and responsive so that it could do the job that we all need it to do.
I note that it is difficult to go through some of the initial processes of retaining structures and spaces, but the end product has the wow factor and it builds pride of place. I will give two short examples of what I mean. This week I had the privilege of being in Burnley with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. As chair of English Heritage I have been involved in the reconstruction of very fragile mill buildings—those few survivors of the time when 100,000 looms were at work in Burnley. These buildings have been reconstructed for future occupation, bringing back to life the wonderful physical history of Burnley, which will now help build its future. We were at the Victoria Mill, which has been at risk for 20 years and has finally found the partners, support and commitment to take on a new future. Other buildings along that wonderful canal will follow suit. It is a great credit to the Prince of Wales that he has led a partnership between his own Prince’s Regeneration Trust, the local authority, English Heritage and developers that will drive a new future for Burnley.
The same day at Middleport Pottery in Stoke we were able to celebrate the survival of one of the very few Victorian potteries. It still retains the moulds, buildings and transfers that bring back the history of the extraordinary ceramics industry, a global leader for two centuries. That project will drive regeneration across Stoke and will be sustainable because it will build on skills, crafts, knowledge and local pride. I hope that it will set a standard as a model for projects in communities all over the country.
There are many such examples already in existence. However, if the NPFF were not to be changed, and as a result the presumption of sustainable development were to override or diminish heritage protections, these projects—which hold the future of whole communities—might never happen again. They are very difficult at the best of times. It takes huge commitment, money and faith in what can be achieved in partnership. In recession there is huge pressure on local authorities to take what is available in terms of development, no matter how poor quality or unsustainable, which can override the long-term benefits of using cultural, historical and economic assets. If that happens, it will lead to a different sort of future for these communities—and I believe that it will be a less viable, less sustainable and less wealthy future.
There are very sound economic and social reasons why the NPPF should express the critical and positive role that heritage can play in leading the best possible forms of development and in ensuring that the right balance is struck. Once demolished, the buildings that formed the Industrial Revolution and drove prosperity for so many centuries cannot be replaced. But in most situations a positive solution can be found to the benefit of developers and the community alike.
We have to get the balance right, and that balance must be spelled out with clarity. We need to know now what the Government mean by sustainable development; it needs to be spelled out fully so that we all understand it. Without knowing that planning applications will have to pass the test of the various protection regimes in the NPPF, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are on a road to perdition in the courts. I see a perverse reality in the notion that developers might prefer uncertainty. It is perverse and would be very expensive. We need clarity now.
Taking a wider perspective, I noticed the Government’s restated objective to get the NPPF agreed as soon as they can, ideally before April. I hope that they will bear in mind the real danger of getting it wrong if they proceed too fast. We need this to be as clear as possible. That is why the guidance will be so important. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government are fully committed to producing detailed guidance to ensure that planning authorities understand what the document means.
On the debate on brownfield sites, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, about the need for precise language. I know that no Government like to learn from previous Governments, but the previous Government achieved a 70 per cent target for building on brownfield sites and were very proud of it. My understanding is that the difficulty with using the term “brownfield” has something to do with the decision to exclude gardens from the original definition. If that has been or can be put right, I would be interested to know why the term brownfield cannot be used. Under the original formula, planning should seek actively to bring back into beneficial use vacant and underused previously developed land. That is the existing policy and it is quite clear. That would be better than the formulation we have.
On housebuilding, I would like to know whether the Government now actually acknowledge that the failure over the past two years to build the houses we need has been the result not of failure of the planning system but of the impact of the recession. It is important to recognise that because, goodness knows, we need more houses and the best means to deliver them. The argument that that is about planning has been knocked on the head, not least by the fact that thousands of outstanding planning consents are stacking up across the country waiting to be put into action.
Finally, I believe in a strong “centre first” policy. The consultation seems to emphasise that, and PPS4, which revised the sequential test for town centre development, reflected the changed economic times we were entering in 2009. We still need that balance between edge of centre and town.
We have talked many times about transitional arrangements. I do not understand the explanation that the Minister gave for her amendment on transitional arrangements; I do not know whether she will be able to have another go at it today. The test is essentially whether it will meet the situation in which so many local authorities find themselves with an incomplete, silent or out-of-date plan. They will have either to remake those plans; address policies that were in the regional strategy; or reconcile themselves to being entirely dependent on the NPPF. That is the question to which I want an answer.
I agree with noble Lords who seek explicit protection for the open countryside. I suggest that it could be achieved by creating a requirement on local planning authorities to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. That picks up on PPSs1, 5 and 7 and PPG17.
When we see the final NPPF, I hope to goodness that we will not be disappointed. We need a document which is significantly different, which achieves the proper balance that we have spoken about, which is clear about what it means by sustainable development, which protects and enhances areas such as heritage but which also offers appropriate protection for open countryside and which genuinely will serve our social and cultural—as well as our economic—future.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and it is always very difficult to follow a contribution as good as hers—but I will try. I agree with a great deal of what has been said on all sides in this debate. If the Government genuinely listen in this consultation—not just to your Lordships but to everybody else—they will produce a document that will receive a great deal of consensual acclaim. I should again declare an interest as a member of a local planning authority and of a planning committee.
I, too, will try not to repeat much of what I have said before. However, I must repeat that there are serious problems with the document. Its language in many cases is inappropriate in a legal planning document, and sloppy. It is still difficult to know whether some of the problematic language is deliberately or accidentally provocative. That is at the bottom of the argument.
There is also a lack of consistency in the document. I have a list of examples where it states different things about the same thing on different pages—and sometimes on the same page. There are gaping holes. This is perhaps due to trying to get it down to 50 pages. There is also a lack of clarity. The Town and Country Planning Association described it as,
“confusing, contradictory and legally ambiguous”—
which says what I have just said in slightly posher language.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee reminded me that I described it as a narrative more than anything else. The more I look at it, the more it reads like a political policy pamphlet in which people have put down proposals in order to be provocative. A couple of days ago in the House, we debated the first amendment to the health Bill. It was moved by the Labour Party but taken substantially from a Liberal Democrat conference policy motion. People in that debate argued rightly that what is appropriate language in a conference policy motion—which, at least in our party, we still think of as important—is not appropriate for legislation. This is guidance rather than legislation, but the same principle applies.
The National Planning Policy Framework overlaps and interlocks with the Localism Bill, particularly with two remaining issues: the question of sustainable development—what it is now to mean and where and how it should be defined—and the transitional arrangements from the old planning system to the new. I will not say too much about these today because we will discuss them again in some detail on Monday, for the umpteenth time, and the Minister may be able to say slightly more helpful things in the context of the Bill than she can in the context of the NPPF. We will see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to sustainable development. We have had some run-ins in my part of the world with her organisation, but it has been constructive and I hope that we will come to the sort of solution that she talked about.
The problem in many areas is that people think historic buildings are all castles and manor houses and so on in the countryside. Many of the most difficult ones, including ones that the noble Baroness talked about today, are in towns. Some of the great Victorian mills, most of which have been knocked down, remain and require a great deal of money and resources to achieve regeneration.
Earlier, the noble Baroness referred to the Weavers’ Triangle area in Burnley. What is going on there is tremendous, but it is in competition with other areas. I refer to Brierfield Mills in Pendle, which I know well. It is like a mini Salts Mill in that it is that sort of grade two listed building; it is really quite tremendous. The council and many local people are attempting to find new uses for it because its old use as a textile mill that employed thousands of people has gone completely. But it is extremely difficult. The Weavers’ Triangle, for example, is going to get one of the new technology colleges of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. We bid for the same college to be located in Brierfield, but we lost the bid. Regional development funding has been sought for both sites, and there are strong rumours that in the near future there will be an announcement that it is going to go to the Burnley site, not to ours—including the famous Todmorden Curve, so why can I argue about it? In fact, I do not argue about it. There are not enough resources to do it all, but it is very important.
This is a different sort of planning to that we see in the countryside. A lot of what I talk about in the NPPF concerns the future of the countryside and whether it means that mass housing developers can build great new estates on green fields all over the place, and whether the precious uplands of this country are going to be covered in new power stations or wind farms, and all those dreadful thoughts. This is where the controversy is and what the Daily Telegraph is talking about, but in practice there are many parts of the country where planning is about desperately trying to find people who are willing to develop and invest in projects which can economically and financially benefit from that investment. But I am talking about parts of the country that are not very attractive to people who want to build and make a profit. As well as the countryside, the National Planning Policy Framework also has to cater for that completely different environment.
I strongly support the submission made to the Government by the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee, of which I am a member, on CLG matters. However, I will not say more about it other than to express my support. I support much of what the Wildlife and Countryside Link has put forward, particularly its view that the document ought to include right at the beginning a clear statement of core planning principles. That is something the Government ought to think about very seriously.
Many noble Lords have talked about the problem of undesignated areas of the countryside, parts that are not designated as being of special national significance, but nevertheless contribute to what the CPRE and the others call the “intrinsic value” of the countryside. On the other side of that coin are the submissions from the Country Land and Business Association and one which I know has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor about the need for a planning system that allows appropriate development in the countryside, particularly in villages and using redundant farm buildings and so on, but which does not allow the countryside to be ruined. Finding that balance is very important indeed. I heard part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and it is clear that no one is arguing for the countryside to become fossilised. It is important that rural communities and villages remain vibrant and do not become dormitory suburbs stuck in the countryside. That balance can be achieved, and if it is, I think that it will attract a great deal of support from everybody.
It is very important indeed that local planning authorities can use the document when it is finally produced and that it will work in the sense of producing good local plans as quickly as the Government want them to be used. A great deal of that is in producing the evidence base and carrying out the processes of consultation which, particularly since the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, have been burdensome, particularly for relatively small planning authorities and ordinary district councils. The local evidence collection and the analysis of information as a basis for plans and policies that will stand up to inspection will be even more important under the new system because the regional plans and strategies will have gone, and a lot of what is in local plans at the moment derives from those regional strategies. A huge amount of the guidance in the PPSs that people translate into their local plans will be gone. Almost everything in the local plans will have to be based on local evidence-gathering and analysis of that evidence.
The planning officer on my council—Pendle—is Mr Neil Watson, who has had a good, hard look at this document. He says that the existing system has six clear requirements for building the evidence base. They are things such as retail infrastructure, a sustainability appraisal and so on. He has identified in the draft NPPF no fewer than 14 requirements—those six and eight new ones—and perhaps two more as well. If the Government are not careful, they will put a much greater burden on local planning authorities to produce evidence. If you do not produce evidence and show it as a basis for your policies, you will not get your local plan through the inspection process. The whole thing will fall apart at local level—it happens in a lot of places—and also at national level. So this is very important.
Finally, I will pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said about the great need for detailed guidance on what the document means. I wonder how many pages will be in the detailed guidance: perhaps it will be 1,000. Clearly it will not be: the Government may get it down perhaps to 60, 70 or 80 pages by the time they have taken into account the consultation. That would be a step forward. Then, over the next three and a half years of this Government, how many more pages of different sorts of guidance on the planning system—called different things—will the Government churn out? We will stop counting some time in the hundreds, and when it gets to 1,000 perhaps we will have a debate here about it.
Baroness Valentine
I declare that I am chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation that includes property developers. Given the previous two contributions, I should perhaps also declare my past involvement in the regeneration of two textile mills in Blackburn.
I enter the debate having missed the previous debate two weeks ago. However, I was fascinated to read the remarks of the opposition spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who gave his opinion that Ministers had been assailed by the leftist leader writers of the Telegraph and the closet revolutionaries of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I shall try my best to sidestep the politics of the situation. Much has been said in the press and elsewhere and I wish to take a step back from that.
In a month, the Chancellor will deliver his Autumn Statement against the backdrop of European and global economic uncertainty. I believe that the Government’s general economic strategy is right. Deficit reduction must be a central objective of government policy if we are to rebuild long-term economic stability and growth. There is no silver bullet to stimulate growth in the short term, but a few changes of emphasis would have a disproportionately positive effect. The National Planning Policy Framework is one of those changes. Planning processes have become so costly and complex that too often they act as a barrier to investment. High transaction costs and the complexity of rules have led to drawn-out, litigious processes. The NPPF, which consolidates more than 1,000 pages of regulations and guidance into just over 50, is a move towards a regime that is more efficient in process and more predictable in outcome.
The NPPF should be viewed in tandem with the Government’s Localism Bill. Taken together, they seek to strike a balance between the deregulation and simplification which supports growth, and a greater role for local people in determining the kind of growth that they want. Quicker and clearer decision-making processes will breathe confidence into a development industry far from recovered from the credit crisis. If the economy is to grow, new businesses need new office space and first-time buyers need somewhere to live. Development and economic growth are inextricably linked.
Taking the process first, the NPPF sets a clearer and more succinct default framework against which local authorities should take planning decisions. It should be accompanied by an up-to-date local plan which sets out in greater detail the kind of development that the local council would like to see in their area. This in turn may be further supplemented by the neighbourhood development plans set out in the Localism Bill. The perspective that I am closest to is that of urban London. More than elsewhere, London’s local authorities have local plans in place. They see the benefits of a well defined plan, both for residents and for potential developers.
As well as simplifying the process of planning, the NPPF also amends existing guidance, notably through the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I welcome this presumption, which sets out the criteria against which development proposals will be judged on economic, social and environmental grounds. Concerns have been raised that the NPPF will somehow create a free-for-all in rural England. I note the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in the previous debate, that the countryside is not under threat, and I share his view that these concerns are exaggerated. Nevertheless, while the NPPF includes specific protections for environmentally sensitive areas, such as the green belt, the Government might consider bringing forward changes to the draft to further emphasise protection to important rural areas, as has previously been suggested. On the other hand, there could be further clarification of the wording in the core principles of the NPPF where it talks about land of “lesser environmental value” to make it clear that this includes brownfield land.
These changes could be reinforced by giving planning authorities a window of, say, two years to put in place their local plan, with, in the interim, the presumption in favour of sustainable development only applying to brownfield sites, or planning applications not being subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development default during that period. Although it seems to me that while the matter of transition has been hotly debated, in fact the proposals in the NPPF are in fact less radical than previous changes to planning policy which had no transitional period.
I should also like to see greater join made between reform to planning policy and other related areas where the Government are considering change. For example, I urge the Minister to co-ordinate the NPPF with the forthcoming Portas review of high streets and the Government’s local government financing review. Planning and other policies which put the high street first, coupled with local authorities being able to keep a revenue stream from growth in the high street, will give councils a palette of tools to support sustainable regeneration in town centres.
The Minister said that the Government were prepared to listen, and two debates in this House have certainly given her an opportunity to do so. I hope that she will take heed of the measures that I have suggested today, regarding both the wording of the NPPF and its links to wider policy. I finish by emphasising that simplifying regulation can be a money saver, an aid to economic growth and an empowerment to local communities, who just might understand what 52 pages of legislation actually say.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have not spoken in a debate in the Moses Room before: it is an interesting experience. The Minister, in opening this debate, talked about the developments that had to take place in the post-war period to repair the bomb damage and other ravages of Nazi Germany upon this country. I hope that when we come to put this plan into operation—suitably, properly and, I hope, extensively amended—we will not see again the sort of appalling, brutal architecture and terrible developments that replaced so much of the old City of London, for instance.
This whole debate hinges on an adequate definition of what we mean by “sustainable development”. We have not had one yet. In the early 1970s I was particularly interested in studying what had happened after the war. I produced a book, Heritage in Danger, in which I looked at some of the more appalling episodes of iconoclasm and destruction that took place in our historic cities. I wrote about Worcester and Gloucester, where the heart was ripped out of beautiful places, symmetry was destroyed and balance overridden, and where appalling buildings were erected to replace buildings of great beauty. A movement began in the 1970s which owed much of its inspiration to the late, great John Betjeman, who I was privileged to call a friend. I always remember some lines he wrote when he was launching his Bath campaign:
“Goodbye to old Bath. We who loved you are sorry
They’ve carted you off by developer’s lorry”.
Because of the campaigning of John Betjeman and those who assisted him, the rape of Bath—as it was called—came to an end.
Similar enormities took place north of the border in Edinburgh, where the old town was desecrated, not least by the university. The Cockburn Association came into being to focus international attention on the beauties of the new town, the Georgian town, which has been miraculously preserved and enhanced. It seems to me that we do not want to repeat those episodes. Therefore, we have to look for a proper definition of “sustainable development”, which is at the heart of this document, which runs through it and which, as my noble friend Lord Reay said, occurs something like 90 times in it. There is no adequate definition in this document; what there is lacks clarity and precision.
We often talk about the importance of the Nolan principles. We are all supposed, very properly, to swear to them and adhere to them when we enter this House. However, what we need are some Hanham principles that will clearly define “sustainable development”. I suggest that there are two criteria above all others: first, the development must meet a specific need; and, secondly, it must contribute to, and not detract from, the area in which it is sited. Those should be the guiding principles behind all sustainable development, wherever it takes place. I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Reay said about brownfield sites and the need to concentrate on those to start with.
Lord Marlesford
I will give my noble friend an example of a horrible use of the word “sustainable” in practice. In Suffolk, where I live, the Suffolk Coastal District Council fairly recently—within the past five years—said that if you want to convert a farm building into a house it must be used as a holiday home. That is very much in line with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. This example is of personal interest to me; I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner. When the council was asked why it followed that policy, it replied that that was a more sustainable use of the building, by which it meant that it did not have to provide the relevant infrastructure. Therefore, that council favoured holiday homes which people visited over houses in which people lived. That is an example, I believe, of the misuse, or the potential misuse, of the word “sustainable”.
Lord Cormack
I am grateful to my noble friend for that lengthy intervention; I was about to ask him if he would give way.
The two criteria that I mentioned have merit, but in deciding on them, planners must take into account the nature of the historic rural environment in which the proposed sustainable development is to take place and must look at such factors as population balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in a notable and interesting speech with which I entirely agreed, referred to a notable contribution in Burnley by the Prince of Wales. We can also learn from the Prince of Wales in Poundbury, Dorset, where a new community was created in a rural environment in a balanced and properly sustained and sustainable way, with real attention to the scale of buildings. That was the worst thing about what happened in London after the war. I introduced a skyline protection Bill, but it was far too late and it was talked out by a Conservative Government. There is no reference to scale in much development. We must bear that in mind in this new and seminal document that we are debating this afternoon.
Something else that must be taken into account is tourism, the revenue it produces and the potential it has. Here, I touch on points raised by my noble friend Lord Reay. He referred flatteringly and entirely accurately to my fundamental opposition to wind farms, especially onshore wind farms, which produce an undefinable amount of energy and often rape and ravage the countryside so that the beauty that people come to see and that those who live there take for granted is destroyed forever. We have to bear carefully in mind that in the finite land mass that is the United Kingdom, we do not have vast swathes of countryside, as they have for instance in France. We must recognise the scale of the countryside and what people come to enjoy—be they tourists from home or tourists from abroad. When we consider developments, we must make sure that they impart new life and impetus into the areas where they are based and do not so unbalance and distort them that people are frightened away.
There was an interesting article in one of the papers this weekend about the apparent—I use that word deliberately because it has not yet been decided—threats to the village in Somerset made famous by TS Eliot: East Coker. It appears that some planners have it in mind to quadruple the size of the village in a way that would wholly distort the countryside there. We must not allow this document, when it finally emerges, to be a passport for those who would do that sort of thing.
I know from personal conversations with my noble friend Lady Hanham, who I hope will give her name to the principles of sustainable development, that she is just as passionately, honestly and sincerely committed to the enduring things in our nation's life as I am—and as anyone is. However, we must be very careful that this document, which will effectively tear up 1,000 pages and replace them with 50, 60 or 100—who knows, eventually?—does not discard protections that we have all too easily taken for granted, even if some of them were a bit cumbersome in the past.
I took a small deputation to see my noble friend a few weeks ago. Among those who came—she will readily remember—was the chief executive of the Heritage Alliance, which represents some 91 heritage organisations and is a splendid innovation on the heritage scene. It produced an interesting critique of the document we are discussing this afternoon, in which it made the point that the value of heritage to the wider economy does not seem to shine through this text. That point underlay much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said—and I will just say how much we all agree with what she does in her role as chairman of English Heritage, and what English Heritage does, often on far too meagre resources.
When we look at heritage in the context that the Heritage Alliance mentions in its document, we realise that tourism—which depends very much on heritage—is our most important and burgeoning industry. It brings so much into our country. We have recently moved house to the historic city of Lincoln, which is sustained by its heritage; and by those who come to walk up Steep Hill and pause to look at the Norman houses, the Jew’s House and so on. They head to the castle and then to the crowning glory of them all—the cathedral. Take those away, allow them to fall into disrepair, threaten them with juxtaposed development that is not suitable in any way and you will frighten people away. In so doing, you will impoverish not only a city but a whole area, a whole region.
I end on this note. We have a great opportunity in this document to produce something that will protect the best and ensure that high-quality development takes place. Of course, we have to have new things, but the design factors to which the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred, and which I am glad to say are in the document, rank as objects of high importance. We have got to ensure—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made this point—that the final document is clear, precise and understandable. We want something that can be on the shelf not only of every planning officer and councillor involved in planning but on the shelf of every amenity society and everyone concerned with preserving the balance and beauty of our country, rural and urban. They should be able to take it down and read it; mark, learn and inwardly digest it; and understand it so that there is no ambiguity between the different bodies who read it. That is what we have to aim for. I hope that the consultation exercise will prove to be—I am sure it will—a totally genuine one; that the masses of representations that have been made from outside and that are being made here this afternoon, and were also made in the House previously, will be taken into account; and that at the end of the day, we will have a National Planning Policy Framework of which we can all be proud and which will stand the test of time.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council. I am on the board on One North East, a member of English Heritage and also of the National Trust. I agree absolutely with what my noble friend Lord Cormack has said about the nature of the document. I strongly welcome a document that is shorter than the existing 1,000 pages or more of planning policy and guidance. This draft has been easy to read and therefore to understand. However, it has also, as a consequence, been easy to misinterpret or to present difficulties in interpretation. Those difficulties need to be put right. Therefore, in redrafting, I hope that the document will be kept short and understandable so that it is not something, as we have now, that only planners and lawyers can understand. Crucially, the collation of national planning policy into a single document should increase the understanding of planning policy by everyone, including business groups, individual small businesses, residents, councillors and planning officers.
I have a number of concerns about the NPPF. The first relates to a lack of geographical differentiation in it, because not all regions of the same. The NPPF could offer an opportunity to help to rebalance the UK economy away from areas suffering from overdevelopment and too much congestion. I hope that we will avoid debate on the NPPF leading to greater stifling of development in regions where there is significant capacity for growth and job creation, and where regional economies are performing below their potential and can demonstrate greater capacity for growth. Having said that, I must add that the framework seems to be based too much on a drive for development. It must balance environmental and social issues with economic ones because this is a planning framework, not an economic one.
There has been discussion about the definition of “sustainable development” and I will not add to the debate this afternoon. However, I will refer to paragraph 14, which relates to a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The final sub-paragraph at least needs to be strengthened. The paragraph says that permission should be granted,
“where the local plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”.
It goes on to say that the policies in paragraph 14,
“should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework as a whole”.
This could prove a goldmine for lawyers. Just because the local plan is silent or may be deemed by some to be out of date, it should not be a requirement for the adverse impacts to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. That judgment should be left to those elected to take local decisions.
There are potential problems with paragraph 26 which covers up to date local plans, and this has been referred to by other Members. Many councils do not have local plans in place and it may take them two to four years to produce them. We need it made clear, very soon, that plans in progress will be deemed to have legal status. It is not right that the NPPF will take over if the local plan is not in place. On balance, I prefer three years for a transitional period. It is not reasonable that the presumption must be in favour of development if the plan is not up to date and approved.
I welcome the duty to co-operate in paragraph 46, but it should be stiffened to make it clear that the community infrastructure levy should be part of the duty to co-operate where development takes place wholly in one council area but impacts on another—for example, through increased congestion. I was struck by a submission by the Woodland Trust, which stated that the duty to co-operate great may prove ineffectual where partners refuse to progress a shared strategy. Strengthening the NPPF and the guidance in the Localism Bill would be desirable. Might we include local nature partnerships, as the Woodland Trust requests?
We should also be prepared to take a stronger line, notwithstanding the end of the regional planning tier, on regionally significant infrastructure that may not be addressed effectively by co-operation between planning authorities. I refer in particular to energy or waste plants. The expectations on local planning authorities to work together to plan effectively for such needs should be tightened, with a clear role for local enterprise partnerships. The Planning Inspectorate will need to ensure that local plans contain clear evidence that the duty has been properly delivered.
I have a concern about neighbourhood planning; here I refer to paragraphs 49 to 52 and the importance of the ballot box in neighbourhood planning. The NPPF and the Localism Bill both look at neighbourhood planning from the perspective of rural areas. That is a strength in terms of rural areas but a potential weakness in terms of urban areas. Parish and town councils tend to be in rural areas, so those decisions have a democratic legitimacy based on the particular parish or council. It is hard to see how urban areas will manage to deliver neighbourhood plans which have local consent if those who are constructing the plans are nominated and not elected. There has to be further discussion about how elections can take place for those in a leadership position with regard to neighbourhood plans, notwithstanding any referendums that might take place.
Paragraph 76 covers planning for town centres. Perhaps I can make the point that the framework needs to recognise that the limited availability of suitable sites will in some places be a constraint, which means that the aim may not be fully met even if town centres are expanded or sites are searched for on the edge of or outside centres. In this situation, we do not want unsuitable sites to be allocated because that could impact on the vitality and viability of town centres, when maintaining those centres and the diversity of their high streets should be a prime objective of the NPPF.
Paragraph 84 relates to the objectives of transport policy—that it should facilitate economic growth and support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Might we be more explicit in stating that it would help to achieve both objectives if people lived closer to where they work? In my own city of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, some 90,000 people come into the city to work each day. Of course, our boundaries are tightly drawn, but nevertheless reducing the distances travelled and providing sustainable, high quality public transport to reduce car dependency remain extremely high priorities.
In terms of housing supply and deliverable housing sites, paragraph 109 on the supply of those sites sets supply at five years plus 20 per cent. We desperately need to increase our supply of housing. In 2009-10 only 113,670 homes were built in England, the lowest number in peacetime since 1923—and this at a time of increasing rates of household formation. It is estimated that some 250,000 homes are needed each year to meet demand in both the social and market sectors. We do not want a situation to arise in which all a developer has to do is prove that a council does not have five years’ worth of supply plus 20 per cent of deliverable sites, because if it does not have it the application will automatically be approved. That seems unwise, as it is to set targets that might cause brownfield land not to be developed. Developers prefer greenfield options that are faster to develop. I am not sure that we have the definitions of “deliverable” and “developable” correctly drafted and prioritised, nor that we have thought through the five years plus 20 per cent properly. Indeed, five years plus 20 per cent is six years, so why do not specify six years, and why six years rather than seven years? Perhaps we need to do a little more work there.
I strongly support paragraphs 133 to 170, which protect the green belt and the natural environment. It is vital to protect natural habitats against intrusive development that would impact negatively on biodiversity and threatened species, and which would reduce access to green lungs for recreational purposes. Paragraph 16 in particular should be taken as evidence of the Government’s clear intent to protect natural habitats, but there must be no attempt to tamper with our green spaces against the wishes of residents. It cannot be the case that a site must be named in a plan or it might be developed. There are a number of dangers around protecting green lungs, not just in the countryside but in our urban areas. It is very important that we maintain them carefully.
The NPPF is a very useful draft and, as other noble Lords have said, the consultation will lead to improvement and clarification so that we will end up with a document that will stand the test of time and command broad consensus on its approach.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, this is an important document that will make a considerable difference to the way we live. Not surprisingly, we have had a large number of comments and objections, which should not be underrated.
First, I tell the Minister that I am quite favourable to the new structure of planning decisions included in the document: a national framework to be implemented through local plans setting out the long-term vision for the area and providing a local framework for decisions on planning applications. I have two comments on the local plans. I assure the Minister that I have not co-ordinated my speech with that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley; it is just that the points he made and the points that I am going to make are very important.
It is indispensable that local plans are kept up to date, in particular on the amount of empty housing or business premises suitable for conversion to housing, or on the best estimate of available employment in the area, which is a vital factor. It may seem self-evident that they should be up to date, but I assure your Lordships that there is concern that it is not always so. It is essential, because outdated plans are likely to result in bad development—too little or too much—which it will be difficult for our successors to correct. Secondly, many areas currently do not have a local plan. Paragraph 14, the already well known paragraph which describes the presumption in favour of sustainable development as a “golden thread” running through both plan-making and decision-making, states that local planning authorities should,
“grant permission where the plan is absent, silent”,
or indeterminate. Absence of a local plan could mean something close to a development free-for-all. Perhaps it would not, but the risk is there. The Government cannot opt out of that risk but should monitor very closely the existence of local plans.
I turn to the Draft National Planning Policy Framework itself. I have two major comments on it. First, the framework and, hence, the local plan-makers, need to give more attention to the accelerating changes resulting from the IT revolution. That is widely relevant, in particular to shopping and retail development, which is covered by the chapter that begins at paragraph 71 on business and economic development, and includes the paragraphs on town centres and transport. I am glad that there are specific paragraphs on town centres and that there is recognition of housing within town centres. However, it would be good to stress more specifically the potential effects of internet shopping and working from home. The move to internet shopping is racing ahead. It has risen about 30 per cent this year; and now about 10 per cent of all retail sales are online. Currently, in many towns, about 10 per cent of shops are empty. The chance of them being reoccupied as shops is close to zero. A large resource for housing exists there.
Secondly, in planning the use of our scarce land for many years ahead, the rapid growth in world population looks likely to overrun the availability of food and water in some parts of the world, which in my view imposes an obligation on us to conserve our ability to produce food and to protect our water resources. I recommend to the Minister the “wise virgin” policy.
The other potential world problem is fully covered in the planning framework; namely, the effect of climate change and the need for a low-carbon economy. Paragraphs 148 to 159 cover cuts in greenhouse gases, flooding and coastal erosion. However, while climate change is a dominant theme—almost a golden thread—in the framework, the references to the importance of food production and the necessity to preserve our best productive land are, to say the least, minimal. It is certainly bizarre that when most of our land is used for farming and food production, the National Planning Policy Framework seems to have hardly noticed it. I feel tempted to suggest to the Minister that she should take the official team for a long walk in the country. In the approximately 23,200 words of the framework, I found the words “food production” only twice. This is a vital economic activity and I hope that the final version will signal its value more fully.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner. I refer to the comment by the Minister at the beginning of the debate that everything that was said this afternoon would be taken into account when considering the final version of the NPPF. However, there is no opportunity for us or anybody else to make representations on the revised version of the document, Planning for Traveller Sites, which is intended to go into the NPPF. If I may say so, it is a major defect in the process that the two documents were not compatible with each other from the start. I make no apology for intervening to draw attention again, as I have done on several occasions since the Queen's Speech, to the planning vacuum that exists with regard to Gypsy and Traveller sites, and, in the context of this debate on the NPPF, to the confusion that arises from the decision to publish and consult on a separate document on planning for Traveller sites.
One of the first things that the Secretary of State did when he took up office was to write to chief planning officers to say that they were not bound to adhere to the target figures for Traveller site provision that had emerged from the process of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments, and from the public inquiries that followed those assessments, or the limited redistribution of the obligation to provide sites through planning permission within each region so as to put the responsibility on local authorities which had not so far made any contribution towards meeting the overall need. The Secretary of State said that local authorities could start again from scratch and make their own individual assessments of the need for site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, giving them an excuse for arriving at a lower estimate of the need than had been reached by the independent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments.
Not surprisingly, a survey of 100 local authorities by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain found that in the three regions covered, there was a fall of 52 per cent in the number of pitches for which planning permission would be granted, compared with the figures in the published and emerging regional spatial strategies. This reinforced the conclusion reached by the CLG Select Committee in its February 2011 report that revocation of the RSSs was going to mean a reduction in site provision. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on the ITMB survey and say whether the figures in it are agreed by the CLG.
It would have been possible to abolish the RSSs but to retain the targets for Traveller site provision that were the outcome of the GTANA process on which local authorities had already spent a great deal of time and money. That was what we suggested in our manifesto. It would have saved a great deal of unnecessary expenditure as well as ensuring continuity with the new planning system, in which local authorities are still required to make adequate provision for Traveller sites. In fact, 30 of the local authorities that completed the ITMB survey adopted the RSS targets, and one adopted a higher target. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to the huge burden on local authorities created by the requirement that they were to base their plans on new evidence gathered. In this matter, that imposition could have been avoided.
The London Gypsy and Traveller Unit goes a stage further and proposes that the whole GTANA process be incorporated in the new planning framework. The guidance on the process says that it should be led by local authority housing departments, thus it is not top-down by nature. The GTANA guidance, they suggest, could be added as an appendix to the guidance on preparing the strategic housing market assessment referred to in paragraph 28 of the NPPF. That sounds like an excellent idea to me, and I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on it, either when she comes to reply, or perhaps in a letter to your Lordships who have taken part in this debate.
The LGTU points out that the GTANAs are a valuable set of data which would be wasted if put aside, as the current PPS suggests. That would be contrary to the principle of evidence-based planning and to the injunction in paragraph 27 of the NPPF that local authorities should:
“ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence”,
and to paragraph 6(c) of the draft Traveller PPS, which requires local authorities to use “a robust evidence base”.
I would like to hear from the Minister why the Government decided to throw away all the work that was done on the GTANAs and the methodology behind them which, as the LGTU underlines, was tested at many public inquiries. If the caravan counts by local authorities over many years are “appalling”, as the LGTU demonstrate with two examples of major errors, what reason is there to suppose that a new and untried system of assessments by local authorities who have made these mistakes in the past and have a vested interest in making the figures as small as possible to appease widespread prejudice against Travellers in the electorate, will come up with accurate assessments?
What my noble friends ultimately intend to do about planning for Gypsies and Travellers is still wrapped in mystery. They have published a draft policy on planning for Traveller sites, which I have mentioned already, and they intend, we understand, to incorporate a revised version of it in the NPPF, which is radically different in approach. The NPPF is essentially concise and permissive, for which it has been roundly criticised, while the draft policy on Traveller sites is lengthy, strong on enforcement and on the unfettered enablement of local authorities to make their own assessment of need and to set their own targets for pitch and plot provision.
The consultation document warns that there is a risk of short-term reduction in authorised sites during the transitional period of the policy, which is to be six months from the date that the final policy is published. During that period, there is nothing to stop local authorities refusing to renew any temporary permissions that have been granted in the past. Surely no one believes that at the end of the six months, not only will there be local plans covering the 17 per cent of the caravan-dwelling population of Travellers still on unauthorised sites and legally homeless, but also those on sites with temporary permission that the relevant local authorities do not intend to renew? Is that really what the Government think? Assuming that such a miracle does occur, do the Government further assume that enough land will have been designated in the local plan to accommodate the numbers produced by the new assessments that have been completed in the six months following the final NPPF publication?
In principle, incorporating Gypsy and Traveller policy in the NPPF, provided it takes the same positive attitude to development for Travellers’ needs as it takes for wider housing needs, is a good idea. But as far as we know, there is to be no opportunity to see and comment on the revised Gypsy and Traveller policy that will be incorporated in the NPPF. That is contrary to the Government’s own Code of Practice on Consultation, and above all to Criterion 1,
“that consultation should take place when there is scope to influence the policy outcome”,
and Criterion 3, that the consultation should be “clear about the process” and “what is being proposed”. If I am wrong on this, perhaps my noble friend will correct me. A new consultation on the revised Traveller policy need not be a full exercise on the NPPF itself, but should be focused entirely on the section dealing with Travellers.
I have a few detailed concerns about planning for Traveller sites which I hope my noble friend will be able to address when she comes to reply, or if not then, perhaps she will write to me. First, it is proposed to retain the existing planning definition of Gypsies and Travellers based on travelling for economic reasons, which includes many New Travellers—as has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—but excludes many ethnic Gypsies and Irish Travellers, particularly those living in bricks and mortar housing. Will my noble friend consider instead using what the noble Baroness has already suggested, which is the definition in the Housing Act 2004 which takes account of ethnicity as well as economic mobility?
Secondly, the Secretary of State’s foreword to Planning for Traveller Sites suggests that planning policy favours Travellers unfairly, particularly in green belt areas, but it says nothing about the huge unfairness of the under-provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, with 17 per cent of those in caravans legally homeless, according to the latest caravan count figures, as I have said. Nor does it refer to the unfairness of inflicting the downstream consequences of housing stress on homeless Travellers in terms of poor educational attainment, health and life expectancy. Will the Minister say that the Government will put addressing the acute accommodation shortage experienced by Travellers as the central objective of policy in planning for Travellers, and will they apply an analogue of paragraph 109 of the NPPF which outlines means of,
“significantly increasing the supply of housing”,
to do the same for the supply of sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation? If not, how can they reconcile treating Gypsies and Travellers differently from other people in regard to accommodation with the public sector equality duty in Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010?
Thirdly, Planning for Traveller Sites is based on a false premise: that existing policy failed because it imposed targets on councils and that a more locally based approach will deliver. At its worst, local determination leads to situations like Basildon’s refusal to make any additional provision. The reason that local authorities are slow in identifying sites and most planning applications are refused is resistance by local residents. Putting the emphasis on determination by local communities is exactly how not to make provision for Gypsies and Travellers and thus to increase homelessness, evictions and inter-community tensions. Many local authorities make similar points. To make the needed provision, they need strong, unambiguous guidance from the Government, not putting the most parochial, reactionary sections of the community in the driving seat. Will the Government provide clear guidance to local authorities that where opposition by local residents to a Traveller site is based on reasons that are not concerned with planning, it is to be ignored?
Fourthly, the restrictions on development of sites in open countryside in paragraph 22 of Planning for Traveller Sites are at odds with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF. Ideally, both housing and Traveller sites should be located conveniently for access to schools, public services, amenities and shops, but making it hard for Travellers to get planning permission except on land which is contiguous with other developments will drive up the price and make it far harder for them to provide sites for themselves, as they have been doing since Circular 1/06. Will the Government strike out paragraph 22, for which there is no equivalent in the NPPF?
Finally, the Secretary of State says, when asked about Travellers, that we want to see fair play within the planning system. However, what we have under the coalition is a manifestly unfair system in which the prejudice and racism of settled communities has been given free rein; where local authorities are being encouraged—and indeed subsidised to the tune of millions of pounds—to kick Travellers off sites they own and develop at their own expense; and where planning for Travellers is under a different and harsher regime than for the rest of the population.
For the past 45 years, I have fought for the rights of Gypsies and Travellers to have places to live like everyone else. I am sorry to say that under this Secretary of State we are back where I began. The spectacle of riot police invading Dale farm to evict residents, including pregnant women, small children and disabled elderly people, was the epitome of our denial of fair play to this most deprived of all communities.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, it seems, like most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, that I too must declare that I am a landowner. I am also a farmer—although more of a lifestyle farmer than some of the noble farmers who are here today. I should declare to those noble Lords who have expressed somewhat sceptical views about wind farms that I am a recipient of planning permission for a wind turbine on my land.
I will be speaking about some general concerns I have about the draft NPPF, concerns which I share with other noble Lords who have spoken today and with many individuals and organisations who have made submissions during the consultation period. I will also address a few comments to a particular aspect of planning policy that, to my knowledge, has not been mentioned much in the discussion about the draft National Planning Policy Framework. I am speaking of the implications of the NPPF for the responsibilities of local authorities in England for the protection and preservation of world heritage sites in their area. I do so as a resident of the city of Bath, which some time ago was designated by UNESCO as a world heritage site.
First, let me turn to the draft NPPF and its more general implications. I think everyone welcomes the objectives of simplifying the planning system, reducing the volume of paperwork about planning policy by a factor of 20, devolving power to local communities, making planning more fair and stopping people playing the system. These are all laudable goals and I would fully support the draft NPPF if that was all it sought to do. However, there appears to be another agenda here. I fear that planning policy has been hijacked by the Treasury, that wishes to turn it into an engine for growth—and at any cost. So while the planning Ministers in this House and the other place make all the right noises about protection of the environment and getting the balance right between development and conservation, and I am sure they do so quite sincerely, the plain fact is that the words in the document do not accurately match the Minister’s rhetoric. If the current draft were implemented unchanged, it would be likely to undermine localism, destroy treasured green spaces for ever and damage the nation’s quality of life—the same quality of life that the Prime Minister, only a short while ago and quite rightly in my view, promised to start including alongside GDP as a more complete way of measuring the country’s progress.
The Government are anxious to promote growth in the economy wherever they can. They are also concerned about the provision of adequate housing, including affordable housing, for our expanding population. The suggestion is that difficulties and delays in the planning system have been causing the shortage of new housing starts over the past few years. However, the figures show that new housing starts increased every year from 2001 to 2006, when they were only a few thousand short of the then Government’s target of 240,000 a year. For the next two years the numbers went sideways and then in 2009 they fell off a cliff. Why was that? Was there some change in planning law or practice that caused new housing starts to halve? Of course not. We all know that the reason was not planning, it was the recession and the severe tightening of lending criteria by the banks. So it is not planning that is holding back the builders. By the way, it is estimated that the top housing developers hold planning consents for 280,000 homes that are not being built.
The authors of the draft NPPF would have us believe that planning policy is all that is holding us back from fixing the housing shortage and enjoying a growth bonanza. We have here a document that is skewed heavily in favour of development at the expense of the views of local people and the protection of the quality of life of current and future generations. I am not the first to point out that builders and developers could not believe their luck when they saw this draft, although I believe that in life you make your luck and it should be no surprise that developers were heavily involved in its production.
As currently drafted, the NPPF is very strong and clear about the need for growth. In contrast, it is brief, woolly and full of caveats when it turns to community involvement or the needs of the environment. Listen to a few examples of the language it uses about growth and development. In the foreword it states: “Development means growth”. In paragraph 13:
“Planning must operate to encourage growth”.
In paragraph 19:
“Planning should proactively drive and support the development that this country needs”.
There is more of the same throughout the document. On the other hand, the language relating to the community’s own wishes or the many needs of the environment is brief, often heavily qualified and limited by yet more references to the growth agenda. A good example is paragraph 10, which states that we should,
“use the planning system to promote vibrant and healthy communities”—
which so far is all well and good, but it then goes on to say,
“by providing an increased supply of housing”.
And here we go again.
There are many other examples of how the draft fails to strike a balance between the valid and competing factors that should be considered for proposed developments. The document must be amended to give equal prominence to the range of relevant government policies, including the Natural Environment White Paper and the binding targets on climate change; to remove the stipulation that the default answer to development is yes; to place community engagement and consent at the heart of the process, and to properly define sustainable development so that it means more than simply economic viability.
I conclude with a few words about the special case of world heritage sites. The draft NPPF provides protection to wildlife sites, which presumably arises out of the Government’s duties under international treaties. I argue that there should be similar protection for world heritage sites where obligations arise from the World Heritage Convention. I believe that the Local Authority World Heritage Forum has submitted a detailed response to the draft NPPF, and I ask the Government to carefully consider the very sensible suggestions in that document.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for promoting and sponsoring this debate and for giving us a chance for yet another go at a debate on the NPPF. It has been a wide-ranging debate. My noble friend Lady Whitaker raised design issues; we had several contributions on countryside issues, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron; we heard about turbines from those who are for them and who seem to like and enjoy them; and we heard about heritage conservation and even about Liberal Democrat conference resolutions. We had a broad historical sweep from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about how planning has contributed to the environment or not, and we have had the IT revolution and internet shopping. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds in particular about the Gypsy and Traveller community. I rather admire those contributions; they remind us that planning has to work for us all, the most disadvantaged as well as the best off.
This debate is timely, with the consultation concluded and as we head for Third Reading of the Localism Bill on Monday. These debates have helped to restore some balance into the consideration of the NPPF, which has not been without its controversy. If I may quote my noble friend Lord Hart of Chilton in the debate on 13 October, who said planning issues inevitably cause controversy because they,
“involve balancing competing objectives … and … making … choices which can directly affect villages, towns, cities, the countryside and those who live in them”.—[Official Report, 13/10/11; col. 1842.]
It is about how we shape the places in which we live and how we build our communities—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The impact of these choices is heightened as we are a relatively small and densely populated country.
I do not propose to dwell on it, but the manner in which the Government have gone about introducing what amounts to the biggest upheaval in our planning system since 1947, and the rhetoric adopted by some Ministers—I certainly do not include the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in that—has made these challenges worse. It is common ground that the planning system needs improving. However, to describe the system as broken, as some have, and the cause of poor growth and inadequate housing supply simply cannot be justified. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, I think, recited the figures—additions to the housing stock rose from 130,000 in 2001 steadily year on year to 207,000 in 2007-08. We know what has happened since then and why, and we can contrast that with the current situation. There were just 25,000 residential planning permissions granted in the second quarter of this year. The chaos and confusion arising from how the new system is being introduced has caused the very opposite of what the Government were seeking in terms of more development and more growth. At the same time, this is causing people to believe that the countryside is going to be concreted over. I contend that the current system has largely delivered in the public interest by striking the right balance between growth and development on the one hand and protection of our natural environment on the other. To be clear: we are pro-growth, but growth must be balanced.
Turning now to the process, I ask the Minister where we go from here. I am aware that she is constrained, given that the consultation has just concluded. The revised NPPF will doubtless emerge over the next few months; I think, it is hoped, by April. Is a second round of possibly truncated consultation on that revised document planned? What if any will be the parliamentary process attached to it? How does the timing relate to the plans for the revocation of the regional spatial strategies? It is understood that the environmental impact assessment consultation on the revocation plans has been launched—indeed somebody was kind enough to whack them on my desk just before we started this debate. Is it still envisaged that the regional spatial strategies will be revoked at the time the NPPF comes into effect so that there is no overlap? If not, I raise again the question of what will happen if we have potentially competing frameworks, although I understand from our discussions this morning that the regional spatial strategies actually form part of the local plan, so that there is no conflict. But it would be helpful to have the Minister’s clarification.
The Government have set their face against the NPPF being in primary legislation, or even a requirement to produce one. They argue that this absolves them from needing a strategic environmental assessment and that it is not required by legislation, regulatory or administrative provisions. Can the Government confirm that this is their position and say why they would not wish such an assessment to be undertaken?
What of the content of the NPPF? The fundamental issue, the matter which is at the heart of concerns over the document, is this. The Government state, and the NPPF affirms, that sustainable development remains at the core of their approach to planning and that the Brundtland definition holds sway, but the language of the document undermines this. The Government have not supported putting a definition of sustainable development in primary legislation, but there is hope that they might seek to bring more clarity to this issue in the revised NPPF. Given the proximity of the Third Reading of the Localism Bill, perhaps the Minister can tell us what she is able to on that proposition.
Indeed, what is the Government’s understanding of sustainable development and how will they ensure that it runs throughout the planning system, especially in the NPPF? The role of the NPPF should be to provide more detail on what sustainable development means in the planning context. It should provide key principles and minimum standards to help interpret the definition of sustainable development for practical application at the local level. It should guide local authorities and communities on what criteria, indicators and other mechanisms they may need to ensure that their communities and development are sustainable and fit within the overarching definition. Although the draft NPPF refers to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, there is no further context or policy to help local authorities understand what this definition means or to guide how it can be delivered at the local level.
The draft NPPF completely fails to mention any national policies or strategies on sustainable development, including the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy which the Government have advised is still applicable. It is difficult to determine from the draft exactly what is meant by sustainable development apart from the threefold analysis of “economic, social and environmental” as it relates to planning under the broad headings of “planning for prosperity”, “planning for people” and “planning for places”.
Great virtue has been made, and indeed it has been reiterated in our debate today, by the Government on the brevity of the NPPF, condensing into some 52 pages the entirety of the existing policy statements, guidance and correspondence. It is variously cited that between 1,000 and 6,000 pieces of paper have been condensed. Indeed, the Minister in the other place referred to 1,000 pieces of policy and 6,000 pieces of guidance. It is abundantly clear that 52 pages, even taking account of duplication and overlapping guidance, will need to be supplemented somehow. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government are going to address this. As my noble friend Lord Hart said in the last debate,
“simplicity of language does not necessarily make things simple”.—[Official Report, 13/10/11; col. 1843.]
A number of noble Lords picked up on the issue of language; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, did so. We share the concerns about some of the language in the document—we have heard questions such as what does “indeterminate” or “out of date” mean—and indeed that this is a lawyers’ charter.
The draft NPPF requires, variously, “significant weight” to be applied to supporting economic growth, “great weight” to protecting landscapes, “substantial weight” to apply to green belt land and “considerable importance and weight” to apply to conserving heritage assets. As the Royal Town Planning Institute points out, this kind of ambiguity is not suitable in a document needed to give a clear steer to decision-makers on how to weigh up the different competing interests in land and property. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also made that point. This ambiguity in the language has potentially blurred the policy intent. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not clearly define the term, and hence different interpretations have been put on the NPPF by the Government, conservation bodies and others. Uncertainty abounds, and the concerns expressed about the Forest of Dean are just one example.
There can be no doubt that this ambiguity has added to the volume of responses received under the NPPF consultation, so the Government not only have to deal with that volume, they also have to allay fears stirred up by lack of precision in what is our first ever single national planning policy. Of course, some of the fears expressed may well be justified—the move away from “brownfield first”, for example. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, I think that the jury is out as to whether the Treasury has held sway in giving primacy to growth in the balance of the sustainability pillars.
Several noble Lords called for transitional arrangements. I agree that it is essential that transitional arrangements are put in place if there is to be sensible management of change to the new system. As the RTPI argues, the NPPF does not just distill 1,000 pages of planning policy into 52 pages, it introduces a new process and a new policy, the combination of which may be problematic without clear transitional provisions. As drafted, the NPPF has a default process by way of the presumption where a local planning authority does not have an up-to-date plan. In those circumstances, planning applications have to be determined on the basis of the NPPF policies. As we have heard, many local councils do not have up-to-date plans and it is feared that because the NPPF itself introduces new policies, all existing plans will lack force immediately on its introduction. Perhaps the noble Baroness will address that point.
That is compounded by interdependence of local and regional plans, where some policies will be in one and some in the other, and the demise of regional spatial strategies, which make those plans currently complete, incomplete. In other circumstances, there is the risk of otherwise undesirable development proposals being approved, as well as the prospect of endless litigation. This is rightly causing alarm. We understand the Government's concern about lack of progress by some local councils to finalise their local development framework, and agree that inaction should not be a route to denying sustainable development. However, the local development plan as the foundation of the planning system has endured since 1947. The position is that planning should be granted for development which is in accordance with the plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. We very much support that formulation. We support that, supplemented of course by the new neighbourhood planning arrangements.
A transition is needed to enable local authorities to get their development plans up to date. We are not prescriptive on timing, but it should take account of stretched resources of local authorities and the planning inspectorate, which also has to deal with the CIL schedules. What transitional provisions will be introduced? How is it proposed that they will be taken forward? What is the likely timeframe for that? Clarity on that will assist the Government on Monday's Third Reading.
The draft NPPF has had a difficult birth. Now is the time to look forward, because it is in all of our interests to get this right. The planning system is the principal mechanism through which sustainable development can be achieved. It provides us with a framework within which both short and long-term public interest considerations can be taken into account. A revised NPPF has a central role to play in all that.
Baroness Hanham
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is the second time that we have had this debate in a week; it is remarkable how much the contributions have differed from the last time. A great deal has been added by what people have said and new areas have been opened up. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, I am treating this as part of the consultation process. I will not be able to comment on everything that people have said, but I shall try to cover some of the general headlines. I appreciate the various interests and expertise around the table today.
The consultation has been pretty widespread. We have had 14,000 replies, which will have to be scrutinised, and two debates in the House of Lords. I have promised that everything that has been said will be taken into account. There has been one debate in the House of Commons and the Localism Bill has been discussed in both Houses, so I think we have given these areas pretty detailed scrutiny. The NPPF is launched. The final version will not be available until early next year. It might be later or earlier than that; it depends how quickly we can get on with it, but it will then be the final guiding document for all planning thereafter. Whether it will grease the sides for noble Lords, I do not know, but it has already contracted down. There is a divergence of view on whether or not the contraction has lost something of the flavour of what planning processes should be about. We think that it falls somewhere in the middle, but we will need to talk that through and see whether more provisions need to be added. I do not know what size it will end up being. We hope that a whole batch of following guidance will not be needed. After all, the whole rationale of the NPPF is to try to get rid of thousands of pages of guidance and policies that have had to be taken into account and to make the process easier. If we are to ask local people to develop neighbourhood plans which will support this planning process, they have to be able to understand what they are trying to achieve. If they do not, that process will be a waste of time and will require far too much support from the ground to ensure that it is carried out properly.
We are beginning to structure a new system of planning not only with the NPPF but with the Localism Bill. That system will rightly take account of the growth that we need but that will not be the be all and end all. We badly need housing in this country, as has been said by a number of noble Lords. However, we also need to make room for business. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, drew attention to the fact that business cannot be excluded. If we want jobs, we need to support growth and business to help us move ourselves out of the rather difficult economic situation we are in. Business is vital. A very high percentage of young people aged between 16 and 24 are out of work and have never had a job. They need training and apprenticeships and all that business can offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, drew attention to the value of providing workspace in the countryside. I support that. I do not think the NPPF moves away from that in any way. We are very conscious that our beautiful countryside provides relaxation for people but it is also a working area. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said one had to remember that the countryside is where we grow our food, raise cattle and engage in rural activities and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, drew attention to the number of businesses that start up in the countryside, so it is all-encompassing. We very much want to ensure that by the time this planning process is put in place it will have a long lifespan and will not need to be changed again.
An enormous number of questions has been raised and I will try to answer some of the more general points. If I feel afterwards that somebody has raised a specific question that cannot be answered at this stage, I will make sure that it is answered. I say at the outset that that will be the situation with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has asked a number of very detailed questions about the Gypsy and Traveller policies. I will be able to answer or give a flavour of some of that but I will not be able to go into all of the detail. However, I will see that we send a letter to the noble Lord that takes detailed account of what he has said. After all, we have just completed a consultation on Gypsies and Travellers. We have not yet finally viewed everything that is in it, but it is going to play a part in how arrangements are made and sites are allocated in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, also took up those points.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a number of questions. I will start with what the transitional arrangements will be between the regional spatial strategies and the National Planning Policy Framework. We have not decided yet what, if any, transitional arrangements there should be, but we see that you cannot get rid of the regional spatial strategies and not have something else. There is also, of course, the point—and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made it very clearly—that one of the problems about this process is that very many councils have not yet completed their local development framework, which I think was part of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and I laboured with to some extent. That is probably one of the best reasons why one should be cautious about transitional arrangements, because the arrangements from that Act were transitional—people were going to be able to produce their new policies, and somewhere along the line an awful lot of councils have just sat down and not done enough about it. However, those plans are important and they are going to have to be put together. There will be a speeded-up process. The planning inspectorate and the Minister, Greg Clark, are already in discussions as to what is needed to streamline and quickly get the policy through. They form the background and the base for future strategies.
We will come back to transitional arrangements in due course, but I understand what the noble Lord is saying. With regard to further consultation as planning policy is developed, we have undertaken the most enormous amount of consultation over the past three months—there have been 11 regional workshops and Ministers and officials have all met many partner organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has brought people to see me and we have talked to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. The House and external organisations have all had an opportunity to put their views. That, of course, also goes for the National Trust, which has put its views firmly but is now a bit calmer over some of the issues. I think that we probably need now to get this pulled together, assembled and turned into a final document which is put out, so that there is no more gap between the policy and its use. We need to get on with that.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also raised the question of the strategic environmental assessment. I confirm that, as the national planning policy framework is guidance rather than a legislative statutory document, it is not a plan or programme that requires a strategic environmental assessment under the strategic environmental assessment directive or the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. I thought noble Lords would want to know that so that they can look it up. We have undertaken an impact assessment of the NPPF, which has been published and has been quoted several times this afternoon. It addresses the environmental, social and economic impact of our draft policy.
Those words lead me to sustainable development. There have been many questions raised about sustainable development, and a demand for an explanation. I am not too close to Monday to say that we have thought very carefully about putting this in the Bill. I said at our last sitting that that would be something that we would be looking at. We now believe that the proper place for this is in the framework.
There is still an enormous number of questions about how much sustainable development is included, and how it is best included in planning. There are the five pillars of which we are all very well aware. There are people who would like to put in at least another two or three. We have to ensure that this is relevant to planning and we will want to develop that further. The five pillars are still in the NPPF but we may want to look at that again.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, raised the question of the timing of the regional strategy revocations. I do not think that I have covered that yet. They will be revoked by order. A consultation is taking place on that at the moment. It is a voluntary consultation carried out by the Government to ensure that the environmental assessment of regional strategies is understood and people have commented on it before they are abolished. Once that has been taken care of, the regional strategies will be revoked and the local plans and the NPPF will be the guiding spirit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned design. I absolutely agree with her: design is one of the elements of planning that we really need to take into account. It is well supported within the NPPF, where it is made clear that planning permission can be refused for a development which is of particularly poor quality. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in his wide-ranging speech, gave us many good reasons why, in the past, some developments should have been refused. The benefit—or not—of those developments remains with us. Such developments can now be refused and planning authorities are required to give weight to good and outstanding design. Sometimes it may be that the design is unusual within the area, but we know that there are many very good buildings that have been built in different parts of the country. Design is something which people disagree about, but it is in the planning framework that we can take account of it in planning approval.
I have touched on Gypsy sites and the voluntary consultation on this matter. We will be looking at that consultation document soon.
I hope that I have covered the question of the countryside. We are fully committed to protection of the countryside, and understand and value all that it provides for us. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, carefully supports heritage. We truly support maintaining protection for our heritage. When we get to neighbourhood policies, heritage will be almost more protected because local people tend to be strongly in favour of something around them that has heritage attached to it. I suspect that there will be great enthusiasm to ensure that that is maintained in the way the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, would want us to do.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said about world sites, I think that I am right in saying that those would be covered as well. The document does not call brownfield land “brownfield”—it calls it “land of lesser value”—but the implication, if nothing else, is that it is land which has been previously developed and is capable of being redeveloped. As I said in my opening speech, 60 per cent of building has already taken place on brownfield land and we expect that that will always be the first point of call—unless, as I said, it has already been adopted or adapted for some other use which local people wanted. There is no disagreement about the fact that such land should be developed first and foremost and that the green belt should be protected, as it is under the document. There should be limited development on greenfield sites only under special circumstances.
Those special circumstances might fit neatly into what we were talking about in providing small developments in the countryside. There will be areas where it is appropriate to have a small number of affordable houses for workers and other people who live in the countryside. The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Reay asked about the status of our plan. I have probably covered that. I hope that I have gone through both the policy and the practices.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about parliamentary participation in the final stage of the revised plan. My noble friend indicated earlier that there would be a proper opportunity for the revised plan to be debated on the Floor of both Houses. Can she confirm that?
Baroness Hanham
I may have been so cautious that I did not get my point across. I mentioned earlier that we have undertaken a great deal of consultation already, but consideration is being given to whether there should be further parliamentary discussion on the final document. That has not been decided, but the Select Committee inquiries and the CLG inquiry are already under way, so there is plenty going on. I shall have to come back in due course to noble Lords as to whether there will be further consultation on the final document. I suspect that the answer may be no.
Lord Cormack
If the answer is, regretfully, no, I hope that there will at least be the opportunity to debate the final document.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that is not in my hands but in the hands of the business managers, but I hear what my noble friends have said.
Lord Reay
I do not think my noble friend has answered the question that I put to her. What is the status of the local plans that have been adopted by local authorities? Some of them will have been adopted quite a long time ago. Will they automatically become out of date when the NPPF is adopted? Will they therefore need to be revised or not? Who will decide whether that is the case?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the local plans will remain part and parcel of the requirements that people have to pay attention to. Those that have already been developed can and should be updated. That is going to be done on a fast-track basis. I said earlier that discussions were going on with the inspectorate. Those policies that have relied on the regional spatial strategies will maintain until and unless they are changed, and with the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework. Where they are completed, they are the supporting documents; where they are not completed, they will have to be completed as quickly as possible. In between that, account will have to be taken of the national planning policy framework in any decisions being made.
Lord Greaves
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she just clear up one point that has been raised? Who will have the responsibility of issuing the certificates of conformity on those local plans and local government frameworks that have already been adopted?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the planning inspectorate will be responsible for issuing the certificates and also for ensuring that the fast-tracking of plans is put in hand.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Baroness has been very generous with her time, but, just for clarity, if there is a local plan which is otherwise bang up to date, would the introduction of the NPPF itself cause that to be out of date or incomplete?
Baroness Hanham
The answer to that is no, quite categorically. It is not going to be out of date but the NPPF will then be a matter that has to be taken into account alongside it.
I hope that I have dealt with the more general aspects. If there are specific aspects that I need to take up further, of course I will do that. I again thank noble Lords who have taken part and who have given us the benefit of their advice, for which I am very grateful. I am grateful for the many and calm contributions we have had this afternoon. With that, I beg leave to conclude the proceedings.
House of Lords
Euro
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are seeking to safeguard the United Kingdom’s interests in discussions with European Union partners on the future of the euro.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, a stable euro area is in the UK’s interests and the Government are actively engaged in seeking to achieve this. While acknowledging the need for greater euro area fiscal integration, the Government are working to ensure that the UK is not part of that integration and that our influence on and interests in the single market, competition policy and financial services are safeguarded. We have ensured that the UK will not participate in the European stability mechanism.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, which would be more dangerous for Britain—financial and fiscal integration of the eurozone, with Britain marginalised in a minority bloc and outgunned in EU decision-taking; or disintegration of the eurozone, with its attendant chaos; or, most likely, a combination of the two? With eurozone countries objecting to Britain’s interference, and with both the coalition and the Conservative Party riven by internal disagreement, how can the Prime Minister hope to exercise useful influence or, indeed, to save his Government from being destroyed by Europe?
Lord Sassoon
I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, puts up completely false choices and alternatives here. The fact is that significant progress has been made overnight to stabilise the eurozone. A lot more work needs to be done to fill in the detail but that is a first major step. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head. That is point number one. Secondly, the idea that the UK is going to be marginalised in the “euro-outs” is simply not true. On Sunday, the Prime Minister established the key principle that we would be there, as we were yesterday, with a voice at the table on all matters involving all 27 EU member states. The idea behind the Question is that somehow it is just the UK versus the rest. We must be reminded that the other euro-outs include Poland, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and four others. We will play a critical part in driving forward the single market, and that is very important to the euro area.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is a fundamental fact that monetary union in the eurozone is not viable short of a fiscal union, and that a fiscal union cannot come into being without full political union, which fortunately is as improbable as it is undesirable?
Lord Sassoon
My noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby cuts to the chase with singular directness. I think that this is an onion with many layers to it and we need to go stage by stage. Having established the immediate priority of the stabilisation of the eurozone, of course the strengthening of the fiscal arrangements within the eurozone is the second priority. The Government signed up to that during the summer and the implementation of that needs to be taken forward. It is in the UK’s interest that that happens. It may lead, as the overnight statement said, to treaty changes and, as a consequence of that, the UK Government will seek to ensure that they take advantage of any opportunity to advance the UK’s interest. I think we need to regard this as a step-by-step process.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, will the noble Lord pass on our best wishes to the Prime Minister for many more enjoyable dinners with the Swedes and Poles, having enjoyed one yesterday evening? Does the Minister agree that in the new two-tier Europe, which this Government are bringing on, it is essential to defend Britain’s vital national interest in the single market and financial regulation by keeping Britain as close as possible to the eurozone? In the light of that, will they be reconsidering their decision not to join the euro-plus pact, which was offered? Does he not also agree that it is totally contradictory and counterproductive to talk at the same time about repatriation of powers for which, if the coalition can agree on what they mean, our partners are bound to demand a higher a price?
Lord Liddle
How do the Government propose to resolve this looming conflict between defence of the national interest and their own party unity?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it really is not helpful for the party opposite to try to paint this completely false picture of a two-speed Europe. As I have already explained, the euro-out countries are integral to the single market—the eurozone understands that—and we will be part of the centrality of what needs to be done to drive forward structural reform of the single market, and so on. The other thing that is completely wrong is to paint Europe now as two-speed. There is a variable geometry EU, as we have it. Remember that other important areas such as justice and home affairs, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, recognises, also run in different ways. Therefore the idea that there will be some fundamentally changed, two-speed Europe is again ridiculously simplistic.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, let us have the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and then, if there is time, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is it not obvious that last night’s measures are merely yet more sticking plaster on a wound that will therefore continue to poison the world economy? Is not the only answer to abandon the whole ill-fated project of European integration, get rid of the euro and go back to the democracies of Europe freely trading together and with the rest of the world in their own currencies?
Lord Sassoon
No, my Lords, that is not the situation. Forty per cent of our trade goes to the eurozone, 50 per cent goes to the EU, and we have to work to preserve the structure.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, would the Minister be so good as to give the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, a reply to the question about the euro-plus pact? It may be that the name of this pact is unfortunate, but it is supported by a number of countries which are not in the eurozone, and its objectives relate very closely to our most important objective, which is to further the single market. Would he not agree that the priority now is not drawing up long wish lists for repatriation but working out how we are going to keep our position and keep the integrity of the single market?
Lord Sassoon
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, says, there are many things up for consideration and we need to consider the future architecture in the round and decide where it is in the best interests of the UK to move forward on all those issues. It would be too early to pick out one item this morning.
House of Lords: Reform
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their proposals for a reformed House of Lords of 300 Members, what they regard as an appropriate size for the House of Lords in the interim.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the Government’s policy is to work towards securing in the House of Lords a better reflection of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the previous general election, as proposed in the coalition agreement.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I really am sorry that the Leader of the House is unable to give a more specific Answer to the Question, because I am sure he acknowledges and understands, as I do, that there is a very widespread view right across this House, in all parties and in all parts of the House, that the present total membership of 826 and record daily attendances are getting us close to the point where the House is unsustainable. I appeal to him, given that he has frequently told us, in opposition and in government, that his job as Leader is not just to speak, as he quite rightly does, for the Government, but also to speak on behalf of the whole House. I therefore put it to him that he should say to his colleagues in government that until such time as there is an agreed process for reducing the numbers of people in this House, there should be no further wholesale intake of Peers.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, should come up with that. After all, the Labour Party is the largest party in the House of Lords, and I quite understand the political imperative to preserve that position. Since May 2010, 119 new Peers have been made up to this House, and nearly half of them were Labour Peers. The Government reserve the right, as the previous Government did, from time to time to refresh the Benches in the House of Lords. On the question of size, we now have a system of permanent retirement, and if any Peers are so discombobulated by the size of the House, they should immediately go to the Library, write their resignation and send it to the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Lord Palmer
Is the Leader of the House aware that there are currently roughly more than 450 committee slots? If we are to continue to revise legislation, how on earth can we do it with only 300 Members of the House?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, a Joint Committee of both Houses is looking at the proposal laid out in the draft Bill, including the numbers in the House. No doubt that committee will look carefully at the kind of question that the noble Lord has raised. But if the House was to be elected, it would clearly wish to use its resources in a very different way from the way in which we do currently.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, if the Government’s policy is that the composition of the House should reflect the result at the previous general election and that were a long-standing policy, surely the House would grow exponentially after every election. Is it not a ridiculous proposition? Given the appointments which have been made so far, are they not at variance with that declared policy?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, no is the answer to the last part of my noble friend’s question, but he is right that, if we do not fundamentally change this House, at the start of every new Parliament where there is a change in the Government the House would continue to increase. The Constitution Unit at UCL has done a useful piece of work examining this. On the current general election figures, if we were to put the policy into effect immediately, it would mean an increase of 82 Conservative Peers. I can tell the House that we are not about to announce 82 Conservative Peers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, given the uncertainties as to whether the Government will achieve substantive reform in this Parliament, why do they not say that they will take over the Steel Bill?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the pre-legislative scrutiny in a committee of both Houses includes all of what is in the Steel Bill. I would have thought that the best thing to do would be to wait for the results of the Joint Committee before progressing on any further legislation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, do the Government really intend that the composition of this House should reflect the votes cast at the previous election? If the Government mean that, will the noble Lord care to meet with me afterwards, because I have a little list in my pocket for the 24 Peers which should go to UKIP, whereas at the moment there are only two of us?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, those clever people at the Constitution Unit have suggested that, if there were no further change to the House and if the policy were to include the minor parties, UKIP would be entitled to 24 Members of this House. I can also tell the House that that is unlikely to happen any time soon either.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that one reason why the present House needs to be larger than a reformed House is to ensure at least a modicum of regional representation, given that in the present House roughly 40 per cent of Peers are from London and the south-east, which has only 25 per cent of the population, whereas only about 20 per cent of Peers are from the Midlands and north, which have 40 per cent of the population?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have no reason to distrust the figures of my noble friend. Indeed, it is true that under an appointed system there are some parts of the United Kingdom that are less well represented than others. The other reason why we need a larger House at the moment is that this is a part-time, unpaid House. If it were elected, it would be full-time and paid.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, does not the vote that we had last Friday in this House indicate that there is a broad consensus across the House in favour of the provisions of the Steel Bill? Would it not be far better, therefore, to put this House in order, notwithstanding what might happen in the future? And did not the question of my noble friend Lord Marks help to illustrate the folly of the line down which my noble friend and the Government appear to be going?
Lord Strathclyde
I can assure my noble friend that I am in no doubt whatever as to this House’s views and its desire to be fully appointed, but that is not the policy of any of the major parties that stood at the last general election. We are continually urged to have pre-legislative scrutiny, and we have pre-legislative scrutiny which includes all the parts of the Steel Bill. Surely we should wait for the work of the Joint Committee to be completed before continuing on legislation.
Wales: Council Tax
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Conwy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that funds allocated to the Welsh Government to enable them to freeze council tax rates are used solely for that purpose.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the Welsh Government have received a £38.9 million increase to their departmental expenditure limit in 2011-12. As is usual practice, it will be for the Welsh Government to decide how to use this additional funding.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
But does my noble and learned friend think that it is right that nearly £40 million allocated by our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Welsh Assembly’s Labour Government specifically to enable them to freeze council tax should deliberately not be applied to that nationwide purpose for the second year running, with the result that over a million Welsh households are to be deprived of a substantial sum when they are facing the fastest rise in living costs for 20 years?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I can readily understand where my noble friend is coming from in asking that question. The consequentials were made available because of the funding made available in England to freeze the council tax to help hard-pressed families. Indeed, many Welsh families might wonder why they are the only households in Great Britain that will not be having their council tax frozen. But the essence of devolution in the Acts that were passed by this Parliament in devolving power to Wales, including power over local government finance, means that it must be a matter for the Welsh Ministers and for the Welsh Assembly to determine what their priorities are. Importantly, Welsh Ministers will be accountable to the Welsh Assembly for their spending decisions and through the Assembly to the people of Wales. That is where the proper accountability should lie.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that while the Barnett formula may have been fairly generous to Scotland, it has been shown to be some £300 million light in Wales in meeting the level of expenditure to keep services up to the same standard as in other parts of these islands? Given that, is it not totally reasonable that the Welsh Government should use these resources to spend on health and education, which are very much in need of further resources in Wales?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I made clear in answer to my noble friend on the consequentials and the block grant given to the Welsh Government, it is a matter for the Government there to determine their priorities and to be accountable for these priorities. If they choose to spend it on health and education, they will clearly be accountable for that expenditure. Separate bilateral discussions are continuing between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on all proposals arising from the Holtham commission, including the idea of a funding floor and the commission’s wider proposals for reform.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, at a time when we are debating the Scotland Bill, which gives greater autonomy and freedom to the Scottish legislature to decide its own spending priorities, would it not be paradoxical for us to be restrictive and prescriptive in the case of Wales?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I indicate to the noble Lord that the Government are not being prescriptive. They recognise that the consequentials that were made available are for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to determine. While additional powers are being conferred on the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Scotland Bill, the noble Lord will be aware that there has been recent agreement to set up the Silk Commission, which will look initially at the financial accountability of the Assembly and, having reported on that, move to looking at its powers.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the years go on, the strains imposed by the Barnett formula are beginning to show in the Welsh financial settlement? As a result, for example, education in Wales receives £600 less funding per pupil per year than in England. Would that not be a good way in which the money concerned could be spent?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am sure that the Welsh Government are getting plenty of helpful suggestions as to how that money might be spent. I sat in on the debate on the Barnett formula initiated earlier in the year by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and listened carefully to it. The Government have made it clear that their priority is to reduce the deficit and get our public finances in order. Therefore, any change to the system of devolution funding must await stabilisation of public finances. However, as I have already indicated, separate bilateral discussions are continuing between the Government and the Welsh Government on the proposals arising from the Holtham Commission.
Lord Trimble
I presume that there was a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland as well. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister tell me how much that payment was and what it has been used for?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that the amount was £22.6 million. I regret that I do not know how the Northern Ireland Assembly chooses to use it, but the same principle would apply: it must determine its own priorities and be accountable to the people of Northern Ireland for them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, to return to the council tax freeze, why is it acceptable to freeze council tax in England and Scotland—and in Wales, if it chooses to spend it that way—to the tune of £800 million, so that every Member of this House has their council tax frozen, while, outside this House, the poorest will see their council tax benefit cut by 10 per cent?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the Government indicated that this was an area of UK Government underspend which we were able to use to help support hard-working families with their council tax. I think that it has been widely welcomed that the council tax has been frozen in England; indeed, the Scottish Government had already decided to freeze it in Scotland. With the resources that are available, I think that it will be of benefit to a considerable number of households throughout Scotland and England. It is up to the Government of Wales to determine whether they will wish to follow that. Interestingly enough, in announcing the local government settlement, a Welsh Minister, Mr Carl Sargeant, indicated that local authorities in Wales would have to consider the balance between the need to sustain key services for their citizens’ benefit and the need to limit any financial pressure on hard-pressed households. Even devolution of local responsibility within Wales might lead to some places there getting a council tax freeze.
Economy: Inflation and Unemployment
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the most recently published figures, what plans HM Treasury has to reduce inflation and unemployment.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name—rather than the previous Question—on the Order Paper.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Government’s economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Budget 2011 reaffirmed the independent Monetary Policy Committee’s remit to target 2 per cent inflation, as defined by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index. The Government have introduced a range of measures to reduce unemployment and support the unemployed into work, including get Britain working, the work programme and modernisation of Jobcentre Plus.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I hope that the modest attempts that the Treasury is making to help the unemployment situation are successful. However, does not the Minister accept, if he wants to be honest with the House, the plain fact that the deficit reduction plan overshadows all those minor measures, and unemployment continues to rise? I do not expect him to be able to announce what the Chancellor is going to do in the near future. However, given the change of circumstances around the economy, will he at least tell us that the Chancellor is considering, without changing the plan, at the very least putting off some of those measures to later years and bringing forward some of the infrastructure and capital expenditure plans, which would help to reduce the terrible unemployment that is blighting so much of the country?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the first clear objective of the Government is to stick to the fiscal reduction plan that we have set to make sure that the UK’s interest rates remain low, so that we are not in the position in which countries like Italy find themselves today. It is absolutely fundamental to growth that we keep interest rates low and stick to our fiscal discipline. Secondly, we must have monetary activism and credit easing, a combination of measures that the Bank of England has taken by extending the asset purchase scheme by £75 billion. The Chancellor has said that we will come forward with further credit easing measures in the autumn Statement. The third issue, which will further be addressed in the November Statement, is, critically, to press on with supply-side reforms that will underpin medium-term balanced growth. Those are the three clear strands of the Government’s policy to which we will stick.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, if my noble friend is in favour of keeping an inflation target, why does the Governor of the Bank of England fail to match it year after year? If my noble friend is in favour of keeping that target—which there is no purpose in having if it is never matched—what are the advantages of inflation?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the critical point is that, as my noble friend knows, the target for the Bank of England is a medium-term target. The Bank of England is wholly transparent about the situation in its quarterly inflation reports. In the latest reports, it has set out what the pressures have been on inflation in recent quarters and where they will be in the immediate future. Some of those pressures naturally come out of the figures over the next six months. It is quite right that the Governor and the MPC have and are committed to that target. It is important to realise that it is a medium-term target, and their judgment is that it is more likely that inflation will undershoot rather than exceed 2 per cent in the medium term. Indeed, that judgment is supported by the great majority of independent forecasts that I have seen.
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Question related to RPI and unemployment. I remind the Minister that RPI is at its highest level since June 1991 and unemployment is at its highest level since October 1994. The Governor of the Bank of England clearly feels that he has reached the end of the line in terms of monetary policy and inflation risk. What are the Government going to do to bring forward a credible, coherent and sustainable strategy for economic growth?
Lord Sassoon
First of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Myners, knows, the Governor of the Bank of England has set out very clearly his and the MPC’s analysis of the inflation situation and of their reasons for increasing by £75 billion the asset purchase scheme, so I am not going to answer for them. On unemployment, I would point out that in the second quarter of 2011 the internationally comparable employment rate for the UK was 69.4 per cent. That was the fourth highest employment rate in the G7, behind Canada, Germany and Japan and ahead of, among others, the US. We also had the seventh highest employment rate in the European Union in the second quarter. Of course we would wish to see growth increased, but we have to have sustainable growth. We should not put ourselves in the position of thinking that, on unemployment, we are out of line with our peer group. We are coming out of the deepest recession that we have known for many decades—and who caused that?
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I must tell the Minister that I welcome the fact that the Government are keen to see as many apprenticeships as possible. In that case, will he urge the authorities of this House and the other place to take on more apprentices and trainees? We have a fine building and many highly skilled people, and it would be good if we showed a good example by employing more apprentices and trainees in this very building.
Lord Sassoon
I am sure that the authorities of both Houses have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, has said. Of course, skills will be part of the supply-side reforms that we continue to work on going forward.
Lord Eatwell
Does the Minister agree that the very high rate of inflation in this country is one of the key factors leading to a significant reduction in the living standards of ordinary households and is therefore contributing to lower expenditure and lower employment? Will he explain to the House why, at over 5 per cent, the inflation rate in this country is almost double that of all other European countries and that of the United States?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seeks to get me to commentate on matters that we have given to the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. It was the party opposite in government who took the right step of giving the Bank of England independence. Therefore, as I have already explained twice in my answers today, it is for the Bank to explain, as it does very transparently, the track of inflation. The Government are ensuring that we relieve wherever we can the pressures on household bills because I accept that inflation puts a high burden on our households. That is why we cut fuel duty by 1p per litre in the Budget and why we announced in recent weeks a further £805 million to enable council tax to be frozen for a further year. The Government are concerned to make sure that our hard-pressed households are relieved of pressures. That is why we need to keep interest rates low, which have contributed to £10 billion of lower mortgage payments than there would otherwise have been.
Business of the House
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Prosser set down for today shall be limited to three and a half hours and that in the name of Lord Knight of Weymouth to one and a half hours.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Order 2011
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
To move that the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Employment
Baroness Prosser
To call attention to the changing world of employment; and to move for papers.
Baroness Prosser
My Lords, I am privileged and pleased to be able to introduce this debate—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I suggest that we observe the usual courtesies of this House, which are that first we leave quietly and secondly that we do not walk in front of the person trying to speak.
Baroness Prosser
Whatever happened to the gentlemen?
I am privileged and pleased to be able to introduce this Labour debate on the changing world of employment. The subject is wide and encompasses issues to do with the economy, education, welfare and services as well, of course, as employment policy. My contribution will range across these areas, ending with some proposals for action.
Most noble Lords will recall the days when, educated or otherwise, qualified or not, a person could walk into a job at any time and, if they did not like it, they could walk out and into another one. The need for hands was very great. Factories employed people in their thousands. Rural areas employed miners in hundreds of communities and the supply chain of pit props, clothing, safety equipment et cetera kept the money going round in villages and towns throughout the land.
Opportunities did not, of course, abound for everyone. Very limited childcare facilities and opportunities for part-time work meant that most women had the choice of staying at home or finding jobs that could fit around their husband’s employment—evening and morning shifts, in the main. Flexibility of attendance was unheard of, and opportunities for people with disabilities were even more limited than they are today. Newcomers to the country faced hostility, and were herded into jobs that no one else wanted.
Then came the 1980s and the Thatcher Administration— the second industrial revolution, as it was called. Things which were going to change anyway suddenly changed very rapidly. Globalisation was making itself felt, and manufacturing took flight, commencing its round-the-world quest for the cheapest dollar. Mines closed in their hundreds, leaving communities bereft and groundless, and new technology took hold, introducing easier and faster methods of production than could be matched by the human hand.
I had some interesting conversations about that time with international trade union colleagues. One man at a metalworkers’ conference complained that a French company—which, by the way, had been a big employer in the United Kingdom—had left his country, Malaysia, and was now setting up in cheaper Vietnam. Ironic, I thought.
In the 30 years since this shift started we have seen a profound change in the labour market. After a sharp fall in the numbers employed in the 1980s, and apart from a blip downwards in around 1991-92, employment figures have risen steadily, with an extra 4 million people in employment between 1993 and 2008. Of course, during that time the structure of the labour market has changed.
According to figures contained in the excellent IPPR report, “Jobs for the future”, the agriculture and fishing sector is down by 27 per cent, manufacturing down by 31 per cent, and electricity and gas down by almost half. Increases came in real estate, up by a whopping 103 per cent, and information and communications, up by 59 per cent, with health and social work, education, arts, entertainment and recreation all also significantly higher. So there has been a major shift from blue collar manual work—or “full-time, proper jobs”, as some in the trade union movement used to rather patronisingly say—to jobs requiring different skills and certainly a more formally educated workforce. There are more jobs for women, too. Clearly, this major change in the nature of the workforce called for a shift in trade union activity and emphasis. My own union—the T&G, as was—supported by the TUC, ran a major campaign led by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, with the slogan “Full-time rights for part-time workers and permanent rights for temporary workers”. These aims have been achieved, although it has taken almost until now to settle the agency workers directive.
In a spirit of meanness, the Government of 1993 removed many low-paid and largely non-union workers from the protection of the wages boards. One woman member of the T&G executive council, who worked as a bartender in the north-east, did not get a pay rise until six years later, when Labour introduced the national minimum wage in 1999. Many workers in unorganised workplaces received paid holidays for the first time, via the introduction of the working time directive.
The right to request flexibility was introduced by the Labour Government, and despite the musings of some policy wonks—most of whom have never set foot in a workplace outside of Westminster—I believe it is recognised by most employers as both helpful and essential. Also courtesy of the previous Government, the real needs of working parents were recognised by fiscal initiatives which provided meaningful help towards childcare costs, making it economically viable to participate in the labour market.
The national minimum wage mentioned above was introduced amid an exaggerated furore of likely job losses. Four million jobs later, that was shown up for the myth that it was. Since then there has been the emphasis on education, and improving standards for all. I do not, of course, disagree with that intention. I do, however, question what I would describe as a bias towards academia at the expense of vocational training.
Not everyone is cut out for academic work; anyway, the country also needs people with practical skills. During this period, we have seen too many young people convinced that a university education is the only or best option and taking degree courses in subjects not remotely linked to the needs of the labour market.
All of this was very well while everything else in the garden was rosy. The shift from making things to a service-based economy goes back many years and the growth of the finance sector has its roots pre-1997. Very neatly, of course, the taxes paid by extremely well paid financial workers paid the bills for the growth of public services, which I must say were in need of investment following the funding blight of the 1980s, but now we come full circle. The banking bubble has burst and a new Administration rule the Westminster agenda. The financial situation is of course very difficult—it would be crass to pretend otherwise—but simply cutting away all the advances that have been made in the past 15 or so years does not fill me or, I suggest, the great British public with confidence.
The idea mooted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and repeated this week by Michael Gove, that reducing workers’ employment rights is going to boost jobs would be hilariously funny if it were not so tragic and frankly ridiculous. Taking away education maintenance allowances, collapsing the Future Jobs Fund, cancelling the right to work experience and increasing fees to attend university are taking this debate in completely the wrong direction. This week’s report by the IFS states that education spending is being slashed by 14 per cent, the largest cut since the 1950s. How mad is that? We need a strategy that recognises the global nature of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. PwC's recent report, The World in 2050, says in its summary:
“Rapid growth in consumer markets in the major emerging economies, associated with a fast-growing middle class, will provide great new opportunities for western companies that can establish themselves in these markets”.
It goes on to say that,
“Western companies will increasingly be playing in the slow lane of history if they continue to focus on markets in North America and Western Europe”.
According to this report, the UK currently sells around 7 per cent of its exports to the BRIC countries, about the same as we export to Ireland.
So what do we need to do? First, I suggest we need to get a long-term strategy which encompasses the recognition that we are a global player in a world which is fast overtaking us. Long-termism is not of course a familiar political concept, with most politicians operating on the maxim of jam today and heaven tomorrow. However, none of us will be thanked in the future if we do not work towards the United Kingdom taking a leading role in the world’s economic development.
Secondly, we need to invest as much as possible in the education and training of the population, with better support for school pupils making choices about their studies, opportunities for them to experience work and for employers to build relationships with schools. We need more money going into vocational training, including opportunities for young people to retrain or to take up apprenticeships at a more mature stage in their lives. Lots of youngsters do not do well at school; then, when they are 25 or 30, they realise that they could have done better. We waste talent and lose spending power by not giving second chances to such folk. Equally, we need second chances for women post having children. The Women and Work Commission report produced in 2006 estimated that increasing women’s participation in the labour market could be worth between £15 billion and £23 billion each year to the Exchequer.
Thirdly, we need to invest in research—not an area where we have in the past covered ourselves in glory. General manufacture in large volume is not likely to return to this country. Wages and general costs prohibit that—all the more reason, therefore, to invest in innovation and new ideas.
Fourthly, we need to wake up to the fact that society has changed. Expectations among groups which have long been left behind or marginalised have shifted over the years and remaining at the bottom of the heap will not be quietly tolerated for ever. Positive action programmes to help employers understand the value of diversity in the workplace would go a long way towards breaking down myths and barriers. We cannot afford to leave great swathes of the population on the unemployment shelf just because we are not used to coping with disability, for example, or difference. These are just a few ideas which are essential to aid the UK’s recovery and to launch us back into the global marketplace. Failure to act will not only see the UK limping along, looking like a second-class has-been, but exacerbate the already unacceptable wealth gap and lead to an unhappy and divided society.
There are, of course, a number of immediate initiatives which the Government should take to deal with the current high rate of unemployment. I am sure that other noble Lords will address some of these issues in their contributions.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for instigating this important debate on the changing world of employment. In the enormous breadth of the subject, I want to focus on vocational routes to employment.
For those of us coming to the last few years of our working life span, compared to those struggling at the moment to find their first job, our prospects, career progression and expectations, both good and bad, were often clearly signposted and, frankly, there was not much opportunity to deviate from the pre-ordained route. In the late 1990s, as the senior bursar of Selwyn College, Cambridge, I saw for myself how drastically the changing needs of the employment market were affecting jobs within the college. Our loyal and devoted maintenance manager took retirement at 65. He had left school at 14, been an apprentice to a carpenter, and when he became a carpenter in his own right—no formal qualifications in those days, just serving his time and learning from his apprentice master—had joined the college’s maintenance team in his 20s. He was always the first to admit that his key skills were low. His successor, by contrast, had a higher national diploma, equivalent to a vocational degree, and, frankly, he needed it. The health and safety requirements of the post, as well as the functional skills needed to specify building contracts, monitor and deliver them to budget, deal with personnel issues relating to his staff as well as provide customer service to other staff and students in the college meant that the job had become very different.
Other speakers may want to focus on the knowledge-intensive industries, but I want to spend a little time looking at the vocational needs of employers and employees. The coalition Government have rightly focused on ensuring that apprenticeships are made more easily available, building on the work of the previous Government, and the 100,000 new apprenticeships are very welcome. However, I am sorry to say that I still hear frequent comments from further education colleges, young applicants and many others that employers are often reluctant to come forward and offer apprenticeships. I have spent much of the past 20 years in a number of roles working with key business stakeholders and with businesses, small and large, trying to understand how we can resolve the eternal conundrum whereby businesses say that they cannot recruit youngsters with the right qualifications and skills, but they will not take responsibility for training them in apprenticeships.
There are, of course, many notable exceptions. I shall highlight just one. Marshall Aerospace of Cambridge has led the way in developing apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships with clear career progression on to higher education. It is expected that many of the 16 year-olds it takes on will, during their time with the company, earn while they learn and, as important, make a serious contribution to the company and its bottom line. Many will end up with a master’s degree or PhD and this is not just in the obvious area of aerospace engineering: it has them in IT design, business skills and a range of other areas as well. So popular are the apprenticeships that the company now runs taster days for local schools and offers advice and guidance to young people about whether this is the right route for them.
I know this from personal experience. My foster son attended such a taster day, and he was grateful that at the end of it he felt, and indeed Marshall advised him, that it was not the right route for him—very helpful for someone at 14 or 15 to have that advice. Marshall believes that it is in its best interests as a company to take this course of action where other businesses might say that it is too expensive. I say that Marshall’s results speak for themselves.
If employers say that our young people are not work-ready, we must continue to look at the core functional skills that they have mastered as they come to leave school, especially those not following the more academic route. It is absolutely vital that every young person continues to get support in functional skills, formerly known as key skills, until they have mastered them. My illustration of the maintenance manager for the 21st century shows that. However, even fast food jobs these days require IT and literacy skills. Gone are the days when a lad in a sandwich bar just needed his manual skills. Often people will e-mail in their lunch orders or, in larger chains, an order will be taken down on a computer and another staff member will download it, read it and deliver it. There are many other examples. There are very few jobs these days that need no skills.
I want to return to the issue of technicians and vocational training. The UK Skills Commission has recently published its report on technicians and progression, and I support much of its findings. It is absolutely right to say that technicians are the unsung heroes of the UK’s leading industries. If we are to provide an effective workforce to reinvigorate our major industries, including manufacturing—I agree with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, that we are unlikely to become a major manufacturing nation again, but I am confident that we can significantly improve manufacturing in this country—we must change our approach and our culture to encourage young people as early as possible to see engineering and other technical roles as attractive as the current fashionable but for the vast majority, frankly, unattainable status of footballers and celebrities.
The report states:
“For the first time, we have the opportunity to develop a technical pathway in schools, through further education and universities and into the professions. University Technical Colleges, specialist academies and some free schools are beginning to establish employer-led, technical 14-19 provision. This should be expanded further and fully integrated into post-compulsory education”.
My only additional comment is that I would welcome it being mainstreamed into community schools as well; it should not just be the preserve of specialist schools.
I take further issue with the report in that I think that starting at 14 is too late. Many universities currently run schemes such as the Cambridge University STIMULUS scheme where students reading maths, science and engineering go into primary schools to work alongside teachers to engender some enthusiasm for those subjects among nine, 10 and 11 year-olds. I have seen this as chair of the governors of a primary school in Cambridge where young people, who had decided that maths was probably a bit too difficult, really thought that it was something that they would want to continue with at secondary school—particularly girls. We definitely need to see more girls taking science at secondary school because otherwise, frankly, they have locked themselves out of engineering as a future route.
I also welcome the Skills Commission report on a new professionalism and registration proposal for technicians, but is it new? Traditional vocational skills are perhaps returning to the pre-1960s craft skills routes but, I hope, better documented and run with a higher functional and specialist skills route. The report also talks about a learner-driven system, but I have two caveats. First, we must ensure that young people have access to information, advice and guidance, especially those not following the academic route. I am grateful to the Government for allowing statutory advice and guidance in the Education Bill that is going through this House at the moment, which will ensure professionalism among careers staff and face-to-face advice for young people who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and who will not be following an obvious academic route. Secondly, we must encourage small and medium-sized enterprises, which, frankly, are the key driver of our economy—13 million individuals, creating 65 per cent of new jobs in the country—to invest in training, particularly technician training. With the Government’s offer on apprenticeships, it should be available to them. We must do everything that we can to encourage them to take it up.
I want to end on an upbeat note. Anyone who attended WorldSkills, hosted by the UK this summer and brilliantly run by UK Skills, would have seen an absolutely impressive demonstration and showcase of our best talent in all 46 skill areas. Anybody going around the extensive exhibition would have noted not just those doing the demonstrations but the enthusiasm, energy and excitement of the schoolchildren attending and watching our entrants and those from 47 other countries showing what they can contribute to their professions. If UK Skills can demonstrate the absolute strength of this country in the technical and vocational area, let us use that to harness it and make sure that in the future our technicians are the sung, not the unsung, heroes of our economy.
Lord Kestenbaum
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Prosser on securing this vital debate. Its urgency seems driven very much by two different influences, one external and the other much closer to home. Externally, the days of economic power being concentrated in the hands of a few predictable nations—we were fortunate enough to be one of them—seem very long gone, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Consider the shift. In 1980 only 6 per cent of United States research and development was conducted overseas, yet 25 years later there are 750 foreign research and development centres in China. India produces 1.4 million engineers as graduates and 6,000 science PhDs. These are economic revolutions. China and India in particular, as we have seen, are the most profound threats to our own competitive advantage, not least because they have aggressive national strategies to prepare them for our very subject today—the changing world of employment.
The second influence is surely internal, namely the scale of job creation needed in the coming years as a consequence of deficit reduction—two words that have a huge impact on human misery. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast is that between now and 2016, 610,000 public sector jobs will be lost. In addition, PWC’s estimate is that 500,000 private sector jobs that are dependent on public contracts will go, too. That will be 1.1 million jobs lost over the next five years, which makes our concerns today very real and very human. Therefore, I will focus my comments on two particular elements of this challenge: first, how growth will be at the heart of new employment; and, secondly, following on from the noble Baroness, whether our new workforce is being equipped with the right skills for this new economy.
In one sense, as the blight of worklessness increases, we know broadly where the new jobs will be. We increasingly talk of three things: a focus on core areas of strength—advanced manufacturing, aerospace and pharma; growing advantage in highly competitive smaller areas such as video games, visual effects, design and the creative industries; and the potential golden eggs of our economic future, namely graphene and biotech. Stian Westlake’s work at NESTA—where I used to be CEO—which he neatly calls Rebalancing Act, captures this rather well. Once we look deeper, not just at sectors but at which types of firms are really creating jobs, an interesting picture emerges. All the evidence shows, again and again, as my noble friend Lady Prosser said, that innovative, high-growth firms will produce the jobs of the future. NESTA’s research into high-growth is cited often in this House. It shows that 7 per cent of businesses in the UK, classified as high-growth, have been responsible for half the new jobs in the past decade. Seven per cent of our firms are producing half the new jobs.
What do the firms who are most likely to create new jobs have in common? Again, the evidence seems clear. They are not concentrated in particular sectors. Pleasingly, they are not found predominantly in one part of the country. That is good news. Rather, one factor links them all, and that is that they are disproportionately likely to innovate. These pockets of the innovation economy, from semiconductor clusters in the south-west of England to the creative industries hubs of eastern Scotland, could very well be the heartbeat of new employment.
My second point is that this changing world of employment will increasingly rest on skills. This innovation economy, as we know, needs the right economic infrastructure, access to capital and intelligent public policy, but above all it needs a very new and imaginative approach to skills. In my current role as chief executive of Lord Rothschild’s family investment business we come face to face daily with the opportunity to back new industries, and this new economy seems to require a new set of skills from the workforce that we meet. Not only does this involve the combination of technological, scientific and mathematical aptitude which one would expect but, increasingly, creative skills—particularly design—are coming to the fore. Most recent surveys show that employers also want the “softer” skills from their workforce: teamwork, collaboration, communication, problem-solving. I am sorry for that word because it does not capture it adequately, but for “softer” do not read “trivial”. It would be very helpful to know the Government’s approach to the crucial challenge of a new set of skills for a new economy, particularly—following on from the noble Baroness—learning these job-relevant skills at university. This is definitely a vital area for imaginative public policy.
My comments have focused on these two preconditions for employment in a changing world—high-growth firms and appropriate skills—but perhaps I may make one final observation. If we want new jobs, we cannot ignore innovative firms. There is, however, a human cost. For high-growth firms to flourish, poorly performing businesses must, as we know, shed staff and go under. Amidst all our talk of a new economy, we cannot be blasé about its effects on human beings. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has written powerfully of the misery that worklessness creates. We need a system that allows our best businesses to thrive and create jobs, but we also need one that creates chances for those who fear unemployment or find themselves out of work, victims of what Schumpeter would have called “creative destruction”. It would be helpful to know what such a system is. Perhaps the German short-time compensation scheme the Kurzarbeit might be a useful model, and there are no doubt others which are imaginative partnerships between government, labour and business.
I make these concluding remarks on the social safety net not just because without it the human cost of this new economy is simply unacceptable, but, more broadly, because this debate is as much about the society we wish to build as it is about the economy which will help build it.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for initiating this very timely debate, which is about changing the world of employment. I thought a lot about this and about the ideal that I would really like. At the end of the day, I decided that I could not talk about the ideal without talking about the present. It is a very sad, negative story about employment at present. On 12 October, at the Prime Minister’s Question Time, he accepted responsibility for everything that happens in the economy. That must include responsibility for the highest level of unemployment in 17 years, with over 2.5 million people without jobs and 1,200 extra people each and every single day becoming unemployed. One in five young people is out of work, with over 800 extra young people each day. Youth unemployment is near the 1 million mark, the highest number since corporate records began in 1992.
One of the first acts of the coalition was to scrap Labour’s Future Jobs Fund, which helped young people into work; and to introduce the work programme, which gives no guarantee of jobs for the future. The abolition of the Future Jobs Fund was all the more surprising because on 10 March 2010, just before the general election, the current Prime Minister referred to it as a “good scheme”. Why abolish it? A further advantage of the scheme was that it enabled partnerships with apprenticeship programmes, providing additional work placements for apprentices, and could have created up to 200,000 full-time paid jobs for young people up and down the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the reluctance of some employers to train young people at work. I am a great believer in training on the job. We really must encourage more activity by employers to do that. Not satisfied with abandoning the fund, the Government have cancelled a number of schemes to help young people get on in life—starting with the very young and the abandonment of child trust funds, the ill thought-through plans to scrap the education maintenance allowance and the tripling of tuition fees.
Putting young people on the dole is not just a waste of talent but a waste of money. It does not make economic sense—not only in the short term but in the long term. There is strong evidence that if a young person cannot establish themselves in work early in their careers, they will find it much more difficult to do so later on. The lost generation of the 1980s—a whole generation of young people—grew up in Britain with little or no hope of a job. We must not let that happen to this generation of young people.
There are now more women unemployed than at any time since 1988. Redundancies in the public sector are dominated by women. To make it worse, the Government's welfare reforms actually penalise families in work by cutting support for childcare for parents who want to work; and by the end of this Parliament, it is estimated that the Government will have slashed the support for families with children by nearly £7 billion.
There is a pattern. All this has not happened by accident, but by design—and I say that with the greatest respect to Members opposite. It is a political choice, not a necessity. For instance, the Government have now accepted that women are being the hardest hit, whether it is because of the cuts in services, benefits or unemployment. I do not believe for one moment that the Government were previously unaware of the consequences for women and their families when those actions were taken. What is happening today takes me back to the 1980s, when women again bore a disproportionate share of the increased rate of unemployment. Women were then, as now, vulnerable to the actions of a Conservative Government. Also at that time, unemployment topped 3 million twice and less than one-fifth of 16 year-olds had a job. We cannot go back.
One accepts that like in every other country it was necessary to reduce the deficit, but for me there is something illogical in the Government’s philosophy. I am not an economist but I try to use my common sense: rather than generating jobs and making work pay, if you have more people on the dole who are not in work paying taxes but claiming benefits instead, it means that the Government have to borrow more, costing Britain an extra £500 million from the Treasury for every 100,000 people out of work. That surely cannot be sense. We were told by the Government not to worry about the loss of public sector jobs because the private sector would make up the shortfall. Those were fine words that have proved completely false. The Treasury is now forecasting that 700,000 jobs will be lost in the private sector.
The consequences of the Health and Social Care Bill will further exacerbate the problem. The reforms raise all the questions about workforce planning, education and training. Staff in the NHS are already in the midst of a pay freeze and their pensions are threatened with the triple whammy of paying more, working longer and receiving less in retirement. On top of this, despite revising down the figures used in their latest impact assessment, the Government still anticipate nearly 13,000 redundancies as a result of their planned reorganisation. This represents a personal tragedy for those affected and a colossal waste of talent, skills and resources at a time when the NHS can ill afford it. Even with the revised figures, the Government still predict redundancy costs alone running to £810 million.
The Government have failed to acknowledge the need to retain national workforce structures for terms and conditions, pay and bargaining—in breach of staff rights set out in the NHS constitution, which the Government said they would honour. The Bill will allow new commissioning groups greater leeway to break away from the Agenda for Change pay system. Not only does this rob health staff of certainty about their pay and conditions, but the potential for local pay negotiations also creates a massive extra administrative burden for local negotiators. Undermining the Agenda for Change may lead to an increase in equal pay litigation for the NHS—something which the existing system was designed to avoid.
The “any qualified provider” policy will make it extremely difficult to plan staffing and training placement, as providers will not have any guarantees of the volume of work they can expect. How is it to be ensured that there will be sufficient workforce to meet the needs, as the needs are not yet known?
The reforms, as if not a large enough upheaval for NHS staff on their own, are taking place alongside the expected efficiency savings of £20 billion over the next four years, which is already having an increasingly negative effect on services and staff. For example, the RCN’s Frontline First campaign has found that over 40,000 posts have been earmarked for removal from the NHS by employers looking to save money. This causes the RCN serious concerns that the dual reform of efficiency savings within the NHS is adversely affecting the quality of care and the safety of patients. Somehow the Government fail to understand the consequences of reducing the number of front-line staff. The right way to get a better health service is to get the best out of people. This requires a well trained, supported and rewarded workforce.
There are those who believe that the rising employment of older workers leads to the creation of youth unemployment—a position completely refuted by the TUC, which points out that they tend to do the jobs that the young unemployed might not expect to do. The main reason for the job crisis among young people is that not enough jobs have been created. Many older people choose to work, but many do so out of necessity. Low wages and poor pension provision—particularly in the private sector—coupled with rising inflation have made work a necessity, and we should all respect that, instead of trying to use it as an excuse for youth unemployment.
A statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills says that a successful UK economy will depend on the skills and contribution of the older people in the workforce, but it relies on much more than that. It relies on a faster growing economy and on the Government actually looking again at their plans. We heard in Question Time the Government’s determination to stick to their three-point plan; but without change—without a real plan for growth—we are going to see unemployment continue to rise and the welfare bill continue to go up.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, this is such a wide topic for debate, with so many facets, that it is obviously possible to touch on only one or two in the time available. I therefore intend to concentrate on the growth of so-called flexibility in the world of employment. Job descriptions are constantly changing. I remember that back in the 1970s, we frequently heard of the workforce working to rule. We do not seem to hear that phrase often these days: I suspect that is because the rules are always changing, and it is difficult to justify sticking to any particular rules. People entering the job market these days can frequently expect short-term contracts, even in the most skilled and highly paid professions. Agency working is very common, and the nine-to-five day and formal overtime pay—double at the weekends—have largely gone, with employees expected to be flexible in their working hours. Part-time working is increasingly common, and it is this I want to focus on, because the growth of part-time working is at one and the same time a bonus and a problem.
For the employee looking for a long-term career, the abundance of part-time jobs can be a frustration. It is often the case that people assemble a whole suite of part-time jobs in order to earn enough to live. Clearly, those people would far rather have a single job in full-time paid employment. However, it is the growth of part-time employment which has enabled so many women to combine employment with caring responsibilities. Although increasingly men undertake parenting responsibilities, women are still the predominant carers of children and of relatives, whether they are older or disabled.
The increase in part-time working is of course not unique to Britain. On average, it has increased steadily across all OECD countries since the mid-1990s, although there are very wide variations in the rate. One should not take that pattern of part-time working for granted. One country differs considerably from another, and there are some notable exceptions to the general trend. In Japan and the US, the amount of part-time working has decreased over the past 15 years. In some countries—the Slovak Republic, for example—part-time working is very rare, and one can understand why that might be the case, whereas in the Netherlands 60 per cent of women work part time. The UK is towards the top end, with about 40 per cent of women and 10 per cent of men in the workforce now working part-time.
To appreciate the complexity of the picture of part-time working, we just have to look at one profession. Let us take medicine as an example. More than half of all medical school graduates are now female; 38 per cent of GPs are female; and, of those, 35 per cent are GP principals. However, of those female GP principals, only 53 per cent work full time. Therefore, 47 per cent of female GP principals—now a very common set-up—work part time.
Having spoken to female GPs, it is absolutely clear to me that they are tremendously attracted by part-time working. It has enabled them to pursue a career, to have ambition and, at the same time, to look after families. That is key for them. Yet from time to time the medical profession complains that the number of part-time GPs is a problem in the development and management of local practices. Therefore, one can see the problem that we face.
However, there are worrying signs relating to the growth of part-time working, and that is something to which I want to draw noble Lords’ attention. In my own area in Wales, recent statistics show that within the past year there has been a reduction in full-time workers of 1.3 per cent, but there has been a 3.7 per cent growth over the same period in the number of part-time workers. There has also been a 9.2 per cent increase in the past year in the number of temporary employees. One can understand entirely that this is a response to the hard economic times in which we live. It is important that we also bear in mind that the pattern of employment in Wales has been predominantly, or very commonly, in the public sector and that part-time working has been more common in the private sector, which is creating some of the jobs that are needed in place of those in the public sector employment. However, if that pattern of increasing temporary and part-time employment goes on for too long, it will have implications for the stability of the workforce and the polarisation of income. I am sure that all noble Lords are aware that some part-time jobs, although by no means all, can be badly paid.
I have referred to part-time jobs fitting the lifestyles and needs of women but I also need to refer to the recent growth in the number of older workers, which has come about as a result of our ageing population. The Government have recently removed the compulsory retirement age. They are to be sincerely congratulated on that because it will free up many people who wish or need to work beyond retirement age. Many of those who wish to work beyond retirement age also wish to wind down; they want to work, but they do not want to work as hard or as long as they have in the past and part-time work suits them. The fastest growing group of workers between 2007 and 2009 was those aged over 65 and the second fastest growing group was those aged between 60 and 65. The Government’s recent decision on older people and the compulsory retirement age will add impetus to that.
I briefly want to mention a third group who particularly look to part-time work. That is young people who are still in education. For many decades students have traditionally taken jobs in the vacation, but since the introduction of tuition fees under the previous Government, it is now the norm for students at college and at university, studying on full-time courses, to have employment in the evenings and at weekends, which can have an impact on their ability, in some cases, to cope with their studies. For that reason, I am very pleased that, in the future, the repayment terms for tuition fees for young people will enable them to wait until they have graduated before they repay them.
In conclusion, we are walking a tightrope on part-time working. It suits an increasing number of groups of people and, therefore, is to be welcomed. However, there is a downside: in some cases, there is an association with low pay and fewer career opportunities. The difficult task facing any Government will be to foster the positive while controlling the negative aspects of this. I believe that although we now have a firm legislative basis for part-time working we still need to raise awareness among employers of the treasure trove of experience that part-time workers have to give to the work force.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Prosser for initiating it. The world of work has certainly changed significantly in recent decades and must continue to do so, not only to ensure that Britain is as competitive as it can be, but also to ensure that it is as fair as it can be.
As I said in my first contribution to this House, the early death of my father meant that my mother was faced with the loss of her husband, her home and her livelihood in short succession. She was determined to provide for her children, and her hard work and resolve secured our future. Yet my mother would have been the first to acknowledge that things might have turned out very differently had it not been for the progress achieved through politics. It was the Equal Pay Act that transformed my family’s income and provided a level playing field for women like my mother. It was changes in the law that gave my mother protection from exploitation and it was changes in the law that enabled her to become an economically active individual rather than dependent on the state. I am very concerned that, amidst all the talk of rolling back red tape or ridding ourselves of EU regulation, we must be very careful that we do not also roll back those 30 years of progress. My mother’s struggle then is the struggle of thousands of working women now. They support their families and they grow the economy. If we make it harder for them to work and drive down the economy, we will only make it harder for ourselves.
In recent times, I cannot think of an area where the world of employment has changed as much as for the estimated 3.7 million lesbian, gay and bisexual people in our country. I think it is important to remember that, until the previous Government took action less than 10 years ago, it was entirely lawful for gay people to be refused a job or a promotion or to be sacked in this country simply because of the way they were born. Thankfully, this is no longer the case, in no small part also due to the campaigning work of many trades unions and organisations such as Stonewall.
Unusually, perhaps, it was the armed services that changed their treatment of gay personnel first, from 2000. The fact that, until then, the RAF was summarily dismissing fighter pilots for being gay, in spite of the £1.5 million cost of their training to the public purse, is a stark reminder that prejudice in the workplace is not only a human tragedy for those involved but also hugely costly to employers.
Changing the law was merely the first step in the process of changing the day-to-day working lives of gay people. I welcome the fact that they have demonstrably changed. Over 600 employers, for example, are now members of Stonewall's diversity champions programme. Those employers, including the Royal Navy, MI5, many police services and many major public companies, have all made a commitment to create workplaces where gay people can be themselves. Collectively those employers employ over 5.1 million people, and that is a real sign, perhaps, of the way that the world beyond Parliament is changing in the early years of the 21st century.
Furthermore, those employers are clear that doing this is not just the right thing to do, but makes sound business sense. Research has clearly demonstrated that gay people who feel able to be themselves at work are more productive, more creative, better team members and more loyal to the enterprise. As my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum said, it is these skills that we need to value.
Let us be clear, however. Thousands of people still experience discrimination at work simply because of their sexual orientation. Recent research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that almost a third of gay people go to work every day and feel unable to be open about their sexual orientation, unable to talk about their partners and their children in the way that heterosexual people may take for granted, simply because they fear how their colleagues may react. YouGov polling commissioned by Stonewall has shown that one in five gay people have experienced homophobic bullying at work from their colleagues.
We also need only to consider the near invisibility of openly gay people on the boards of FTSE 100 companies to see the impact that has. Gay people face their own pink plateau at work similar to that of women, disabled people and people from different ethnic groups. This is bad for people, but it is also bad for business. A company that does not allow its brightest and best to rise to the top will, in the end, damage its bottom line, a sentiment expressed so elegantly by my noble friend Lady Prosser and one that we all know is shared firmly by my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch.
Creating workplaces where all employees can be themselves need not be excessively expensive or complicated. If it were costly, would the many successful businesses that work in this area, such as IBM and Google, be so demonstrably in favour of making their workplaces better for gay employees? The answer is no. However, you do not have to be a large company to make a difference. Simple and practical steps can be taken by all employers, large and small, to create workplaces where everyone can contribute fully without fear of discrimination. I hope that we will see all employers creating those workplaces within our lifetimes.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I, too, start by expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Prosser for initiating this timely and important debate. It is timely because the whole House must share the worries about rapidly rising unemployment, and it is important because the availability and quality of work is a good test of the health of a society.
By that test, our society has not been doing very well, especially on quality. It is not just the crisis. As a former trade union official, I have to report that wages in the UK grew by 56 per cent between 1978 and 2008. Not bad, you might think, until you know that GDP rose at twice that over the same period and that the share of profits rose very strongly, making a potent recipe for a widening gap between rich and poor.
As my noble friend Lady Prosser explained, there have been more managerial and professional jobs, a decline in middle and skilled jobs and a rise in routine, low-paid jobs. Why has this happened? Clearly, technological change and the rise of a global labour market have had an effect, but the roots of the problem lie in our underlying economic and political philosophy and the shift of power to a new global elite centred in financial service companies, especially, but not only, American ones. They enforced a new business model: the aggressive pursuit of shareholder value based on maximising short-term results. The outcome was successive waves of cost-cutting and retrenchment, designed, so it was said, to lift Britain out of its tepid entrepreneurial culture and to generate renewed dynamism.
It has not worked out like that. Instead, taking the long view, it has brought a slump in productive investment, lower productivity growth than in the 1950s and 1960s, a worsening balance of payments, an increase in debt, a rise in inequality and a capitalism in which the predator dealer has thrived. Now it has brought the mother and father of an economic crisis, termed the worst since the 1930s by the Governor of the Bank of England. The Government hope, indeed we all do, that a surge in growth and job creation in the private sector will absorb the people being displaced in the public sector. It is hard to be optimistic as the cuts curb demand for the products and services of the private sector, and I share the view of those on this side of the House that the cuts are too much, too fast.
One thing is crystal clear: our current economic model, predicated on the view that we are a post-industrial society with an inexorably shrinking manufacturing base, is bust. Reliance on services, financial and retail in particular, and on property and construction has been shown to be extremely vulnerable to instability, as well as promoting a widening gap between rich and poor. There is much talk about the need to rebalance our economy, but less idea about how to do it. Once you have lost leading-edge technology and export markets, it is not easy to make a recovery.
Cheap foreign competition has something to do with it, but how can we explain the relative success of the economies on the other side of the North Sea in keeping strong manufacturing sectors, developing new sectors and running positive balances of payments?
The facts are uncomfortable. The bonanzas of North Sea oil and the explosion of financial services are over. To prosper, we have to compete with the best in the real economy, which are our neighbours on the other side of the North Sea—social market economies, incidentally, with effective collective bargaining and influential worker involvement. Many in the UK might characterise this as a return to the 1970s, but it certainly is not. Unless the UK pulls together and innovates, our prospects are gloomy. That pulling together necessitates a commitment to greater equality. If we are all in it together, as the Prime Minister has said, we cannot have surging riches for a few while the lot of the majority worsens.
We need a better, more long-termist capitalism in which all the main stakeholders have influence, including the workers. We need financial services as servants of the economy, not masters of the universe. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and others have argued, we need a national investment bank to support entrepreneurs, especially small and medium ones. We need investment in the green economy, in high grade manufacturing and in the arts, and we need a stronger vocational training system for all our people. We need more real engineering and less financial engineering.
We do not need cuts in employment protection, nor attempts to escape from the modest social obligations of the European single market. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what precisely the Prime Minister means when he talks about repatriating social policy from the EU to the UK. Does he mean repealing the entitlements that derive from the EU, such as the right to four weeks’ basic holiday, the right of workers to be informed and consulted about change, or the rights of part-time and temporary workers to equal treatment, of which we have heard something in this debate? Does he mean EU equality and health and safety standards, many of which are based on UK practice, which is among the very best in the EU and helps to raise standards in the new member states and in southern Europe? Or does the Prime Minister mean that he will block any new EU social measures applying in the UK, in which case I can report that there are very few such measures in the EU pipeline? What do the Government mean?
In conclusion, there must be no false contradiction between more jobs and better jobs. There must not be an approach which sells Britain as a place where exploitation is easy and workers are cheap. That might appeal to Mr Beecroft and any other venture capitalists working for the Prime Minister, but selling Britain in that way should not be the British answer to the jobs crisis. Raising our game must be the way forward.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Prosser on giving us the opportunity to debate what I believe to be one of the biggest challenges faced by all countries. The economy and employment will be the litmus test of the Government’s success and how they will be judged at the next general election. The coalition will not be able to continue the fiction that it was all the fault of the previous Government. When we left power, we had rescued the banks, introduced a number of successful measures to stimulate growth—for example, the car scrappage schemes and a cut in VAT—and a plan to reduce the deficit by half by 2015. No one on this side pretends that it would have been plain sailing but getting growth back into the economy would have been at the top of our agenda.
I congratulate the Library research department on the excellent briefing pack that it has provided; on many occasions, it is the unsung hero. On growth, the briefing pack states:
“UK GDP grew by a meagre 0.5% in 2008 and fell by 4.9% in 2009”.
After analysing that, it states that growth in the OECD and the UK,
“remained below that average in 2010. In the UK, the rescue measures implemented by the government during the recession, including emergency loans to recapitalise large banks, came at a time of sharply reduced tax revenue and so were funded by a large increase in the budget deficit. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has since announced cuts in government spending and increases in taxation to eliminate the structural deficit before 2015”.
I love the next couple of lines, which state:
“The extent to which this will act as a drag on growth during the recovery is a matter of debate among economists”.
You can say that again; it certainly is a matter of debate among economists. We still believe that the Government’s current policy is too far and too fast.
For the purposes of this debate, I want to focus on youth unemployment, which I believe is one of the biggest challenges, if not the biggest, that we face. Looking across to the Benches opposite, it is unfortunate that there is no one on the Conservative Back Benches here today speaking in this debate. Whatever their views, no one utters the terrible words “unemployment is a price worth paying” any longer, so we have progressed a bit. But, as my noble friend Lady Gould has reminded us, we have the highest youth unemployment since records began. As regards the impact of this, recently, on Radio 4 I heard a programme with young offenders. They were asked, “What’s the most important thing that would impact on your life that would stop you reoffending?”. The answer was, “Getting a job”. There were no ifs, buts or anything else, just the desire to get a job, which indicates the importance of this debate.
I shall now have to tread carefully or my noble friend Lady Gould might become my noble friend no longer. The Library briefing pack states:
“The fastest-growing group of workers between 2007 and 2009 was those aged 65 or over, followed by those aged between 60 and 65. These changes reflect an aging population, coupled with increasing life expectancies. These trends have led to rising activity rates and declining unemployment rates among older sections of the population. The age group in the working age population with the lowest activity and employments rates is those between 16 and 24. This is also the group with the highest unemployment rate. Conversely, the age group with the highest activity and employment rate is those aged between 35 and 49”.
I do not want this to be a battle but if you were a young person you could not help thinking, “Wait a minute, where are we going?”. It is not any good to lay blame. We have to look at the way in which we manage this change in the world of work. We still have what I have described in another debate as cliff-edge retirement. We have not got around to working out that we need to encourage people to depart from the world of work in a more phased and staged process, which would make some contribution.
I was interested in the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in relation to part-time working. I would suggest that flexible working overall has impacted on the world of work, which has changed dramatically. Looking at the whole scope of working life, the Government need to do much more to address this issue if we are to solve the problem of youth unemployment. It should be intergenerational. Of course it was a good thing to remove the retirement age of 65. I was in favour of doing that but we cannot leave it at that.
Young people face a number of challenges, as has already been said. The Future Jobs Fund has gone, as have education maintenance allowance and tuition fees. Let us look at this issue from their perspective. We are not generating too much hope. The loss of public sector jobs, without the consequent increases that we were told would happen in the private sector, will inevitably have an impact on youth unemployment, because of the impact on apprenticeships, to which I will come later.
I want to reflect on the question of skills. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, when she talked about the importance of key skills. They are vital. It is not just literacy and numeracy, although they are there. I would say you cannot do much, as we have described in this debate today, without IT skills as well. In the 21st century the key skills of literacy, numeracy and IT have to be there if we are talking about equipping young people for the world of work. My noble friend Lord Kestenbaum, who is unfortunately not here, uttered what I regard as the dreaded phrase: “soft skills”. Can we do away with that? They are not soft skills; they are essential skills for young people. You hear employers talk about soft skills, but turning up for work on time and being able to work as part of a team are not soft skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to pre-apprenticeship schemes. There are a number of great schemes for getting young people ready for the world of work.
I want to praise the Government for what they are doing on apprenticeships because they are continuing the good work that we did. The previous Government rescued apprenticeships from near oblivion. We gave you a great foundation to build on. But I have a worry. Yes, this Government are spending more and getting more starts in apprenticeships, but a lot of them are adult apprenticeships. I do not knock adult apprenticeships because they are an important means of re-skilling, but we cannot take our eye off the ball for apprenticeships for young people aged 16 to 19. Every one that is created is a beacon of hope for a young person. We know that to be the case. As a young person at the age of 17 I was able to walk down the road and get an apprenticeship with what was then British Telecom. I do not think I would be able to do that any more. BT has 300 apprenticeships a year and 25,000 applications. So what can the Government do? The Leitch report has fallen out of fashion these days. We do not hear much about it but I think it was a very far-sighted report. My noble friend Lord Leitch said that there should be about 500,000 apprenticeships in learning by 2020 and that we ought to ensure that an apprenticeship place is available for all qualified young people by 2013, with significant growth in apprenticeships for older learners as well. We put that entitlement into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It was an ambitious entitlement but I believe it was the right thing to do. We tabled an amendment to this Education Bill, providing a bit more latitude given the difficulties, saying that entitlement should be there by 2015.
The problem we have with apprenticeships is not the number of starts, which is okay. There is a much more worrying statistic if you scratch beneath the surface and that is the number of employers who take on apprentices. It is still pathetically low with something between 4 per cent and 8 per cent overall. Even in the FTSE 100 companies it is only a third. I continually meet employers who, when I talk to them about apprenticeships, seem to know little or nothing about them. So what can be done? The Government have to lead by example. I cannot understand why this Government are still refusing to accept that a requirement to employ apprenticeships as part of a public procurement contract should be mandatory. We did it; we got over 300 apprentices for the Olympics and a promise of 400 for Crossrail. Why on earth are this Government taking that requirement away? What sort of signal is that giving to employers? More could be done on the small and medium-sized employer front as well with group training associations. The number of apprenticeships starts is okay but we need to get every employer in this country to understand that apprenticeships are not a burden but a great stimulus to any company and vital. If we do not solve this problem we know that, in terms of young offenders and disenchantment generally in young people, we will pay a much higher price in the future.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for introducing this debate and for the very skilled way in which she did it. She started by saying that once upon a time there was an economy in the UK and that manufacturing was a major part of it. It used to be said that 48 years, 48 weeks per year and 48 hours per week was the way that traditional working-class employment was carried on. For various reasons, but mainly because of globalisation and a massive shift in jobs away from the western world as a whole to Asia and other parts where labour was cheaper, we had a fundamental transformation— not only us but also the US and various other economies. We managed for a while by shifting to a variety of service industries and what we might call abstract goods—design, fashion, music, banking and others. There were some highly paid jobs in the service sector and lots of low-paid jobs in retail and things like that. What has now happened is that we have come to the end of that revolution. That transformation has occurred and the news is much worse than most people think.
We have fundamentally to rethink where the competitive areas in which we will create sustainable, long-term jobs are going to be. As my noble friend Lady Prosser said, it is not conceivable that we will get back to manufacturing on anything like the scale that we were at. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Monks is right; we may be able to do something more like the economies across the North Sea. But that requires a level of savings and investment which we have not been able to achieve for a long time. One of the peculiar things that happened during the long boom of 1992 to 2007 was that households steadily lost the habit of saving. We convinced ourselves that there was no need to save as long as you could buy a house. If you bought a house, appreciation in the value of that house was enough to compensate for any savings you did not have. Lately savings rates have gone up but we fell to a practically negative savings rate in the household sector. The same thing happened in the government sector. Our problem is going to be that we will have to recover some of the jobs we have lost and create new jobs. The question will be where those jobs are going to come from.
An additional factor, to which some noble Lords have already referred, is that as our dependency ratio gets very high with fewer active working-aged people compared to retired people, those who are going to retire will have to work longer hours for more years and those who are of an active working age—say, 15 to 55 or 20 to 55—will have to save more in order to finance their retirement as well as the various other demands which are going to be made on us for care of the elderly and so on. We face a profound crisis of undersaving and if we do not tackle that crisis, it will be difficult for us to create the kind of jobs that will sustain our economy. As many noble Lords have already said, the key to recreating those jobs will be investment, whatever the short-term considerations and the seriousness of the recession, which I do not deny. I do not think it will be easy to get out of the recession any faster, but getting out of it is crucially dependent on us being able to find new innovative sectors where investment can take place now, regardless of the state of current demand, and then employing people in those sectors. Obviously green technologies are going to be a major factor, but things like healthcare technologies are also going to be crucial. We will have to adapt our lifestyle to be able to deal with people who not only live longer but want to have a quality of life that is much better than that which their parents had. These are opportunities for us to be able to create jobs. They will be jobs that are skilled in terms of numeracy, literacy and IT; they will also be skilled in terms of training oneself in nursing or personal care. On the one hand, we will need a lot of green technological jobs; on the other, we will need lots of personal care-type, one-to-one jobs. To finance them, we will have to have an economy that is different from that which we have had so far. It will be much more severely restrictive of consumption growth, more discouraging of the wild house-buying business that we have got ourselves strapped into and more encouraging of savings.
This is not an occasion to discuss economic issues—the noble Baroness on the government Front Bench cannot do anything even if I do suggest tax changes. However, I shall say one thing: the time has now come to examine whether national insurance contributions are a good idea. They are a tax on employment. I have never understood why we have a tax on earned income which is paid twice: you pay it once as income tax and a second time as an NIC. I know that the Chancellor is doing something about merging income tax and national insurance contributions, but he should much more seriously examine whether we should relieve taxation on employment. Either the employer or the employee, or both, should be relieved of that kind of tax as we need to encourage employment in the sector. At the same time, we should have policies designed to encourage people to shift away from asset-buying in housing. This is not a debate on housing, but we need an economy where people are much more attuned to renting or making other kinds of housing purchase rather than be caught with assets which are not guaranteed to be wealth-creating.
We need more saving, more investment and more innovation. We have also to find a way of making our workforce think about work differently. I shall make one suggestion about the way in which we measure employment. We measure employment in terms of bodies of people—how many people are in work—but, as we have already found out from our discussion, work is not really how many people are working but how many hours they work. We should take a lifetime perspective on how many years people work, because future generations will have to work for more years and more hours over their lifetime than the previous lucky generation, of which I am a proud member. The good days are gone and I do not know when they are going to come back. One of the burdens that the new working generation will have to face is that of catching up with a lack of savings during the past 25 years as well as financing their own retirement. The question of employment is therefore tied in as much with long-term economic policies and growth strategies as with institutional employment in the labour market.
I join many noble friends in saying that the Government should not be seduced by the idea that making it easier to fire people will somehow solve the problem. Just as nobody fixes the roof when the sun is shining, everybody starts talking about how to sack people when unemployment is high. I never see the logic of that. Everybody has to calm down and realise that there are much more serious issues than a sudden need to make sacking people much easier. I hope that the Government listen and start to think about a long-term strategy of investment and growth.
Baroness Donaghy
I add my thanks to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for the giving us the opportunity to talk about this extremely important topic. Too often when the world of work is mentioned, it is in terms only of employment law and conflict or of unemployment, rather than employment relations. Yet work is often where people spend most of their waking hours, make friendships and help build dignity and self-sufficiency. That is not to claim that everything is rosy, but to emphasise that the world of work is a vital part of our lives.
I should like to raise the issue of social media and their impact on workplace relations. I am grateful to ACAS for its research and advice on this. Noble Lords will know that I had the privilege to be chair of ACAS for seven years. Social media in this context are mobile phones, e-mails, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and websites with chatrooms, discussion groups or even avatars. Their impact on employment relations has been and will continue to be phenomenal. They raise legal and ethical questions about acceptable norms of behaviour in a new social space at an individual level. They have the potential to offer new ways of both sharing information and consulting employees. They support a stronger collective voice for employees and change the conduct of collective disputes and collective bargaining.
The key features of social media are their reach, which can be zero or global; their accessibility—they are available at little or no cost; their usability—as little or no training is required; their immediacy—they are virtually instantaneous and can be edited at a stroke; and their permanency, as they are extremely difficult to remove. As millions of digital copies can be made and transmitted instantaneously, they are hard to delete. Twitter, for example, has its archive preserved in the United States Library of Congress.
Phase 1 of the web’s development, from the early 1990s onwards, led to the rise of corporate websites, intranets and the adoption of e-mail and workplace policies to deal with it, together with the growth of e-commerce and websites for campaigning purposes. Phase 2, from 2002 onwards, saw the development of corporate pages on platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin, interaction with customers through social media channels, including direct sales, and stages in supply chains bypassed. Whoever would have forecast the huge rise in parcel deliveries due to direct online sales? It led also to the adoption of read/write campaigns, location-based awareness campaigns and recruitment campaigns. When we get to phase 3, from approximately 2010 onwards, you have to hold your breath. We will see the development of multiplatform communications, engagements and approaches, real-time management decision-making, rapid business model innovation and, perhaps most importantly, the further loosening of the ties of professionals as knowledge brokers—everyone is a lawyer and doctor now. It will be interesting to see whether this will lead to a looser, less regulated model of workplace relations, relying on professional ethics rather than rules.
Let us look at the scale of social media. Twitter reported in March 2011 500,000 new accounts created each day and 1 billion Tweets written each week. The Google+ social networking platform is gaining 800,000 new users per day. Facebook has over 500 million users, and 250 million of them access the site through mobile devices. In a straw poll of human resources professionals, 50 per cent said that social media had featured in recent disciplinary or tribunal proceedings.
For both employers and trade unions, this new space offers opportunities and challenges to the way in which they engage with their constituents. ACAS is already offering advice—online, of course—to managers and employees about social networking and the importance of mutually agreed guidelines that cover the posting of workplace grievances or being perceived to attack the company brand. We have all read about cases of the dismissal of an employee for commenting on their job on social networking sites. One woman was dismissed for calling her job “boring” online, not to the world at large but privately to a friend. This was then spread around and people put two and two together to identify the workplace. So there needs to be an understanding about when and in what circumstances punitive measures should be taken. They should be proportionate and ethical. A report by the Institute of Employment Studies on this topic concluded that norms of behaviour had not yet been defined, and there was a blurring of private and public areas.
Noble Lords may have read about the virtual strike in 2007 used by IBM workers in Italy. They were protesting against potential pay cuts. The 9,000 workers were joined by 1,800 supporters from 30 countries in a virtual picket line. IBM had signed up to the virtual world website Second Life, and avatars representing users could be seen carrying banners in support of the strikers. IBM was caught off guard by the strike, the first of its kind. It eventually led to renewed dialogue and the workers getting a better deal. While there has not been a huge increase in this activity, it is an example of the potential for different kinds of communication and activism that faces the world of work.
In Germany, some trade unions have adopted the technique of flash-mobbing as an organisational tool. Flash mobs have been defined as,
“a public gathering of complete strangers, organised via the internet or mobile phone, who perform a pointless act and then disperse again”.
The German trade union Ver.di organised a flash mob of 150 people at a shopping centre following disagreements over pay and work conditions between Ver.di and retail employers across the three central German states. The group filled shopping trolleys with a range of products, but when it came to paying for the goods, they handed over cards inscribed with the slogan “fair wages” instead of credit or debit cards.
Lest anyone thinks that I am planting ideas in people’s heads, I will not use any of the many examples deployed in UK disputes. Nevertheless, some employers see only the downside of these developments. If I were a German supermarket owner, I could well see why. However, some employers use the social media tool as a means of engaging with the workforce, not always as an anti-trade union device. Some are setting aside established corporate intranets in favour of what are called “enterprise wikis”—I hope someone comes up with a better name one day. These enterprise wikis become the main means of capturing and disseminating corporate information and knowledge.
Allowing employees to discuss work-related issues on social media can bring real business benefits. Some firms have accepted that they can fully benefit from social media in this way only if employees are given as much freedom as possible in their use of the technology. BT is already removing some of the blocking barriers that it has in place, so it will have less of an overview of what its employees are doing on the internet. There are two main reasons for this. First, it feels confident in this approach as it has a great deal of trust in its employees. Secondly, it will improve both the cost and the efficiency of the organisation and enable its workforce to have global access. Some organisations struggle to come to terms with social media and focus only on the threats. An organisational response to block corporate access to, for example, Facebook, becomes untenable when the most active of its account holders use smart phones to access and update the site.
Some trade unions are suspicious of using public social networking sites, as they are commercial sites with their own agenda. The TUC has referred to Facebook as,
“3.5 million HR accidents waiting to happen”.
However, some unions are adapting social media portals, single-issue campaigning and digital activism. The traditional conduct of employment relations may well change, given the ease of availability of information. Knowledge can be used as leverage in negotiations.
Employers and unions are failing to recruit the very people who are most adept at social networking: the young. According to David Blanchflower, the economics editor of the New Statesman:
“Since May 2010, unemployment among 16-to-24-year-olds has risen … to 991,000”.
We can debate for ever whether these developments represent the tools of capitalism or revolt, but we must be aware that it will change the world of work and we must look to the younger generation, who are much more skilled—let us face it—than we are to be useful in that future world of work.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, in her excellent opening remarks, my noble friend spoke of the past. Most of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember what happened when information and communications technology first arrived on the scene. It was going to change the world of employment. We were all going to work from home and we were all going to have a lot more leisure time. Well, it did not quite work out that way.
Some people's jobs do allow them to work from home—for instance, representatives or currency speculators—but, for the rest of us, we can work from home perhaps one day a week if we are lucky. Indeed, for many of us, working from home is just catching up, because it is the pace of work that has changed, with a corresponding increase in stress. This is thanks to the huge expansion and reliability of mobile ICT, which has transformed business. McKinsey estimates that 25 per cent of UK growth in the past five years has come from online business. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy described, in many companies people now work in networks, and they use the social networks to advertise and to contact colleagues, customers and suppliers, as well as to contact family and friends. So the line between home and work is becoming much more blurred in this changing world of employment.
In many companies and organisations, this independence has led to far less rigid management. Employees are trusted more, with a reliance on professional ethics, as the noble Baroness said. This has led to much innovation in the way in which businesses work. You see this attitude celebrated in some of our most successful companies. Many employers now say that they hire for attitude and train for skills. This is an essential attitude, as my noble friend Lord Young put it. Indeed, employers complain about the absence of this attitude in potential recruits. A lot of public money is spent on preparing people for work. I hope that the Minister can assure us that her department is also fostering this attitude, which business wants and needs.
Of course, modern ICT also enables people to set up in business themselves. The web is now a marketplace where people can buy and sell goods and services at very little cost. In these ways ICT has already changed the world of work and employment and it is going to do so even more. Cloud computing means that now you do not have to buy servers and expensive software any more. You just use the storage and bandwidth you need on the cloud. This turns computing from a capital expense into an operating expense. This means that ICT will have an even greater impact on the changing world of employment. I hope that the Minister's department will encourage the internet economy, in both the private and the public sector, especially as this can only help the current financial crisis—it will benefit business, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy said. Indeed, the financial crisis is changing the world of employment as well as destroying jobs, as my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum explained.
The cuts in employment resulting from this financial crisis are falling heavily on public services, particularly those services delivered by local authorities. What is this to do with the nature of employment? The answer is that there was a time when we worked in either the public sector or the private sector. Now we are seeing the emergence of a social sector—half way between the two—which is largely occupied by charities and by social enterprises. But the existing charities and social enterprises working in this sector have had their finances devastated by the tight government financial settlement. So we have to run our welfare state with less money and greater commercial pressure, which makes the nature of employment in this sector confusing. Is the altruism of working in the charitable sector being taken over by the economics of working in the commercial sector? Are public service values being replaced by the values of the market?
What is the nature of employment in this emerging social sector? The big society idea is too fuzzy to answer this. Yet the Government are encouraging social enterprises to rescue the welfare services that we can no longer afford. Indeed, if this is not clarified soon, these enterprises will become a new form of quango and there will be a big political price to pay for that. The real answer is the concept of shared value. According to Michael Porter, this is the key to the next wave of innovation and growth, and I have always found that he is worth listening to. Yet the Government's growth strategies have been silent on this—it would have been nice to hear from some other noble Lords on the Conservative Benches who have experience in business. Thanks to the Companies Act 2006, the recent stewardship code and less rigid attitudes, companies are starting to share the values of their employees, customers, local communities and suppliers. That is having an impact on the world of employment. The environment, fair trade and human rights as well as safety and employment rights have all become issues which employees now have to consider.
This is not “social responsibility”, which is usually on the periphery of a business. It is something central, something that is shared. For instance, if a firm invests in the health of its employees, they and their families benefit and the firm minimises absence and lost productivity. If a firm invests in employee skills, everybody benefits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, told us when she spoke of Marshall Aerospace. Taking on the apprentices that other noble Lords have spoken about is all part of this.
At one time it was thought that efforts to minimise pollution increased costs and occurred because of regulation. Today, I think that the consensus is that major environmental improvements can be achieved with better technology that pays for itself and produces better resource utilisation and a better environment at work.
The new generation of young people is asking business to create this kind of world of employment, not only because it creates the kind of business culture that they want to work in but because it legitimises business by getting away from the old narrow views. It acknowledges the legitimacy of many of the things that the demonstrators in London, New York, Berlin, Tel Aviv and elsewhere are calling for. Indeed, on 17 October, the Financial Times ran a leading article saying that it would be foolhardy to ignore their anger and frustration. Sadly, in London, the protestors are losing this support by their mistaken action at St Paul’s.
Many leading companies are finding that this concept works for them. Those of us who visited Google this week saw this in action. These changes in technology and the changes in society are changing the world of employment. What the Government have to learn is how to regulate so that these concepts of shared values and technology are encouraged. I agree with my noble friend Lady Prosser that the Prime Minister could start by replacing his backward-looking adviser with somebody more forward-looking. Get this regulation right and regulation regarding red tape and employment falls into place and becomes secondary. I hope the Minister is listening. It would be foolhardy to dismiss the message.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Prosser has given us a highly opportune moment for debating this issue, as “employment crisis” is a pretty fair description. It will unfortunately intensify this winter. I do not want to be a Cassandra, but there is growing disaffection in many parts of the country, which is not just the result of the economic crisis per se but of the way that this Government have responded to it.
We now have the apotheosis of the Victorian employer’s philosophy being epitomised in a report, we understand, from Mr Adrian Beachcroft, who is described as a venture capitalist. That rather reminds me of the imperial adventurers who ran the East India Company, particularly in the years leading up to the Indian mutiny in 1857. In Britain, the corresponding philosophy is that satirised by my noble friend Lord Sugar with, “You’re fired!”.
What is the status of this Beachcroft report? Was its commissioning a decision just made by No. 10 Downing Street or was BIS involved? Specifically, was Mr Vince Cable involved? Or perhaps BIS knew nothing about it, like it knew nothing about the Chancellor's pre-emptive statement at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester on employment tribunals. Maybe BIS still does not know anything about it. If you read the newspapers, you might find that this report has now been received by No 10. Downing Street. Has it been received in BIS? Perhaps BIS could make a request to No. 10.
What we have now is two examples. One is that of No. 10 doing its own thing, well outside what its normal responsibilities might be, although you would think that there would be consultation in government. The other good example recently is that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Manchester, speaking on employment tribunals. Obviously, we have got to the point where we have two Governments: the Bullingdon Club Government and Her Majesty’s Government. No doubt Mr Vince Cable has already made that point, but I imagine in more colourful language.
The trouble is that the Conservative Party has now brought 100 clones of Mr Beechcroft into the parliamentary party. They seem to have been cloned along with a set of myths on employment rights, which they peddle around the country on all the media outlets, brooking no contradiction by reference to any facts—which of course get in the way—and resting on belief in their own propaganda.
In a sense, we on this side of the House—including many on the trade union side of the House, if I may declare a collective interest on behalf of the trade union movement—must be grateful that as the penny is beginning to drop, pretty sharpish, it will be abundantly clear that this doctrine of “devil take the hindmost” has passed its sell-by date so far as the people of middle Britain are concerned.
One specific example of the myths of employment rights and the effect on employment is maternity rights. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister, in his Statement on the European Council, which was repeated in this House, said, somewhat to my surprise, that he had been advocating maximising the amount of women’s employment in the European Union. I recall that when I was covering that patch for the TUC some 12 or 15 years ago, that was the strong lead taken by the European Commission at Amsterdam. The Commission was then led on social rights and social policy by a most distinguished Swedish former finance Minister, and a distinguished director of social policy, Mr Allan Larsson.
The need to have a far wider and extensive framework of rights for women at work was driven not only by the inherent arguments but by the fact that if we wanted to increase our living standards and output in total, we needed to have more women in the labour market. It has grown in the past 10 years, and I believe that now 70 or 80 per cent of women have some involvement in the labour market. Someone is nodding, which may mean that two of us are wrong, but I think that it has been significant.
Who is to say that this growth would have happened faster if we had not had maternity rights? We need to look at it from the point of view of the 90 per cent of people who are workers or employees, rather than employers or company directors, and hear their view, rather than the myths peddled by the backwoods variety of employers. I agree with my noble friend Lord Haskel that there are many distinguished exceptions to that, but I have to say that the propaganda coming out at the moment is from this myth-creating group, who would look at the downside of employing women—because, gosh, they all go off and have babies.
To state the obvious, it is absolutely vital that we have what used to be called Scandinavian rights for maternity and paternity. I take that as one example of this mythology.
Moreover, all of these rights under the social chapter are thanks to Jacques Delors and the agreement on the social chapter. This was subject to an opt-out by the Conservative Government, but within two or three months of May 1997 Robin Cook went off to Brussels and signed it. I predict that these will be taken as read by the British people, and none of them will be repealed. The Conservative Party will soon wake up and realise what a bad idea that was.
I want to say one other positive thing about the European Union and employment. I was once a member of a “high-level group” on benchmarking. Although it is a candidate for derision in the Sunday Telegraph, best practice in Europe is surely highly desirable as a way of looking at where the British economy ought to be going.
The National Economic Development Council used to be heavily into benchmarking, before the word came into popular usage, and it is rather obvious that we need to create a body of that type in Britain today. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—he was the Chancellor who scrapped Neddy—and others believe that this is corporatism gone mad. But you do not need to sit outside St Paul’s cathedral today to say that there is something strange about the modern British model of capitalism, as my noble friend Lord Monks has said. “Us and them” is now, as in the Victorian era, the name of the game on employment. However, I must say that as regards St Paul’s, God and Mammon have got a bit mixed up in the target.
Our own multinationals are quite different in their operations from multinationals in many countries, such as Germany. They have a much higher share of their value added overseas than German companies. I am in conversation with some officials in BIS to produce some more robust numbers on this, as it is a vital question for the economy, but we seem unable to produce those statistics.
In conclusion, I would say that these are the countries which have the greatest social cohesion and have been the least badly affected by the crisis of the past four years. Going forward, we need to emulate them, not ridicule them.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I, too, commend my noble friend Lady Prosser on securing this timely and important debate. Debating alongside my noble friend ignites many happy memories for me but today I am somewhat handicapped, as I no longer have the casting vote—and I never had a block vote. I see this debate as extremely timely, as I sense that the economies of Europe have reached a critical fork in the road, which will significantly impact on the world of employment here, and indeed abroad.
Throughout the ages, the pattern of employment in Britain has been through many phases of change, principally the British industrial revolution of the 1800s, which spread to the United States and other European countries in the 19th century. As I reflect on the history of changing employment patterns, buttressed by a recent visit to my old place of employment—the factory where I worked for 18 years—I was reminded of the first sentence in LP Hartley's famous 1950s novel, The Go-Between:
“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there”.
The question implicit in the Motion before the House today is: how can we manage the technological revolution for social and economic benefit by doing things differently here?
In his groundbreaking book, The End of Work, Jeremy Rifkin, the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, argues strongly that as the industrial age ended slave labour, the information age will end mass wage labour. Faced with that proposition, he goes on to argue that Governments need to promote alternatives, such as shorter working time, more voluntary work—I think that is the big society here—and greater leisure in response to the replacement of jobs by technology. From this economic and social analysis, it is clear that the three forces driving modern economies and employment are finance, knowledge and social capital. Yet whatever the prevailing view is, there is common ground that we must have the skills to meet the challenge in the changing world of employment.
Indeed, the best summary of the response needed is to be found in the foreword to the final report, Prosperity for All in the Global Economy - World Class Skills, by the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, which says:
“In the 21st Century, our natural resource is our people—and their potential is both untapped and vast. Skills will unlock that potential. The prize for our country will be enormous—higher productivity, the creation of wealth and social justice”.
Sadly, we have not followed the positive signposts which the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, left us. The truth is that we are running out of options, and indeed out of time. That is what the debate in Europe in the past week or so has really been about. How else do we have over 2 million people out of work, with the Office for National Statistics reporting unemployment at 8.1 per cent?
On the evidence we see, the Government place almost no value on workers. Indeed, it could be said that the Government have raised the flag of hostility against workers unless they happen to be bankers. Public sector workers are facing attacks on their pensions by being required to work longer, pay more and get less. As we debate today, it is reasonable that we should ask: what is the Government’s response to those gallant groups of Remploy workers who are facing a bleak and uncertain future, and the possible closure of their factories? Where have they fallen down or fallen short of contributing positively to the economy?
As a nation, we have a capacity to destroy what workers in our economy have actually built. Family-friendly policies have been a hallmark of the past 10 years or so. They have been liberating policies which enable people to learn new skills, broaden their horizons and expand their social network. They are about flexibility and the opportunity of choice. But in the last day or so I have read the magazine from the IoD, Big Picture, where we see a concerted campaign emerging to persuade the Government to make no further change or concession in the opportunity for workers to request flexible working. It has set out an argument and a campaign is now in train.
I believe that the attack on workers’ rights has now moved to a very negative and dangerous position. For example, the barriers for access to justice at industrial tribunals are being raised higher and higher. I am somewhat old-fashioned in my views about fairness: I take the view that an unfair dismissal is unfair whether it is on day one or day 100. Why are industrial tribunals the only facet of the British justice system where workers will be asked to pay an entrance fee of £250 just to go through the door to lodge a claim for an unfair dismissal? That is one proposal coming out of the consultation document from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and that £250 only gets you through the door to determine whether you have an arguable case. If the tribunal finds at the preliminary stage that you do, you need to pay £1,000 for that case to go forward to a hearing. I do not know many single-parent female part-time workers who can afford to lay out £1,250 just to test the flexibility and therefore the ability of justice.
The reason why workers are being treated in such an unjust manner is quite simple: we now have a Government, supported by the cloak of a coalition, which believe in the culture of hire and fire. The Prime Minister says that industrial tribunals should no longer be seen as a barrier to growth, but the reality is that the Government’s proposals will be a barrier to justice.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for initiating this debate and for the manner in which she has done so. It is very necessary for us to debate employment at a time when so many people are being deprived of it. There is indeed an international economic crisis, but the policies of the present Government are, in my view, making that a great deal worse. It was a Conservative Government, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who first undermined manufacturing industry in the belief that our future lay in concentrating on financial services. I believe that that was all part of the antiunion stance of the Thatcher Administration, but it has been disastrous and everyone now says that it is necessary to rebalance our economy.
The present Government's decision to embark upon the most drastic austerity programme of any major economy has resulted in almost no growth and increasing unemployment. We are now facing youth unemployment approaching 1 million. Unemployment in the public sector has not been compensated for by the growth of employment in the private sector and it is women who are most adversely affected. This is because the majority of low-paid public sector jobs are held by women and these are being reduced as a result of government cuts. At the same time, the Government are introducing their Welfare Reform Bill, currently being debated in Committee in this House. This is designed to “ease the transition from welfare into work”. The media depiction of people on benefits as scroungers seems to have been taken seriously by DWP—but what if jobs are scarce, as they are at present? The pressure will be on for claimants to take anything, otherwise benefits will be lost.
It is in this situation that the Government are currently consulting on their new proposals on employment rights, as has just been referred to by my noble friend Lord Morris. This policy seems designed to make it easier for employers to get rid of people. In future, it is proposed that an employee would have to be in a job for at least two years before being able to claim unfair dismissal, and then, before going before a tribunal, a fee of £1,000 might have to be paid. Even then, the unfair dismissal case would not be heard, as now, by a tribunal consisting of one representative of the employer and one representative of the employee, with a legally qualified chair and lay representatives, who are highly respected because they bring a knowledge of working and industrial practice to bear upon cases. No, these lay representatives would not be there on dismissal cases. A dismissed employee would come before a judge sitting alone and, of course, there would be no legal aid supplied. There is no doubt that the proposed changes are intended to reduce the number of arbitration dismissal cases, but not, of course, of dismissals themselves. The Government admitted as much when challenged in this House at Questions. A recent report commissioned by the Prime Minister would scrap employment rights altogether.
It is quite clear that the Conservatives in government expect workers to “put up and shut up”. Is this what the big society is all about? It looks more like a serf society to me. I do not believe that the trade union movement, which in the previous century achieved so much for working people, will be prepared to put up with that. We can expect strong opposition, despite laws intended to make it as difficult as possible for organised collective action to take place.
When challenged, Government spokespersons are inclined to say that weakening employment protection encourages employers to take on staff. However, in this country there is an economy which, in the private sector, has a low-paid workforce. Small employers have benefited from that and the benefits system supports it through tax credits, housing and other benefits. In other words, the taxpayers support low-paying employers. There is no reason at all why basic employment rights for workers should be weakened—on the contrary. Moreover, the Government’s basic economic policies should be designed to ensure that employment increases, rather than diminishes, in both the public and private sectors. Alternative policies do exist and we have heard some of them in the debate today, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, in introducing the debate. The present policies are not working, but leading over the cliff edge.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for securing this debate. With her considerable experience of industrial relations across the private, manufacturing and public sectors, there are few in the House better able to provide us with the broad-sweep perspective that we need in trying to address and tackle these vital issues.
I want to focus my comments today on the importance of leadership and management across industry, the private, public and voluntary sector, if we are to navigate our way through the enormous changes that have taken place and continue to take place. As recent research from Cranfield School of Management found, improving management capability plays a major role in helping employers improve organisational and financial performance. Developing managerial capabilities is a key step for companies and organisations to achieve growth and manage business transformation and change in tough economic times. In this regard, I draw the attention of the House to the record of the Investors in People management standard in helping large and small organisations to build managerial skills and capabilities and improve employee engagement. IiP has a 20-year track record in driving improvements in workforce behaviour and performance. During that time it has changed and adapted, demonstrating its ability to evolve to reflect the changing and differing priorities of employers and their staff. Increasing evidence shows that IiP can help employers to survive, thrive and grow in the wake of huge change and recession.
Since I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships’ House, my contributions in the Chamber have been on the voluntary and charitable sector, or on health and social care in my supporting Front-Bench role. However, my working life, before I retired last year, was in organisation development and human resources, as the national director of the public services union, UNISON. UNISON was the first UK union to achieve the IiP standard, practising for our own staff what we want to see for our members in the workplace. UNISON was formed out of a merger in the early 1990s between three very separate independent unions. We faced all the problems of merged organisations, with all our structures and services in triplicate and the challenge to downsize quickly, while maintaining and improving our services to members and providing the better value for their subscriptions that we promised them would result from merger. Of course, we had to do all this in the increasingly competitive and changing world of public service delivery and trade unionism. We needed to develop our leadership capability, upskill our managers at all levels of the organisation and involve and enthuse our staff in our vision for the future. IiP was for us the key tool that helped us journey down a rocky and challenging road.
IiP is currently undergoing a major review under the auspices of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. I declare a non-financial interest as a member of the IiP advisory board which has been appointed by the commission to spearhead the review. Currently, over 25 per cent of the UK workforce uses Investors in People in organisations totalling more than 6 million employees. The Cranfield research on IiP analysed financial performance information from Companies House, case studies and a survey of over 400 employers. It showed four key outcomes from using the IiP framework for business development and managing change. First, IiP supports the development of a learning culture in the workplace. Secondly, it enhances the effectiveness of management development and continuous improvement programmes. Thirdly, it creates an environment where there is more focus on performance and employees better understand their contribution to the organisation and the achievement of its goals. Fourthly, it allows managers greater freedom and discretion to achieve priorities and objectives.
There has always been cross-party support for IiP. My own Labour Government strongly supported IiP through its partnership and learning and skills agendas. I welcome the present Government’s support for IiP and their identification of the standard as being critical in helping to deliver economic growth and improved business results. The advisory board has been given the task of repositioning IiP as an improvement tool for helping businesses to grow and to manage change. With this goal in mind, the IiP advisory board has been refocusing the emphasis of the standard from an essentially assessment tool to a model which works with organisations and businesses to achieve their specific needs and provides a model for managing change, managing growth or improvement, or simply survival. I ask the Minister, how do the Government intend to actively support the IiP transformation programme? What role will Ministers play in promoting IiP to private and public business leaders?
Last year the board led the relicensing of the IiP delivery network. IiP regional centres in the UK work closely with clients in large and small businesses, public services and the voluntary and independent sector. The London IiP centre has, for example, been working with Sainsbury’s, which recently became the biggest employer to use IiP. In the north, the centre has focused on small businesses and in the south, it is achieving good and positive results from work with local authorities and voluntary organisations.
To compete effectively, the UK still needs to address the organisational development of our businesses and invest in the potential and capabilities of our business leaders and managers. The UK lags behind our global competitors in terms of investment in leadership and management skills. For example, Germany’s average public investment in training is €4,438 per annum per manager compared with the UK’s €1,625. Several competitor countries, such as Spain, France, Norway and Denmark, all spend more on manager training than the UK.
Born out of the last recession in the 1980s, Investors in People is a key tool that can help small businesses grow. It provides support to enable leaders to be more ambitious. It can act as the bridge between leaders and their employees, building engagement, acting as a catalyst for new ideas and involving people throughout the organisation.
The targeting of small to medium-sized private and public organisations under the new IiP business model encourages them to focus their work with IiP on achieving business growth. Over 42 per cent of Investors in People’s customers are small businesses, and thousands of these find it an invaluable tool for taking the step changes required to achieve growth—for example, when they expand from 30 to 50 employees. Independent research by MORI showed that 80 per cent of employers using Investors in People agree that it helps all types of organisations adapt to change and growth. How will the Government encourage SMEs to use IiP to help grow their businesses?
In conclusion, the message to employers is to take the time to rediscover IiP. They will find that it has kept pace with the changing world of employment; is highly relevant to the needs of employers today and remains at the cutting edge of best management and staff engagement practice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I apologise to the House for having sought to speak for a couple of minutes at this stage of the debate. What has been said is of great importance to the whole country. The problem with the trades unions is not what it was, nor has it ever been exactly what it was said to be. Surely we must seek recovery, though; if we do not, where are we? I only ask this, with respect, having listened to the speech of my opponent, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. She and I have always been on opposite sides since the days of Maggie Thatcher. I ask that the Government reconsider the situation. It is not for me to say what they should do but I know that it should be reconsidered.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for the broad sweep across the issues that she gave us and for her recommendations. She managed to encourage a large number of noble Lords to join in, and it is a measure of the interest in the topic and the quality of the debate that we have had that we have been able to attract the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to speak. We are grateful for that, as he rarely does so.
Along with many noble Lords, I found this topic very difficult to get into and could not decide where to focus my remarks. In search of inspiration, and perhaps in anticipation of the adjuration from my noble friend Lady Donaghy about the need to consider social media, I turned instinctively to Google and put in the words, “the changing world of employment”. Unfortunately, that did not provide much food for thought; it mainly threw up expensive job retraining opportunities, which I passed up, although many of them were very clever and masqueraded as editorials, which I read. There were also a few rather odd blogs, which I certainly would not recommend.
The top-rated entry, which I shall read for the enjoyment of the House, contained the following insightful if barely literate gem:
“Today’s world of work is changing day by day. Employees and employers are moving towards revolutionary communication advances. The introduction of flexible work arrangement is moving towards the outsourcing and off-shoring different activities of business. This outsourcing and off shoring not only save lot of money but it also saves time”.
I have the reference if anyone wishes to follow it up. There is not much inspiration there, although I think it contains a grain of truth within its rather odd phraseology.
To try to get a handle on something to get started on, I rushed to a poetry book. Do they not say that the Greeks have a word for everything, even in these benighted times? So perhaps that was the place I should go to. I looked at Aristotle, who said in 300 BC that, “All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind”. Clearly working conditions in Athens in that period left something to be desired. Perhaps this quotation from Voltaire's Candide will redress the balance: “Employment saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need”. It probably sounds better in French, but think about it.
The title of this debate is “The Changing World of Employment”, and we have had many excellent speeches. The range of perspectives that we have drawn from include employers and a full array of those with experience as employee representatives, and we must not forget the incisive contribution and recommendations from my noble friend Lord Desai. Once again the House has shown itself to have a depth of experience and knowledge that are able to inform us about the issues of the day.
The key issues that seemed to come up included safeguarding employment rights—several noble Lords spoke on that point; the changing structure of the employment market, including the blurring of the line between the public and private sectors; the scarring effects of unemployment, particularly on the young; the growth in women’s employment, which is welcomed, but also the disgraceful fact that unemployment among women is now at the highest level ever; the growth in part-time working and the problems that that can bring; the fact that many people now work at home, which brings problems but also opportunities; the complexity of modern employment and the stress that that can bring; and the changes in rights and responsibilities in employment, which the law must keep pace with.
We have heard about diversity, talked about pensions and looked at discrimination and prejudice, which are still all too prevalent. We have touched on apprenticeships and the importance of vocational training. It has been a wide-ranging debate and will repay reading in Hansard when it comes out.
Many noble Lords spoke about the wider economic and social challenges facing our country. One of the main themes that have emerged today is the need for an economy that looks and feels very different from what we see today, with more opportunities for more people to get better jobs in good companies. That is the topic I want to focus on.
A recent report from the Resolution Foundation has shown how real-term median earnings flat-lined between 2003 and 2008. The Governor of the Bank of England, no less, has warned that we might be facing six years of falling living standards. Even more worrying, our economy is simply not making the best use of the skills and talents of our people. In 1986, around 30 per cent of workers said they had qualifications at a higher level than were needed to get and do their job. By 2006 this figure was 40 per cent, and by 2009 over half of employees said their skills were underused. The most recent available evidence suggests that at least one-fifth of graduates do not work in graduate-level jobs for several years after they graduate.
In short, we have developed an economy that is dangerously dependent on too many low-skilled jobs. Our growth among employers demanding more qualified and skilled staff is among the lowest in the OECD. We have an economy that is betraying the hopes of the young generation. It is failing to create the skilled well paid jobs that make the most of, and properly reward, their skills and abilities. And let us be very clear about one thing: the growth we need, the jobs we need, will be in the private sector. We will have the modern economy that we need only if we support good private companies that win market share and thus make profits in tough global markets. Equally, though, as my noble friend Lord Monks highlighted, we will not create strong and fair communities unless the workplace is provided by good companies where you are valued and respected and have opportunities to develop your own abilities to the full, and which give you a fair chance to provide for a secure future and live your life to the full.
These are deep-seated issues about the nature of our economy. I hope that the Minister will focus on where the coalition Government think that these good companies, good jobs and better opportunities will come from. There seems to be very little government action that will help us to adapt to and thrive in the changing world of employment. Specifically, what does she think can be done to ensure our economic competitiveness? How do we foster more companies where work is about more than modest pay levels and a struggle for survival? How will we better support companies whose business model is based on recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce, and which have the products and service levels that will allow them to grow and thrive? How do we ensure that these opportunities are in every region of the UK, not just a few?
In the wake of the banking crisis, there is a growing consensus that our economy needs greater relative strength outside financial services. Advanced manufacturing must be part of this, but so must other sectors with growth potential. There must be opportunities across a range of green technologies, in the life sciences and in our creative industries, which have a strong position in global markets, as does higher education at present. Business services, from design and architecture to law and accountancy, have already achieved global reach. What will the Government do to attract world-class companies and encourage the growth of larger numbers of SMEs in these sectors? We need to be a country where the global companies feel that they must be located and able to grow; and a country where smaller companies can innovate, grow and prosper. We also desperately need to support innovation along the lines outlined by my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum.
The Government must be relentless and have a single-minded focus on creating the conditions for private sector growth. In practice, markets are inevitably and unavoidably shaped by what Governments do and what they do not. At present, we are seeing a badly managed retreat from what was and should be an active government strategy—business support dismantled; incoherent policy-making in the green economy; uncertainty over key infrastructure such as broadband; confusion over planning policies; reduced investment in regional growth and the high-tech economy; and muddled thinking on apprenticeships for young people, which were a beacon of hope, as my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green called them. Universities are dazed and confused by the implications of the new voucher system and therefore doing less with business. On that point, something that the whole House should be worrying about is the fact that applications to universities are down significantly for next year.
The powers of government go way beyond establishing the right fiscal conditions for the macroeconomy or supply-side measures such as investment in skills and infrastructure, important though those policies are. As we have heard today, what is needed is an activist approach to business and enterprise policy—a recognition that, used wisely and intelligently, government influence can help to create the markets that foster successful companies in the key sectors, which we need. Crucially, an activist approach means understanding what business needs and making sure that public policy is properly aligned and co-ordinated to deliver the confidence and certainty that business needs. Getting bits of it right is not good enough. It is the coherence that counts.
To conclude, I suggest to the Minister that this excellent debate gives her a golden opportunity to give her Government’s support for our recently announced growth initiative. This includes a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people and build 25,000 affordable homes; bringing forward long-term investment projects, such as new school and hospital buildings; temporarily reversing the recent VAT rise, which would mean a £450 boost for families with children; a one-year cut in VAT to 5 per cent on home improvements and repairs to help small businesses; and a tax break for every small firm that takes on extra workers. These measures would get the economy going and would certainly change the world of employment for those who are unemployed, those who are currently in education and training, and our children and grandchildren. We would all agree that such change would be for the better, as well as saving us from those three great evils that Voltaire warned us about, “ennui, vice et besoin”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I start by congratulating, as have many other noble Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on securing this debate on a wide-ranging topic, on which she spoke with authority and passion, setting the tone for a very serious debate—one that I know the House has been happy to engage in. In the gap it brought to his feet my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—another bonus.
As the noble Baroness outlined and as we can all bear witness, the employment landscape has changed beyond all recognition since the 1960s. Globalisation, technology and social change are still moving at hyper-speed. Europe has expanded eastwards, bringing in cheaper labour, and we face greater competition from the tiger economies. Many British workers will need to reskill to adapt to new job opportunities and many already have.
I will try to answer many of the questions that have been asked during this debate, but if I run out of time all questions will be answered by letter. The good news is that we are living longer but this means that we have to manage the effects of an ageing population. The noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the removal of the default retirement age. We believe that this will increase the number of older people who are able to be in the workplace, stimulating the economy and leading to more job opportunities for everyone, including young people.
More women are working now than ever before. Part-time working has increased, as has the overall diversity of working patterns. My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke about this growth of part-time and temporary workers. The UK labour market is internationally recognised for its strength and flexibility. Our light-touch system of employment regulation is a key driver of that strong performance. Our labour market has achieved a steady rise in employment, despite cyclical peaks and troughs. During the recent recession employment fell by much less than many had expected, even given the fall in GDP. Part of this success is due to our flexible labour market. My noble friend Lady Randerson rightly pointed out that part-time working is an important choice for many workers, especially some of the older workers to whom she referred, and that part-time staff are a huge resource for business.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about his concerns over discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual workers. The Government’s equality strategy sets out our vision for a strong, modern and fair Britain. It is built on our two principles of equality: equal treatment and equal opportunity. This means building a society where no one is held back because of who they are or where they come from. It is obvious from the most moving speech that the noble Lord made that we must be very vigilant in this. In relation to the world of work, we commend the good work of ACAS in promoting better workplaces. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, used to be chair of ACAS. Britain’s future lies in nurturing a highly skilled, quality workforce, and in harnessing the ingenuity, creativity, diversity and inventiveness of all the British people.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked a question at the end of his speech. I have not had much chance to catch up with it but I hope that this will help. Supporting economic growth is our central task. The original growth fund is making a valuable contribution to growing a private sector-led economy in England. In particular, it will support areas and communities that are currently dependent on the public sector in making the transition to sustainable private sector-led growth and prosperity.
Education and skills are vital to our future and essential to building sustainable growth and stronger communities. Here, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser. We need a long-term strategy to deal with issues raised in the global market. The Government’s priority is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth, and we are sticking to our plan. We are creating a new model of growth, driven by investment and exports. A whole new government drive to promote trade and investment was announced in the trade and investment White Paper. It includes an expanded remit and updated strategy for UK Trade & Investment and refocusing the FCO on commercial diplomacy and new and improved products from the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Measures so far to take forward our universities, technical colleges and all levels and styles of education include expansion of the university technical colleges programme to at least 24 new colleges by 2014. Each will offer 600 to 800 14 to 19 year-olds the opportunity to take a highly regarded, full-time, technically oriented course of study. An increased apprenticeship budget of more than £1.4 billion this year is enough to train at least a third of a million apprentices. The noble Lord, Lord Young, an apprentice himself—fast becoming the most famous apprentice in the House—was the campaigning Minister in the previous Government. It has been my pleasure and privilege to build on the work that he has already done. He talks constantly about the need to create apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds. We agree and we are doing many things to advance that. We have seen high levels of employment in the UK due to the flexibility of our labour market, but we must work to build on this strength.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke of the need to encourage inward investment and suggested that national insurance contributions might no longer be a good idea. I was interested to hear this—I always expect something interesting from the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I have a real answer for the noble Lord, Lord Desai which I hope to give him later. The Government’s role is to put the right framework in place and provide support where necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, and the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, spoke of the need to invest in research and innovation. I was interested in the noble Lord’s descriptions, which did not always find favour with some of those on his own Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, said that the Government should benchmark employment law across Europe. The Government do not have to do that. The World Bank and the OECD conduct such studies regularly and they are always praising this country’s strength and flexibility. I hope that he finds that encouraging. The Government are helping women to continue to develop their careers by making a commitment to implement a system of flexible parental leave. This will give families more choice on how they care for their children and encourage early discussions between employees and their employers about leave plans in the important first year of a child’s life. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, that we need positive action on diversity and participation in the workplace and we are working towards this.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, spoke about the rolling back of maternity rights and the number of women in employment. Despite the recession, the employment rate for women remains historically high at 65.4 per cent compared with 53 per cent in 1971. I believe that this is the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, could not quite remember in his speech. We have no intention of reducing the total periods of leave and pay available to women. In line with our coalition commitment to encourage shared parenting, we recently consulted on proposals to introduce a system of flexible parental leave so that parents can choose how best to share their caring responsibilities between them. Where families choose, mothers will still be able to take exactly the same amount of leave and pay. Some of the more enlightened companies I have worked with—I particularly remember Unilever 15 years ago—made arrangements to enable women to come in during their parental leave and have their babies looked after while they were brought up to speed and kept up to speed, so that when they returned they had not fallen so far back that someone else had taken their job. I am therefore personally keen to see this piece of work go forward.
Now, more than ever, we need to ensure that the overall system of employment law helps rather than hinders growth. It is essential that the labour market functions in a way that gives employers the confidence to create new jobs. We have an extensive programme of welfare to work policies, but we also need our labour markets to be even more effective. Our aim, therefore, is to set employers free from unnecessary red tape while safeguarding the rights of individuals. Businesses can then concentrate on doing business and employing people rather than filling in forms. To ensure that we have the balance right, we are reviewing employment law. The employment law review has been under way since last May and will continue until the end of this Parliament. The review is an essential element of the growth review, an ambitious and relentless focus on the role government can play to drive, to ensure support and to enable the right conditions for businesses to thrive and achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked about the current economic model. He thought that the one we had was bust and that we are cutting too quickly. We do not, of course, believe that. It is vital that we renew the balance within the country. Our top priority is to achieve sustainable and balanced growth. We have prioritised capital investments that support long-term economic growth because we believe that is the right way forward to keep our jobs safe and secure. We have launched a growth review and are working closely with industry to create a new model of economic growth, driven by investment and exports. We have taken decisive action to tackle the deficit, restoring economic confidence and stability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, spoke of the importance of leadership and management skills and the Investors in People standard. We look forward to considering the recommendations of the review of the IiP standard that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills is currently undertaking and to which she referred. We are already tackling some of the problems that we have identified. Employers regularly tell us that they want to grow, but are put off by the fear of ending up in employment tribunals. We have therefore consulted on a framework that has, at its heart, dialogue rather than confrontation between employers and employees—conversation rather than diktat. We believe that businesses and workers can sort things out better than government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, highlighted the labour market’s need to be able to respond to changes resulting from the rise of social media. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, talked of joint enterprise and employee engagement. We have consulted on plans to improve and streamline employment tribunals and announced that we will extend the qualifying period for bringing claims for unfair dismissal. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that making it easier to sack staff will not help unemployment. Our announcement of the increase in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from one to two years aims to increase business confidence in recruiting, which is in everyone’s interest. We believe this strikes the right balance between protecting workers’ rights and giving businesses, particularly smaller ones, more confidence to take on people to train and to encourage them to take many more.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke of employment tribunals, unfair dismissal and fee charging. Fee charging by employment tribunals is the policy responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and I hope the noble Lord will respond to the consultation on fee levels which it will be launching in due course. We have concluded that it is right to ask users to contribute to the costs of running the employment tribunal system but it is important that we develop a system which is as fair as we can make it for vulnerable workers. The Red Tape Challenge focus on employment related law will help us gather more ideas on how we can improve or get rid of specific regulations. We are considering more than 1,200 comments on employment related laws which we have received through the Red Tape Challenge website.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, spoke of Adrian Beecroft’s contribution on employment law and protected conversations. Adrian Beecroft has been asked to contribute his thoughts to government to support the work of examining the burden of a cross-government employment related law. This is part of the wider consultation with stakeholders for Red Tape Challenge. His views will feed into that process and we do not plan to publish them. As I have said, we have already announced plans to raise the qualification period for unfair dismissal. This is an outside view that we are taking notice of—that is all.
It is not just about what we enforce. We also need to ensure that the system of enforcement is both effective and cost-effective, and we need to do so in a way that minimises inspections and other burdens on reputable businesses. That is why earlier this month we announced our intention to review whether a streamlined enforcement regime could be implemented. As part of this work, we will consider potential enforcement models, including whether there could be benefits from establishing a fair employment agency. By developing a better system of enforcement we will be able to increase its impact and ensure that the most vulnerable are aware of their rights and supported in their protection. We will report again on progress in the spring.
The Government are determined that employers that operate outside the law must not be allowed to undercut their legitimate competitors by exploiting their workers. Ensuring that workers are properly protected from abuse is not only good for workers; it is good for business and the economy as well.
Ultimately, our vision is for an education system attuned to the changing world of employment, with young people given the skills for work and for life—and for a labour market that is: flexible, by encouraging the creation of jobs by making it easy to get people into work and to stay in work; effective, by enabling employers to manage their staff productively; and, above all, fair, with employers competing on a level playing field and workers provided with a strong foundation of employment protections.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to charge users of other tribunals, apart from industrial tribunals, for entry and accessing those facilities?
Baroness Wilcox
No, at the moment I cannot give the noble Lord an answer, but I will go back and ask whether there are other plans that I do not know about and cannot answer on today. I will ensure that the noble Lord gets a proper reply to that question.
Baroness Prosser
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. It has been rich and wide-ranging, and we have covered all kinds of important issues within the world of work. Skills were mentioned by many noble Lords, as was the growth of technology, the use of social media, equalities and fairness, public and private employment and, of course, employment rights. Importantly, towards the end of the debate, my noble friend Lady Wheeler raised the role of management and the importance of management skills.
Part-way through the debate, a comment was made that the majority of contributors to this debate were people with a trade union background. That is correct, but I should like noble Lords and the House to recognise that as a positive, because the contributions made by those of us from a trade union background represent many years of collective knowledge and experience that we want to use in a debate such as this, not simply to be overtly critical or oppositionist, but to demonstrate that that experience tells us that some of the ideas currently being mooted within government quarters may have unintended consequences. We have been here before. We know just how difficult the world of work becomes when it is out of kilter, out of balance and unfair.
I very much thank the Minister for her reply. There was a great deal of positive comment in it. I again thank the whole House. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Eurozone Crisis
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, I wanted to update the House as early as possible on developments in the eurozone and, in the absence of the Prime Minister as he travels to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, report on the good progress made at yesterday’s European Council.
The crisis in the eurozone has caused instability in financial markets, has greatly undermined confidence around the world and is having a chilling effect on economic growth in many countries, including our own. It is in our overwhelming national interest that a coherent, comprehensive and lasting solution to the eurozone’s problems is found, for the decisive resolution of this crisis would provide the single biggest boost to the British economy this autumn, while the break-up of the euro would be the single greatest threat to our prosperity.
Our view about how to solve the eurozone’s immediate problems has been clear, consistent and forcibly expressed. The Prime Minister and I have set it out to the House on many occasions: reinforcement, recapitalisation and resolution. First, eurozone member states need to reinforce their bailout fund to create a firewall. Secondly, weak European banks need to be recapitalised. Thirdly, the unsustainable position of Greece’s debts needs to be resolved. But if the solution is to last, as I said many months ago, the members of the euro also need to address the logic of monetary union by pursuing greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, while at the same time we protect Britain’s interests.
We have to improve competitiveness—competitiveness in the peripheral economies of the eurozone as measured against the core economies like Germany, and competitiveness across the whole European continent versus the rest of the world. This is the solution of the crisis we have been advocating for months and the solution once again advocated by the Prime Minister at yesterday’s European Council.
Our view is that last night very good progress was made towards solving the immediate crisis—very good progress on all fronts. The deal put together is much better than was expected yesterday afternoon, but much detail remains unresolved. Having put pressure on the eurozone to get this far, we have to keep up the pressure to get the details completed. They have started down the road; now they have to finish the job.
Let me take each element of last night’s deal in turn, and say how it affects Britain. First, on recapitalising banks, we are pleased that the European Council agreed to the proposal hammered out by myself and other Finance Ministers at the weekend ECOFIN. All major European banks will be required to hold at least a 9 per cent core tier 1 capital ratio by the end of June next year, including marking to market all of their exposure to sovereign debt. The European Banking Authority, based here in London, assessed that achieving this target means banks will require an extra €106 billion of capital, and the Council yesterday confirmed that if this cannot be raised privately, then Governments will have to step up to the plate.
I can confirm to the House today that, in the assessment of the European Banking Authority and our own tripartite authorities, no British bank requires additional capital. This is an important expression of confidence in this country’s banking system at a time of global financial stress. EU member states also agreed to co-ordinate guarantees of term funding, should they be required. We have also ensured that state-aid rules will be properly applied, and European banks will be restructured if necessary, just as the European Commission demanded of the last British Government two years ago.
While some would have wanted an even tougher banking agreement, and even more capital going into Europe’s weak banks, we should welcome what has been achieved with this agreement. Unlike the totally inadequate stress tests of last year, we now have a commitment to significant extra resources for the European banking system. However, the UK and others insisted that that commitment from the whole of the European Union on banking be conditional on the two other key components of the solution to the crisis that I set out: a reinforced firewall and a resolution of Greek debt. These are both properly matters for the eurozone, not the UK—and both were matters on which progress was also made last night.
On Greece, a headline agreement was reached to reduce the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio to 120 per cent by 2020. The eurozone will contribute an additional €30 billion. Because the British Government have made sure that we are not part of the Greek bailout, none of that extra €30 billion will come from our taxpayers, while private holders of Greek sovereign debt will be asked to accept a nominal write-down of 50 per cent. A lot more work is needed to put this all into practice, including detailed negotiations with the private sector—but we said Greece’s debts were unsustainable and we are pleased to see a resolution in sight.
On reinforcing the size of the firewall, the eurozone has set out two options that could operate in tandem. One is to provide, from the bailout fund, insurance on new debt issued by eurozone countries; the second is to create special purpose vehicles that can attract resources from private and public investors. In their statement, they said that,
“the leverage effect of both options will vary”,
but they could be,
“expected to yield around 1 trillion euro”.
We have always believed that the role of the European Central Bank is critical and I welcome the positive statement made by Mario Draghi, the incoming ECB president.
Talk of special purpose vehicles has given rise to questions about the involvement of the IMF and major shareholders such as the UK. As I have said to the House on many occasions, Britain has always been one of the IMF’s largest shareholders and biggest supporters: we helped create the institution 60 years ago; the last Government agreed to increase its resources two years ago; and this Government not only ratified that agreement but helped to make the IMF more representative of the new world economy by brokering a deal last year that gave countries such as China and Brazil a greater say, while securing Britain’s seat on the board. The IMF has been an active participant in the packages put together to support Ireland, Portugal and Greece. It has also been active in extending flexible credit lines to Poland and Mexico—neither of which are in the eurozone, of course—as well as supporting other countries in central and eastern Europe such as Hungary, Romania and Latvia. Indeed, it currently has 53 lending programmes around the world, of which only three are in the eurozone.
Supporting countries that cannot support themselves is what the IMF exists to do, and there may well be a case for further increasing the resources of the IMF to keep pace with the size of the global economy. Britain, as a founding and permanent member of its governing board, stands ready to consider the case for further resources and contribute, with other countries, if necessary. Let us remember that support for the IMF does not add to our debt or deficit, and that no one who has ever provided money to the IMF has ever lost that money. But let me be very clear: we are prepared to see an increase only in the resources that the IMF makes available to all the countries of the world. We would not be prepared to see IMF resources reserved only for use by the eurozone. By all means, the IMF can use its expertise and advice to help the eurozone create the special purpose vehicle that it is considering. By all means, let countries with large foreign currency reserves such as China consider putting their own money into the eurozone’s special purpose vehicle—that must be their decision—but the IMF cannot put its own resources in; it can lend only to countries with a programme for adjustment.
Moreover, I can confirm today that Britain will not be putting its resources in either. We do not have a surplus; we have a very large deficit. We have had to use our own resources to recapitalise our banks and to stand behind our currency. An active member of the IMF? Yes. A supporter of the IMF, helping with advice and technical support? Yes. But the IMF contributing money to the eurozone bailout fund? No. Britain contributing money to the eurozone bailout fund? No. That is Britain’s clear position.
We expect the eurozone members to use the next few days—at most, weeks—to provide much more detail about their plans to increase their firewall and sort out Greek debt. We have made it clear that the sooner this happens, the better for the whole world economy. We must maintain the momentum.
This package will not on its own resolve the longer-term issues of how to make the euro work more effectively. Those longer-term issues were addressed yesterday, and they included proposals for greater fiscal integration and mutual control over the budget policies of eurozone member Governments. I said many months ago that this is where the remorseless logic of monetary unions leads, and it does involve a loss of national sovereignty for countries in the eurozone.
It is in Britain’s interest that the euro operates more effectively, provided that the interests of all 27 member states are properly protected in key areas of European policy like the single market, competition and financial services. We are insistent that our voice will continue to be heard and our national interests protected. We have found allies among the other 10 members of the EU not in the euro. An important marker was put down in Sunday’s European Council conclusion.
No one pretends that sorting this out in a satisfactory way will be easy, but it is a necessity. That is the context in which we should approach potential changes to the treaty. This coalition Government have already proved that they can protect Britain’s interest by getting us out of the last Government’s involvement in eurozone bailouts, holding down the European Union budget and putting into law the guarantee that no further powers or competencies can be transferred to Brussels without the consent of the British people in a referendum. Now this Government will protect Britain’s interests again as the discussions on a possible limited treaty change begin. We will seek to rebalance the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which in our view has become unbalanced.
Finally, the euro will not find lasting stability until its peripheral members become more competitive. That means credible plans to reduce budget deficits—a commitment made in the very first section of yesterday’s agreement—but it also involves difficult decisions on pension ages, business tax rates, welfare reform and educational standards. Britain, thankfully, is not in the euro, but we are taking these difficult decisions because the ultimate lesson of this crisis is that unless you can pay your way in the world, and compete around the globe, then your country will be next in the firing line. I am determined that that country will never be Britain”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that the Chancellor made in the other place. As my colleague Rachel Reeves acknowledged there, we on this side of the House welcome the agreement that has been reached, but we also believe that there are many crucial, unanswered questions; I hope that the noble Lord can help us deal with some of those today. The future of the eurozone is vital to our national interests. It has huge ramifications for British businesses and families and that is why we need to see on the part of our Government a policy of constructive and positive engagement, even though we are a “euro-out”.
On the recapitalisation of the banks, does the Minister believe that the deal announced is sufficient and that UK banks do not require any further recapitalisation? What estimate has he made of the exposure of UK banks to Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish sovereign debt? What can he tell us about that? Does the noble Lord rule out any possibility that the Irish might at some stage ask for similar treatment to that of the Greeks? What would then be the impact on the UK banking system? What would then be the expectation of our partners as to our role?
On the expansion of the European Financial Stability Facility, does the noble Lord believe that the €1 trillion package is sufficient? Is it the big bazooka that the Prime Minister talked about so eloquently before the summit? Does he think that we are going to be back here discussing these issues in a few months’ time, which would add to the uncertainty that is undermining confidence?
Can the noble Lord explain in more detail—and I understand the difficulties here—how the leveraging of the EFSF will work? If it is not clear now, when does he expect it to become clear in terms of credit enhancement and special purpose vehicles? If the EFSF must also fund bank recapitalisation, will it be sufficient to give confidence to the markets, and will there be sufficient remaining funds to underpin the sovereign debt of member states in difficulty, such as Italy?
On the question of British contributions, paragraph 22 of the euro summit statement says:
“In addition, further enhancement of the EFSF resources can be achieved by cooperating even more closely with the IMF. The Eurogroup, the Commission and the EFSF will work on all possible options”.
Are we to interpret what the noble Lord said in the Statement as meaning that the British would oppose any such exploration and try to veto such efforts?
Is not the big thing missing from the agreement that has been concluded the lack of any plan for jobs and growth in Europe? Is it not the case that countries such as Italy are not conceivably going to be able to solve their debt problems without a revival of growth? Is this not a time when Britain should have been leading the charge with our partners to argue for a proper plan for jobs and growth in Europe? We need not simply collective austerity but a new drive to open up the single market, an investment plan using up unused structural funds—of which there are hundreds of millions in this country—and a greater role for the European Investment Bank, which has already played a considerable role in financing small businesses. We need to look at whether this can be extended to provide central support for privately funded energy and other infrastructure projects. Should we not be putting together that kind of European plan for growth?
However, is not the real problem that this Government cannot do that because unemployment is at a 17-year high, there has been no growth in this country for a year, borrowing is £46 billion higher than was planned and, by clinging desperately to an austerity plan that is failing here in Britain, as my colleague Ed Balls has so persuasively argued, we are nailing our colours to a mast of austerity when what we need is a comprehensive plan for growth? Is not one reason why the Government are being held back from putting forward a plan for growth in Europe that they are fundamentally conflicted on Europe, not really being able to make up their mind whether they want Britain in the room or out of the room?
On the arrangements for future decision-making that have been agreed, the agreement says:
“The President of the Euro Summit will keep the non euro area Member States closely informed of the preparation and outcome of the Summits”.
What does “closely informed” mean? Does it mean anything more than Britain simply being told by a letter in the post, as it were, what has happened in Brussels? What arrangements will be made to ensure that the British voice is heard loud and clear?
On the forthcoming treaty changes, which are mentioned, it is totally unclear where the Government stand. I understand that there was a report this morning from a No. 10 press briefing that any treaty changes were expected to be minor and certainly would not require a referendum in this country. In that case, how will they be a vehicle for the repatriation of powers and the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union that the Prime Minister promised his Back-Benchers in the House of Commons earlier this week? The fact is that, as long as the Government fail to resolve these fundamental issues about their stance towards our membership of the European Union, our influence over the eurozone’s future is going to be minimal.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on asking, in my experience, the maximum number of questions in the minimum amount of time, which certainly gives me a bit of a challenge. He addressed some of the key issues that are left outstanding, which is very helpful, and I shall attempt to address as many of his questions as I can.
First, on the sufficiency of the bank recapitalisation, what is important here is that for the first time, unlike the somewhat obscure and clearly failed stress tests—failed in the sense that they were not nearly tough enough—we have a very clear direction about the hurdle of 9 per cent core tier 1 capital on the basis that sovereign debt is market to market and the European Banking Authority has done the calculations on that basis. That is materially different from the way that the assessment was made last year, which was woeful in its inadequacy. To be absolutely clear, through that process and through the ongoing process of the tripartite authorities—particularly the FSA in the UK—under this assessment UK banks do not need any new capital, as indeed is the case for banks in a number of other countries, including the Netherlands and, critically, Ireland.
The noble Lord asked about Ireland and I shall come back to that in a minute. He also asked specifically about the UK’s exposure to other peripheral countries, and it may be helpful to give the latest data on that. The information is set out on the Bank of England website, and the latest numbers that it gives are that UK financial and monetary institutions have exposures to the public sectors of the peripheral eurozone countries—that is, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy—of up to $34 billion, the currency in which the numbers are reported. Twenty-five billion dollars of that relates to the public sectors of Italy and Spain, and a total of $9 billion to Greece, Ireland and Portugal—$3 billion to Greece, $4 billion to Ireland and $2 billion to Portugal. These are relatively modest numbers in most cases compared with those for other core European countries. They are much lower than the exposures of banks in France and Germany, for example, to Greece.
So far as concerns Ireland, as I just said, the first thing that came out of the statement overnight is that the Irish banks do not require further capital injections as a result of this package. I support the euro summit’s statement on Ireland—that it is making good progress on the full implementation of its adjustment programme. As we all know, it is clearly in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and that its banking system is stable. Ireland accounts for some 6 per cent of Britain’s exports, and that is why we signed the bilateral loan agreement with it. As is clear from everything that has happened since then, the Irish Government have a strong commitment to programme implementation, and we very much welcome that.
A recently completed staff mission ahead of the fourth EU/IMF review of Ireland’s programme concluded that Ireland is indeed delivering its programme effectively and making substantial progress on deficit reduction, banking repair and structural reforms. The progress that Ireland has made is a positive lesson for other countries in Europe.
The noble Lord then asked whether the €1 trillion is sufficient. The critical point for now is that, although a lot of numbers have been bandied around in negotiating the package, we have gone up a step from €440 million to €1 trillion and that is a very significant increase. The first priority is to see to the details because, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, points out, important details have to be put in place. That has to be the next priority and there is a commitment that we should get the details on that by the end of November, which answers the noble Lord’s question. Otherwise, all I would say about indications of the sufficiency of the package is that the markets—whether the equity markets, the debt markets or the markets in European banks—have been positive today and although we should not set too much store by one day's reaction in the market, clearly that reaction has been positive, having looked at the statement and the package.
Turning to jobs and growth, of course we want the EU27, as well as the eurozone, to be putting in much more effort, as I have already said, to questions of structural reform, competition policy, external trade and so on. From the Statement it is clear that yesterday the Council was looking hard at these matters, not least in drawing attention to the Spanish plans for structural reform and the new Italian plan for growth. To be fair to the eurozone, both in the generality and in relation to two of the countries that wish to see speedy action, growth issues are certainly not forgotten.
On the noble Lord's jibes about the UK, I stress again that the approach of the UK Government is threefold: first, we must stick to the deficit reduction plan if we are to have the continued low interest rates which we need for sustained recovery; secondly, yes, there is room for monetary activism, as seen in the Bank of England's recent announcement on more quantitative easing but also in my right honourable friend the Chancellor's announcement that we are looking at further credit easing measures; and thirdly, yes, we need to continue to bring forward supply-side reforms, as we will do in and around the autumn Statement next month to underpin medium-term balanced growth.
The noble Lord asked about issues concerning the structure of the euro-ins and the euro-outs, treaty changes and so on. As regards what “closely informed” means, the best evidence is what happened over the past few days: the Prime Minister successfully argued that we needed to have a seat at the table yesterday for issues that concern the whole EU27 and specifically there was the bank recapitalisation. That was accepted; we were there; the other euro-outs were there and we were kept extremely closely informed about the deliberations within the eurozone. The best thing to look at is the evidence of how that worked over the past couple of days.
The eurozone Statement talks about possible treaty changes, so we must not jump the gun and say that there will be some. I do not have the wording of that paragraph in front of me, but it makes the point that they are not necessarily extensive changes—I forget the adjective.
Lord Sassoon
I thank the noble Lord for that—possible limited treaty changes. We should not get excessively excited too soon about that but, if and when the treaty changes come forward, the first priority of the UK Government will be to ensure that those treaty changes are fit for purpose in terms of the better governance that we want in the eurozone, and the second is that we will take every opportunity at that point to see what advantage we can get for the UK out of the discussions around any package that may come forward. I hope that that rather briskly answers the noble Lord’s many questions.
Lord Newby
Reverting to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the IMF, the Chancellor very helpfully pointed out in the Statement:
“Let us remember that support for the IMF does not add to our debt or deficit, and that no one who has ever provided money to the IMF has ever lost that money”.
Why, therefore, does he go on to say,
“But the IMF cannot put its own resources in—it can only lend to countries with a programme for adjustment”,
not least because I thought all the countries that we were talking about had a programme for adjustment? I cannot see why the Government are so averse to involving the IMF, particularly given that the eurozone Ministers are very keen to work with the IMF. Secondly, I ask specifically about tax co-ordination. The European statement says:
“Pragmatic coordination of tax policies in the euro area is a necessary element of stronger economic policy coordination … Legislative work on the Commission proposals for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and for a Financial Transaction Tax is ongoing”.
The implication is that the eurozone countries are considering imposing those taxes themselves. Is it the Minister’s understanding that they will be in a position to impose those taxes and that common tax base—with the UK out, under the outs—and, if they did that, what would be the Government’s attitude towards it?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, I shall try to clear up what I think is a small confusion in relation to what the IMF can or cannot do under its own rules and what we would be prepared to be part of or not part of. Of course, the IMF is involved directly in the Greek package, as it is with two other packages within the eurozone. So three programmes out of the 53 in which the IMF is currently involved are indeed eurozone ones and that is perfectly proper and we support the IMF’s commitment in adjustment programmes of that kind. We would not support the IMF participating in some special purpose vehicle fund, but I do not believe that it has the ability to do that anyway and the UK certainly will not be involved in that. If China and other countries want to be involved, that is fine and that is their decision, but we will not be involved and we will not support any IMF involvement in that route. We will support the IMF's involvement in country adjustment programmes, such as it has done throughout its history. That is what the IMF is there for. There may be some confusion on that.
On tax co-ordination, first, the UK Government stick strictly to their position that we believe that taxation is, and should remain, a matter of national competency. It is up to the eurozone if it wants to propose some different arrangements within the eurozone consistent with the need for greater fiscal co-ordination in it. On the one specific proposal that has come forward so far—the financial transaction tax—first, we have said that there may be some basis for such a tax but only where it is globally applicable because if it is applied in Europe it will simply drive business away from Europe and, critically, away from the City of London, and that makes no sense. Secondly, in bringing forward that proposal the Commission was completely clear that the article under which it comes forward is one on which unanimity is required and therefore QMV could not force us into it.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I do not in any way want to belittle any of the efforts that have been made, but does the Minister accept that over the past 24 hours in Europe we have been arguing over the size of the sticking plaster on a corpse that has an underlying chronic problem? Did he not indicate the nature of that problem when he said that the eurozone will work only if the countries in it approximate towards relative competitiveness? Is not the key problem that that should have preceded the onset of a single currency? The delusion that you could politically impose a single currency on such variegated competitive levels inside 17 countries was always bound to end with the chronic problem that we are facing. In view of that, what is the strategic thinking of the Government? Do they now maintain that the present membership of the euro is an inviolate and irreducible minimum? If they do, do they therefore accept that it can exist only with the concentration of ever closer political and fiscal union inside the eurozone? Can the Minister explain how support for ever closer political and fiscal union inside the eurozone accords with the Government’s view of opposition to ever closer political union within the wider 27? If not a contradiction, is there not at least a very difficult paradox underlying the strategic position in which the Government now find themselves?
Lord Sassoon
First, it is probably not productive to rake over too much of the history of this. An awful lot of those who advocated the creation of the euro and the UK’s participation in it have been proved completely wrong by the way that events have unfolded over recent years. Therefore, arguing about whether competitiveness should have come before or after the creation of the euro is more for historians. That is why it was in my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s Statement that the competitiveness of the euro-periphery countries, vis-à-vis Germany as the benchmark of economic and industrial efficiency in Europe, is a critical issue that has to be addressed; and that the second dimension is the competitiveness of the EU as a whole in a global economy. I completely agree with the noble Lord that this has to be central to the solution going forward.
As to who should or should not be in the euro and what the size of it should be, that is for the euro to work out. The Government have no view on whether euro membership is inviolable. We simply say that that is a matter for the eurozone. What we want to see is these issues of competitiveness within and without the eurozone very high on the agenda. As far as dealing with internal competitiveness is concerned, that inevitably means a degree of closer fiscal co-ordination, the inevitability of transfer payments between members and all the logic that flows from that.
The competitiveness of the EU27 and the outward-facing euro are completely different matters that do not require similar questions of political union. We have a very good paradigm in which the EU27 can co-operate. It is just a matter of them focusing on the structural, market, competition and financial regulation issues, none of which requires any closer political union. They are technocratic, single-market trade and economic issues.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I congratulate the Chancellor on the extremely active and skilful way in which he has defended British interests in the course of these very complex negotiations. As far as the possible costs of the operation are concerned, will my noble friend clarify the situation? Is he saying that under the arrangements that are now put forward there can be no cost to the UK taxpayer? It would seem to be true of the first part of the Statement. The position with regard to the IMF seems a little obscure because, if I understand it correctly, the Chancellor is saying that he is prepared to contribute more to the IMF but will not contribute if that money is going towards bailing out the eurozone or members of the eurozone. Will my noble friend say how that is to be achieved because, from my experience of the IMF, I am not at all clear?
As far as the banking side of things is concerned, my noble friend suggests that the Government may get involved in the process of recapitalisation if other methods do not succeed. Will he tell us what the likely or potential cost of that could be and, in particular, if we are going to contribute to the recapitalisation, is there any implication as far as ownership of the banks is concerned?
Finally, I shall pick up the point just made. At the end of the day, as far as I can see, none of these huge amounts of money being thrown around will make a significant difference to the competitiveness of, let us say, the Greeks. If the IMF is involved, then perhaps it will because it imposes very stringent conditions which, on the whole, have been enforced, but all this money is simply flowing around to bail out the Greeks. It is not making them more competitive. Indeed, is it not fairly apparent that the Greeks joined the eurozone at an exchange rate at which they were not competitive? As far as one can see, it is inconceivable that they will become competitive. These measures certainly do not do much to achieve that. In that case, are we simply delaying the day, sooner or later, when the Greeks have to leave the euro?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, let me try again on the IMF because my right honourable friend and I seem to have failed so far to get this clear. I will have another go. There was a proposal under the previous Government, which was endorsed by this Government—and voted against by the Opposition in another place even though their party had previously put it forward—for the IMF to increase its resources to match the growth in the global economy. It has nothing to do directly with the eurozone but is to do with the size of the global economy and the IMF’s global mandate. We support that increase in resources.
I should say again that no member shareholder of the IMF has lost any money on the back of the IMF’s contribution to the many adjustment programmes that it has entered into for many years. In relation to Europe and the eurozone, the IMF is involved in the three eurozone programmes. We have no difficulty about the IMF being involved. That is what it is there to do, provided it is entering into adjustment programmes related to eurozone countries on the same basis as it has done to this point and as it would do with any other country. That is absolutely fine. However, the IMF should not contribute to some special eurozone fund—that is not what the IMF is there for—and I have no reason to believe it will do that. We certainly would not be part of any such special use of IMF resources.
It is not correct to say that there will be any UK contribution to the recapitalisation of the eurozone banks. If there is a contribution from the public sector, the taxpayers of Europe, it will come from those countries that have contributed to the ring-fenced fund, the EFSF, and the UK is not part of that fund. We have recapitalised our own banks. We are not contributing to the recapitalisation of the eurozone banks. I hope that that is also clear.
Greek competitiveness is addressed by the adjustment programme agreed with the EU and the IMF. The challenge is to make sure that, under the normal ongoing monitoring programme over the next few years, Greece is held to its commitments. But, critically, there are, in its adjustment programme on which its bailout package is conditional, all sorts of conditions aimed to increase Greek competitiveness.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there is plenty of time. Perhaps we may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I am grateful and I will be brief. I should like further clarification on the position of the IMF, which has been significantly involved with these negotiations. As I understand it, the IMF is already subscribing to three country adjustment programmes and will continue to do so. It has indicated that it may be required to look for more money from members of the IMF to put more cash into those programmes. I think that I am correct in my understanding of the Minister on that. If that is the case, we are therefore putting more money into the eurozone venture.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I will not repeat at length what I have said. It was the proposal of the previous Government, and endorsed by this Government, that we should support an increase of resources of the IMF to match its global commitments, which continues to be the situation. We will continue to be supportive of the IMF having resources in total commensurate with its global mission and mandate. That is quite separate from its contribution to EU programmes, which are looked at country by country in the same way as the IMF looks at the other 50 programmes that it has on the go at the moment, and other proposals that may come forward.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to this House. Perhaps I may digress slightly from the euphemistic terms that he has used today to explain away a potential disaster. I have noticed that the Government bring domestic issues to this House in fairly radical terms instead of, perhaps, in succinct amendments. I am thinking of education, health and so on. How is it that the Government ignore the fundamental flaws in the European arrangements which have brought us to this state? How is it, for example, that we are prepared to accept in July 2012 the Republic of Cyprus taking over the presidency, when it is an acolyte of Greece that is probably £6 billion to £8 billion in debt, if one discounts the funny Russian money? How is it that we are prepared to allow from July next year for six months something that is bound to impede any efforts by the Commission to move the problem forward in the Greek situation?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am answering questions on the eurozone crisis. The question of Cyprus has nothing to do with it. I am sure there will be other opportunities to discuss that.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, today marks the beginning of a profound change in our relationship with the EU. If we are going to have fiscal and political integration in 17 countries, leaving 10 outside, it is undoubted that we are going to have a different relationship. Winston Churchill said that the British nation was unique in wishing to hear bad news, irrespective of how bad it was. In saying that British banks do not require recapitalisation in the assessment of the European Banking Authority, can the Minister tell us when the authority made that assessment in the light of the fast-changing nature of the evolution of this crisis and the lack of transparency in the role of credit default swaps? The timing of when this assessment was made would be very useful to know.
Lord Sassoon
It made the assessment very recently. Indeed, the numbers are going to be reworked over the coming days and weeks to make sure that they are as absolutely up to date as they need to be for the recapitalisation to take place.
Impact of Government Policies on Family Budgets
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Knight of Weymouth
To call attention to the impact of Government policies on family budgets; and to move for papers.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this debate on the impact of government policy on family budgets. Before I come to the substance of my contribution, I want to say something about the choice of the word “family” in this debate. Yesterday I asked, through Twitter and Facebook, for examples of how people have been affected by government policy in the past 18 months. I quickly had a response from someone called Ma on Twitter. She—I think she may be a she—said:
“Every single politician who talks about families is talking about those with kids. That has never changed. For my entire life in this country, I’ve been an irrelevance. Why? Talk about being ‘excluded’”.
I apologise to her if she felt excluded by the use of the word “family”. Over a series of tweets she had important things to say for us in this debate. I quote:
“I’m visibly older. What happens when I need to find a new job and can’t? This government will have me out in the street. I’m way past old enough to be a grannie now. Am I supposed to live in a student flat or crummy bedsit now? One wage coming into my home to pay for fuel. How does that work, exactly? One wage to pay for housing? All very well to care about kids. I didn’t have them in part because I couldn’t afford them. So I’ll freeze now? Nae good”.
She may have been Scottish. Clearly single people are suffering under this Government as well as more traditional definitions of family and I am happy to speak for them too as best I can. The other most striking response was on Facebook from Caroline O’Brien. She wrote:
“One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is the effect of cuts in local services on family budgets. Particularly on families with special needs children. Very often as services are withdrawn families are forced to try to make up the shortfall or see their children suffer. Whether that is getting independent assessments of educational need, private speech therapy, funding activities previously coming from youth services or providing transport. The withdrawal of EMA is going to hit us too, as my daughter starts A levels next year and as for thoughts of university, the debt levels are terrifying. I am also noticing that charities are being hit hard, so far less help is now available from them. Many of these things are just starting to have an effect but from where I am standing the future seems bleak for so many families. I know I am lucky. We can afford to buy the food we need, heat our house and pay the mortgage but is equality of opportunity for my kids really something that should be cut? After all it is the tax payer who will have to pay if my kids are unable to participate in society in the future”.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Would the noble Lord forgive me for asking whether his interesting speech is within the remit of the problems of this particular Statement?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am speaking to the Motion in my name around the impact of government policies on family budgets and I believe I am speaking directly to that, but I welcome the interest from the noble Lord.
Those two responses are the authentic voice of people in this country—not the poorest perhaps but certainly what has been described as the “squeezed middle”—and it is appropriate that we heard from them first in this debate.
In the remainder of my time I want to make three broad points. First, the lack of growth in the economy is hitting family budgets hard and the country desperately needs a credible and urgent plan to return to growth. Secondly, tackling two of the big inflationary items in budgets, food and energy prices, means taking on vested interests and pushing them to act in the long-term interest rather than for short-term gain. Finally, this Tory Government are failing because they are out of touch with the problems of ordinary families in this country.
I start with the last of those first. It was, I think, in George Osborne’s 2009 party conference speech that we first heard his soundbite: “We are all in this together”. The Government want us to believe that the pain is shared fairly. Does the Minister still believe that to be true? The evidence that he is hitting the poorest hardest is stark. I quote from Peter Wilby’s excellent piece in the 17 October edition of the New Statesman, where he said:
“One of Labour's most outstanding achievements in office was to reduce child poverty during an economic boom. This sounds nonsensical, but isn't. Poverty is defined relatively; children living in families that receive below 60 per cent of median income count as poor. As the median nearly always rises during a boom, more children automatically become poor unless employers increase their parents' wages or ministers increase their benefits. The Tories are about to pull off the opposite trick. In recessions, the median falls and so, unless poor families' wages and benefits are hit harder than average, child poverty automatically falls. In 2009-2010, that was exactly what happened, with 300,000 children coming out of poverty. But that was before the Tories got to work. Now, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reports, we can expect the same number (though not necessarily the same children) to go back into poverty over the next two years, despite the likelihood that median incomes will remain, at best, stagnant. You couldn't have a clearer illustration of the difference between Tory and Labour governments”.
On the income side of family budgets, we know that wage increases are not keeping up with inflation and that families are therefore suffering real-terms cuts. The Government are adding to that by their own attacks on pay in the agricultural sector by abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, on the pay and conditions of school support staff by abolishing their negotiating body, and on public sector workers generally by imposing an effective extra tax on them through increased pension contributions beyond those being recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton.
At the same time, the Government are of course cutting the benefits bill. Their cuts to housing benefits, to tax credits, to child benefit, to childcare, to educational maintenance allowance, to baby tax credits, to the maternity and health in pregnancy grants, to concessionary transport and to disability living allowance amount to a list that is long and painful. These cuts are hitting the poorest hardest, because it is the poorest who claim the most benefits, both in and out of work. Worst of all, for some families, unemployment is rising once more, with too many families now going through the trauma of a sudden collapse in their income. It is clear that “We are all in this together” rings hollow. If Ministers want to continue to claim that their choices on spending have been spread fairly, they are even more out of touch than I thought.
I turn to spending. The biggest hit on family spending overall was the Government’s decision prematurely to raise VAT to 20 per cent. As former Monetary Policy Committee member Professor Blanchflower wrote recently:
“It certainly appears that increasing VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent was a big mistake—it increased … Consumer Prices Index inflation by 1.5 percentage points and hit ordinary working people's living standards”.
His call to reverse that increase was repeated by last year’s winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, Christopher Pissarides, who said this month:
“Cutting VAT back to 17.5 per cent … will revive job creation and reduce unemployment. Deficit reduction is best done with spending cuts when the economy is recovering, not with higher taxes in a downturn”.
Last week’s inflation figures made grim reading. CPI, the Government's preferred measure, has never been higher at 5.2 per cent, and RPI, at 5.6 per cent, is the highest since June 1991. It is little wonder that the Markit Household Finance Index published this week showed 37 per cent of UK households expecting their financial situation to worsen this month, against only 7 per cent expecting an improvement, or that the Family Lives survey of December last year found that 53.3 per cent of families said that their finances were in a worse state now than last year.
If we look at the detail of the inflation figures, we see the reality for families. Bills for gas and electricity have risen by 9.9 per cent in the past month and are up 18.3 per cent since last year. Transport has risen 12.8 per cent in the past year and food is 6 per cent higher than 12 months ago. I expect that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon will talk about energy prices in her speech, but we know that the poorer you are, the higher the proportion of income is used in food and heating. I fear that this winter many more will have to choose between the two as the decision to cut winter fuel payments to £200 for over-60s and £300 for over-80s adds to the misery.
With regard to fuels costs, I have to press the Government on why they are not giving teeth to the groceries code adjudicator. This new body will be funded by the supermarkets. The responsible Minister, Ed Davey, has said it will “safeguard the consumer interest”, and it will lead, in the words of the National Farmers Union to,
“fewer instances of flagrant bully-boy tactics … by the supermarkets”.
Yet the Government have rejected two Select Committee reports calling on them to implement the regulatory body quickly. It was ready to go last summer. The Government rejected proposals to allow it to fine without a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and to allow it to act on anonymous complaints. On the three big tests, the Government have shown that they are unable to resist the power of the vested interests of the supermarkets and unwilling to set up an effective regulator—the effective regulator that consumers and producers of food want and need.
Since the Minister is so well briefed on Europe now, and given the warm relationship that the Prime Minister has developed in Europe with the likes of President Sarkozy, perhaps the Minister can tell us how we will get heard on more radical reform of the common agricultural policy, which his friends in the TaxPayers’ Alliance claim costs every household in this country £398 per year in higher food prices. If the Government are serious about helping family budgets, they must be willing to take on the short-termism and vested interests that are raising food and energy prices. That is the new bargain with business that Ed Miliband talked about last month in Liverpool and it is sorely needed.
Finally, what families in this country need more than anything is growth in the economy. Growth brings jobs, job security and consumer confidence. We are in a vicious circle that needs reversing. Today’s British Retail Consortium figures show 23,000 fewer workers in high-street stores than a year ago because of the collapse in consumer demand. How are the Government going to reverse it? To get the economy moving, we need spending to increase. As we have seen, that certainly will not come from consumers. Despite the welcome deal overnight in the eurozone, the best prospect of an export-led recovery is if China starts to import more, and we cannot see any signs of that. The lack of delivery by Project Merlin means that the prospects of businesses accessing the finance that they need are poor, so they are unlikely to start spending either.
That leaves the Government. In this downward spiral, we need a kick-start from the Government. That is the consistent lesson from history. We need a plan for growth. Call it plan A plus, call it plan B, call it whatever you like, but give us a plan for growth that will work. The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has offered his plan: reverse the VAT increase until growth is sustained; cut VAT to 5 per cent for home improvements; bring forward investment in schools and hospitals; repeat the bankers’ bonus tax to invest in building new homes and thereby create work for 100,000 more young people; and offer small business a national insurance incentive to take on new staff.
The Minister may say we cannot afford to do it; we say we cannot afford not to. Where else is growth going to come from? Families in this country are up against it. The conversations around the kitchen table are very bleak. Too many cannot tighten their belts much more, and the real impact of many of the cuts is still to come. The poorest are hit the hardest. It is not fair. Without a change of heart from this Government and without serious progressive measures, I fear massive social problems, a sustained recession and a blight on families’ chances for a generation. The families of this country need action now.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, this debate is being held at a time of worrying outlook for the economy. No family or household who saw the figures last week of a 5.2 per cent increase in inflation and a comparable increase in salaries of 1.8 per cent needs telling that grappling with high energy and food prices is very tough indeed. There is huge concern about job security, declining real incomes and frail confidence both in business and in households.
When I joined the House of Lords I thought that it had a reputation for being best at strategic policy debates. Although I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for initiating this debate, I regard it as more of a tactical debate with strong political undertones if not overtones. I have always admired his political skills, not least in retaining Dorset South in 2005. As somebody who was helping to organise the Liberal Democrats’ election campaign that year, and also as a man from Portsmouth, I admired the way in which he arranged for the Sea Cadets to give the Prime Minister a welcome on the first day of that election campaign in Weymouth. It was one of the high spots of the campaign, which certainly did not get better in my view. It showed real political skill.
I would, however, like to correct the noble Lord. He kept referring to the Tory Government: this is a coalition Government. There are good reasons why this is a coalition Government. The Government are trying to grapple with decisions. If there had been a Labour Government, they would have had to grapple with the same problems.
All recessions are painful but I have worked through five of them and this one is undoubtedly the worst. This one is particularly bad because there has been a decline in gross domestic product, and that is bound to cause a fall in living standards. All recessions, sadly, weed out marginal companies and businesses, and that creates unemployment. Sadly, resources at a time of recession are always at their weakest to protect the vulnerable, and that is one of the difficulties that we face now. The aim of the Government is obviously to ensure that the broadest backs share the greatest burdens in this situation as we work to restore the economy, the destruction of which, I must point out again, started under a Labour Government.
At this difficult time, I recall JK Galbraith's warning to President Kennedy. He said:
“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”.
Sharing pain in these circumstances is not easy, but the broad parameters of what the Government are doing are right. There will be no restoration in confidence, job security and growth unless there is confidence in the fiscal debt recovery plan both nationally and globally. Wherever possible we have to direct help to the most vulnerable. I particularly welcome the Government’s initiative, made despite all the pressures, in raising tax thresholds. At a time of severe economic pressures we have also given the triple guarantee for state pensioners, building on the pension credit scheme of the previous Government, which should protect those who are most vulnerable to inflation and least able to protect themselves. The brave universal credit reform will seek to reduce poverty, simplify a very complex system and improve work incentives.
The problem now is that many of the principal factors impacting on household budgets are externally driven. The exchange rate devaluation was 25 per cent in the last two years of the Labour Government. It has helped growth but—as Harold Wilson rudely discovered in 1967—the pound in your pocket is bound to be affected by higher prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned fuel. Prices are obviously affected by the weak pound and the rise in wholesale energy prices. We would normally expect energy prices to fall in a recession. Most forecasters have been surprised that they have not fallen and there may be hope now that we may see some fallback in wholesale prices. But energy prices are now acting as a squeeze on real disposable income and deflating the economy. That is not a new problem. In a recent independent review of fuel poverty, Professor Hills has shown that the growth in households in fuel poverty grew from 2 million to 5.5 million between 2004 and 2009. This is a problem of rising wholesale energy prices and poor quality housing stock which is not sufficiently insulated to reduce the demand for energy, and therefore to help offset the price increases.
Although fuel costs and the weakened exchange rate are two key components of the extra costs on household budgets, we must accept that VAT has imposed a significant one-off increase in prices this year. I accept that the consequences of this tax and how regressive it is are disputed, depending on whether you assess it on income or household expenditure. However, the arguments are more complex when choosing between a cut in public spending or an increase in VAT. The critical question is where £13 billion in revenues would otherwise come from. Let us also not forget that no other authority than Alistair Darling was going down this track in 2009. I do not think that there is any guarantee that reducing VAT necessarily increases consumer spending; spending declined by 3 per cent in 2009 when the last Government tried it.
Let us also not forget—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, did not mention it—the benefits of low mortgage-interest rates. As the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, reminded us in Questions today, a 1 per cent rise in UK interest rates today would add £10 billion to family mortgage bills alone. Actually, in the last year, the average fixed mortgage rate has fallen by almost 1 per cent. At least in this recession, unlike in 1989, we have not had negative equity in serious terms, with people forced to sell their homes because of high interest payments.
The Governor of the Bank of England has warned us that we are about to face the longest decline in real disposable incomes for some time. So what needs to be done to protect households? I believe that the Government must keep to their strategy that the broadest backs should suffer the greatest burden and that the most vulnerable should be protected. It is more than a symbolic gesture that we are maintaining high-pay restraint and the top rate of tax and that we have increased the CGT rate to 28 per cent.
Though all those aspects have to maintained, we must also maintain the Government’s ongoing commitment to raising tax thresholds as we can afford it. We must also maintain the commitment to the triple guarantee for pensions in April 2012. With quantitative easing, we must also recognise that this will create problems for those depending on interest from their savings, and indeed those approaching retirement and taking up occupational pensions. We must not forget that the consequences of low interest rates mean that people living on their savings and on occupational pension schemes are under severe pressure at this time.
In the energy sector, I hope that we will look at recognising what Professor Hills has said this week—that fuel poverty is very much linked to the issue of quality of housing as well as pricing, and that we need more schemes for better insulation, pioneered and financed by energy providers. Indeed, we need a whole series of partnerships. If the Government cannot provide the money then the partnerships will have to come through activity in the housing sector, with housing associations and the private sector, to develop funds for more social housing. It will have to come from energy companies, through some of the work of the regulator, to help those on low incomes and to encourage schemes for energy insulation, all of which are employment-generating activities. The banks need to be seen as sources of credit for small businesses. We need to work on that.
Always remember that once confidence has been shaken it takes a long time to rebuild it. The best protection for vulnerable groups is a growing economy, low inflation, and more choice of jobs. That requires a renewed partnership between industry and Government, to use the resources for business investment which they have but, for the time, are cautious in using.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am delighted to be participating in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth on initiating it and on his speech, with which I agree 100 per cent. I will talk today about debt and its impact on families and on the financial services sector. In so doing, I declare an interest as the chair of the Foundation for Credit Counselling. Operating currently as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service in all parts of the United Kingdom, we are the UK’s leading debt advice charity. We provide confidential, free and independent counselling and money management assistance and, now in partnership with Citizens Advice, we have reached nearly a million financially distressed families in the last two years.
Our typical client—just to give a sense of what we are dealing with—owes over £25,000 to between five and eight lenders, which include the banks, the credit card companies, store cards, utility companies and the Government. The role of the charity is to work with lenders—who do not get nearly enough praise for the highly responsible way they work with us on this issue—to find an appropriate way of dealing with problem debt, including setting up an affordable debt management repayment plan, which is free to the client, welfare benefit checks and other debt solutions.
As I said, we are in contact with over 1,000 clients a day. The issues which they tell us are worrying them at the moment include the rising cost of living—with CPI inflation at 5.2 per cent last month, and RPI inflation at a 20-year high of 5.6 per cent—and energy prices, which, as has been discussed, have increased: electricity by 7.5 per cent and gas by 13 per cent. From our statistics we find that 30 per cent of clients are in fuel poverty, defined as having to spend 10 per cent of their net income to heat their homes adequately. A similar proportion of those seeking our help did not have the means to meet their day-to-day cost of living let alone to repay their debts. Underemployment, mainly part-time employment as opposed to unemployment, is starting to emerge as a major reason for debt problems.
We also work with other think tanks and organisations, including the Bank of England, which uses our data to provide more information. In a recent report, Debt and Household Incomes, the Financial Inclusion Centre reported that, in its calculations, 6.2 million households can be identified as financially vulnerable; that 3.2 million are already in financial difficulty, because they are either three months behind with a payment or in some form of insolvency; and that 3 million are at risk because they find it hard to make ends meet or may be vulnerable to increases in household bills. The Resolution Foundation reported in August, having done a MORI poll, that 48 per cent of people on low to middle incomes have no cash remaining at the end of the month after meeting their expenses. This month, a Lloyds Bank survey of their current account holders reports that one in 10 Britons do not have enough money to meet their monthly outgoings, such is the parlous state of their personal finances. That report’s other main finding was that incomes continued to fall in real terms in September, being on average 1 per cent down on last year, and that spending on essential items such as food and petrol has risen by 3.5 per cent compared to last year.
What are we to make of all this? In the immediate future, we know from our clients that people are borrowing less and, where they can, repaying their debts. That is a good thing, even though it may impact adversely on GDP. Yet as incomes are declining in real terms and saving is still not yet a habit, more and more people who come to us are unable to pay their debts. I will share some of my medium-term worries with your Lordships’ House. First, on the timing of the return to what we might call normal mortgage interest rates, we kid ourselves if we think that this extended period of ultra-low interest rates will last indefinitely. When we get back to real mortgage interest rates, which will be of the order of 5 per cent, it will cause significant damage to the budgets of millions of home owners.
A second concern is the impact that student debt will have on people who go to university after 2012. We had a recent Written Answer in this House which estimated the debt burden for new graduates after 2015 at between £40,000 and £50,000. How will they ever earn enough to repay that, and how will they get other borrowings in place to buy a house or start a family without recourse to the bank of Dad and Mum? This will certainly discriminate against those from deprived backgrounds and do nothing for social inclusion. My third and major worry in this area is that unless the bottom two deciles of income distribution get a real increase in their basic earnings—say of the order of 10 per cent—I do not see how they are ever going to square their family budgets, let alone repay the debts they have accrued. Where is that growth in real incomes going to come from?
The UK economy faces hard times. Debt is increasingly defining the experiences of what I might call the haves and the have-nots. The haves are households with no or low debts, savings and assets to provide a cushion in case of hard times, as well as sufficient income so that they do not have to rely on credit to make ends meet.
The have-nots are the millions of households who are burdened by debt, with little or no savings to protect them, struggling to make ends meet every month and increasingly vulnerable to predatory lending practices. I call on the Government to protect consumers from the aggressive practices of predatory lenders and commercial debt management companies who exacerbate, rather than alleviate, financial problems. This needs to be done through a combination of tough, properly enforced consumer protection and ensuring that financially vulnerable households have access to independent, objective and free debt advice.
In the future the legacy of personal debt will be one of the single biggest influences on the quality of household finances and will have an impact on the financial services industry. UK household finances have become unbalanced. Converting the UK from a debt culture to a savings culture, so as to promote self-reliance, is a major public policy challenge. This may be comparatively easy for the haves; however, if the financially vulnerable have-nots are to be supported on the road to self-reliance and freedom from debt burdens, they will need good, independent, free debt advice and financial work-outs from trusted intermediaries. However, this legacy of debt has wider implications for UK households and the financial services industry. UK households may be entering a new economic paradigm: a sustained period of high public debt, low economic growth, low interest rates and higher inflation with record levels of personal debt. This will affect household disposable incomes, consumer behaviour and attitudes to risk. This in turn will impact on the revenues and sustainability of business models in the financial services industry.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Knight for initiating this important debate. I wonder how many of your Lordships know what it is like to live on the margins. I am not referring to those who live outside the norms of society, to those who break the law, have a drug or alcohol problem or are homeless. I mean those who are just about coping, either financially or emotionally, and often both. I well remember a time, as a single parent, when I was just about coping financially, when I would go to sleep every night and wake every morning wondering how I could balance my income with the demands on it and constantly juggling the importance of paying this bill while putting off paying another. I am glad to say that that was a long time ago and now I feel confident enough to know that I have some leeway, some cushion to protect me if disaster strikes, if I become severely ill or if the roof blows off. I suspect that most of your Lordships are the same, but for millions of people, that is not how it is. They live just coping, because of a network of factors, financial, social and emotional, which, if they are kept in balance, allow them—just—to cope.
I want to talk about the experience of two such families. First, take the experience of Annette, a single mother of two children, newly divorced from a violent husband. She has an almost full-time job in a supermarket and receives tax credits, help with childcare and child benefit, all of which are now being reconsidered and are likely to disappear or be reduced. At present her children go to a breakfast club two mornings a week, to an after-school club once a week and to a play day at the local library on a Saturday morning. This helps her with her shifts at the supermarket and with the food bills. Every other Saturday the children have a supervised contact session with their father at a local children’s centre. Midweek, she and the younger child attend a Sure Start centre where she meets others and receives help and support. She greatly values the social contact this gives her and the friendships she has made.
All these services, the things which mean that she just about copes, are now under threat because of cuts to either their voluntary—let us never forget how many of these services are provided in the voluntary sector—or statutory funding. If this young mother were like most of us in this House and had a cushion, even a cushion of £20 a week, this would not be so important, but she does not have that cushion and, as a consequence, she very soon may not cope at all, because this fragile network of support on which she relies is being taken away What will be the result of that? It does not take a genius to see that extra stress on this already highly-stressed situation will have dire consequences down the line. Annette’s mental health is likely to suffer. The children’s relationship with their father may be broken. The nutrition of the children may suffer. Let us not forget that a quarter of Britain’s schoolchildren go to school without breakfast. Annette may lose her job and become entirely dependent on benefits. Need I go on? What is the potential bill for the state then, compared with the small amounts that it is investing in this family now?
The next family to which I want to draw your Lordships’ attention is that of a carer, Shirley. She is aged 55. She is looking after her mother, who is 85 and is disabled by a stroke, which has affected both her mobility and her speech. Shirley’s husband is about to retire but of course his pension is not going to be as much as they had expected. She works very part-time and receives the carers allowance—which, fortunately, is not to be taken into the universal benefits proposals, as was originally intended—but she is increasingly worried about the impact of local authority spending restrictions on the services they use for her mother. One of the day-care centres has already closed. The respite service, which enables the carer and her husband to have a night out once a fortnight, provided by a voluntary organisation, is under threat. The speech therapy group at the local hospital will come to an end next March when the specialist nurse who runs it retires and is not replaced. Shirley, not surprisingly, is very worried about fuel bills as her mother is immobile and some form of heating has to be provided in the house night and day. Her experience is typical.
Age UK says that spending cuts are projected to reduce spending on older people’s care by £300 million over the next four years. Real spending on older people’s care will be £250 million lower in 2014 than it was in 2004, but over the same period the number of people over 85 has risen by two-thirds. In 2005, 50 per cent of councils provided support to people assessed as having moderate needs, but in 2011 the figure has fallen to 18 per cent. As a result, the number of people receiving local authority-funded care at home has reduced from just under 500,000 in 2004 to just under 300,000 in 2009.
A survey in April 2011 of 61 councils by Emily Thornberry MP showed that 88 per cent of them were increasing charges for social care services, 16 per cent were raising eligibility criteria and no fewer than 54 per cent were cutting funding to the voluntary sector, which provides so many essential services. In addition, two-thirds were closing care homes or day centres.
I emphasise that cuts in support to caring families like this are a false economy. If financial and practical support to carers is cut and caring breaks down as a result, there will be a considerable knock-on cost to health and social care services, as well as serious damage to family life. I remind your Lordships, as I often do, that there are 6 million carers in the United Kingdom providing care to a value of £119 billion every year.
Both those typical families are doing their best to cope. They are fulfilling their family and societal obligations lovingly and dutifully, but government policies are having detrimental effects so significant that the end result may be family breakdown, with all its attendant costs to the state and to society itself.
We are all aware of the dire financial situation in which global events have placed the UK, but it must surely make sound economic as well as moral good sense to continue supporting families such as those that I have set before your Lordships. Local authorities and the voluntary sector are having to cut services that provide the difference between people just coping and not coping at all, and we shall all reap the whirlwind from that before many years have elapsed.
May we be assured that the Government, however inexperienced Ministers are in the normal lives of citizens, understand that many of them are just coping and just managing? Can the Minister assure the House that he understands that withdrawing these networks of support will result down the line in fractured and fragmented families which, in the end, will cost us all a great deal more?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we owe my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth a debt of gratitude, not just for bringing forward this debate today but for his passionate comments. I like to think that when I am winding up a debate I can say how much I have enjoyed the contributions. While these have been very valuable, I regret to say that “enjoyable” is not the word that I would use on this occasion, given the depressing and serious impact that government policies are having on families, whatever their shape and size.
I was particularly interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. He expressed concern over the political nature of the comments of my noble friend Lord Knight. While he paid great tribute to my noble friend’s political skills, we have to understand that economics and politics are inextricably linked, and that it is political judgment that has led to the economic decisions that the Government have made.
At the previous general election the economy was the key issue. There was little disagreement over the need to tackle the deficit. Where there was a real divide was on the issue of how that should be done. The Labour Party took the view that it could and should be reduced alongside economic growth, while the Conservative view was that cuts had to be harder, deeper and faster to have the kind of impact on the economy that the party wanted to see. In the event, no political party won an outright majority. In fact, more people voted against all three major political parties than voted for them. Eventually, a Conservative-led coalition Government was formed with the Liberal Democrats and those hard, fast and deep cuts that were promised by the Conservatives became a reality.
As we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Knight, at the 2009 Conservative Party conference the Chancellor in waiting, George Osborne, promised that everyone would play their part in a deficit-reduction plan. He said:
“Everyone must pay their share”.
The famous and now discredited, “We’re all in it together”, was repeated three times in his speech, and then again by David Cameron. It is an excellent soundbite; it was attractive, understood and believed by many to be a commitment. It appealed to that very British sense of fairness. Everyone in the country would suffer equally in the pain that was to follow, no section of society would hurt more than any other, and all would pay their fair share. However, in their impact the Government’s actions have achieved precisely the opposite, as we have heard today. The noble Lord shakes his head but I urge him to talk to people who are feeling the impact of this Government, and not just read the brief that he has received from civil servants.
That impact has achieved the opposite of what the Government said that it would. The evidence that some people have been hit harder than others is overwhelming. We have heard something of the pressures on families from my noble friends Lord Knight, Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Stevenson. We have heard real examples of real families. My noble friend Lord Knight read out what he called a long and painful list of cuts that are hitting the poorest hardest. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley’s examples of particular families highlighted not just the suffering that they face but the invaluable role that the voluntary third sector plays and how hard charities are being hit as local authorities cut their funding. That issue was raised with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time. He said that local authorities should recognise the value of charities before they cut their money. I have to say to Mr Cameron that they do recognise the value, but when their funding is being cut and they are under pressure local authorities are often left with little choice.
The comments of my noble friend Lord Stevenson were particularly useful to this debate. His experienced observations from supporting those in debt via a charity add a significant contribution to the matters before us today. However, it is also very worrying that this will just get worse. I welcome my noble friend’s constructive comments about what would help and hope that the Government will take them on board.
My noble friend Lord Knight referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that was published earlier this month, which forecast the biggest drop for middle-income families since the 1970s, pushing 600,000 more children into poverty, taking the figure up to more than 3 million within two years. That is alongside 2.5 million working-age parents and 4 million working-age adults who do not have children being forced into poverty. However, for those not in poverty but who are struggling to make ends meet—the squeezed middle, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley—the IFS predicts that average income will fall by 7 per cent after inflation. That is the biggest fall in living standards for 35 years.
This is not just about numbers. As the chief executive of Barnardo’s, Anne Marie Carrie, said:
“This isn’t just about statistics as every day thousands of families are being forced into making choices between heating or eating”.
Unfortunately, that is not an exaggeration. The most startling increases in energy bills are forcing people to go cold or face alarming bills, which they may not be able to pay. The increase in energy prices of around 18 per cent in the past year—more in some cases—is crippling for families.
The Government’s response, with Chris Huhne complaining that people can not be bothered to switch energy companies, is an insult and is also inaccurate. It proves how out of touch he and the Government really are on this issue. In a Which? investigation, a third of calls to energy companies failed to elicit the lowest tariff, as requested by the customer. If an energy company is unable to identify the lowest tariff, how can the Government possibly expect the customer to do so? Why do the Government not ensure that the energy companies reduce the number of tariffs and automatically offer the lowest to the customer? Am I right to be curious about why any company would want such a confusing and complex system of tariffs, which it does not apparently itself understand? Whose side are the Government on in this argument?
Given the dramatic increases in energy prices, the Government must take action to stop those who have the least paying the most. Individuals with pre-payment meters are not eligible for any discounts, so they end up paying more and often, in effect, disconnect themselves as they just cannot afford it. As prices rise to their highest ever, the over-60s will get £50 less winter fuel payment this year than last year, and the over-80s will get £100 less. Warm Front, the Labour Government’s scheme for over 10 years, of which we are extremely proud, has brought warmth to the homes of pensioners, those with disabilities and the vulnerable. It is now being wound up. Having helped more than 2 million people with their bills, insulation and energy efficiency, the budget has been drastically cut this year and next, and will be ended altogether by 2013. The Government’s answer is the Green Deal. I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns about energy efficiency, particularly in private sector homes, but in principle the Green Deal is a good scheme which can make a contribution to making homes more energy efficient and reducing bills, as energy efficiency measures can be installed and paid back over time through energy bills. However, given that it is not to be available initially to those in some of the coldest, most energy-inefficient homes in the private rented sector, there is a lost opportunity to support those most in need.
I turn to feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. The best reasons for feed-in tariffs are an increase in energy supply, thus making a contribution towards energy security, and to help those on lower incomes and local communities reduce their bills. But the Government have changed and cut the scheme so that the main beneficiaries will be private households that can afford the initial capital cost, knowing that they can recoup this in time. That is great for them but, despite today’s announcement, the restrictions placed on the scheme have greatly reduced the benefits when just some relatively minor tweaks could have achieved the Government’s objectives in reducing costs without losing so much capacity and limiting those who can benefit.
Although VAT on domestic energy bills remains at 5 per cent, the Government have increased VAT on energy bills for business customers from the Labour Government’s reduction. This really hurts businesses, especially when prices are so high, and the increase just gets passed on to the customer in consumer prices. So we have higher costs at a time when unemployment is rising. In the quarter from June to August 2011, the average weekly pay increased by 2.8 per cent, compared with last year. However, bonus payments are up 28 per cent. In that same three months, 178,000 fewer people were in employment than in the previous three months. ONS statistics show that the two constituencies in my home town of Basildon are suffering a 12 per cent and 10.9 per cent increase in those who are unemployed and claiming JSA. That is just one side of the equation and I want to come back to my opening remarks and those of my noble friend, Lord Knight.
The Government said, “We’re all in it together”, and that everyone would take their fair share of the pain. The Government promised to tackle bankers’ bonuses. It was reported earlier this year that the chief executive of Barclays said it was time for banks to stop feeling remorseful—as he wallowed in his £9 million payout. Labour’s plans for greater disclosure were rejected and, despite the Government’s levy on banks, the bonus culture continues unabated with an estimated £7 billion to be paid out this year. In 2009, before the General Election, George Osborne said that the Government should act in the light of the unacceptable bank bonuses and that we could not wait for the “promised land” of “responsible bonus culture”. Does that mean that the Government now think these bonuses are responsible and acceptable? We are told that the best the coalition Government can now hope for is a declaration that bonuses are less than they would have been, despite reports that salaries will increase by up to 40 per cent in some cases to compensate for the so-called cuts or deferral of bonuses. So no fairness there.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, said he would crack down on the pay of council chiefs. Yet it is reported that even in the council next door to his in my home town of Basildon, the chief executive is to work for just three days a week from 2013 on a salary of £100,000 a year, and the council still has not cleared up the mystery of whether he will receive his pension at the same time. This is what really hurts people—when unemployment is rising, energy prices are soaring, those travelling to work face an average 8 per cent increase in their fares, supermarket prices are increasing, and the Government fail to act. Yet others are completely immune from pain, or at least from the fairness that the Government said they were so keen on.
It does not have to be like this. My noble friend Lord Knight read out to your Lordships’ House the five-point plan proposed by the shadow Chancellor. The Government are cutting too far, too fast and too deep. They are cutting jobs and choking off economic growth. That is the choice the Government have made; but it is the wrong choice. It is not just bad politics—it is bad economics, because it is hurting people and the economy. This includes people such as Caroline O'Brien to whom my noble friend Lord Knight referred; Shirley the carer to whom my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley referred; and it includes my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s charity that is helping people with debt.
The Government need to start thinking about such people as individuals and take action that will support them and their families—and the economy. I urge the Minister to take on board the comments that have been made today.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for initiating this debate on an important topic and for all the contributions that have been made.
As your Lordships are aware, and as we have been reminded, we are living through a period of real international uncertainty and instability. The eurozone, as we heard earlier, has been and is at the epicentre of this crisis, but the volatility has reached right around the world—to the US and China, and of course here in the UK. We are not immune from what is going on in our largest export markets. That instability acts as a powerful drag on what was already a difficult recovery from the deepest debt-fuelled recession in living memory.
It is right when we face such difficulties to ask ourselves: are we doing enough to support families; are we doing enough to protect the budgets of the poorest families; are we doing enough to provide opportunities for the youngest in our society; are we doing enough to support working parents; and, most importantly, are we doing enough to put the economy back on track to provide the opportunities, jobs and growth that we all need? When we came into government we inherited the deepest recession since the war and the largest budget deficit in our modern history. The adjective that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, used was “dire”. I agree. It was absolutely vital that we tackled that deficit. High deficits lead merely to higher inflation, taxes and interest rates. Cutting the deficit is a vital precondition to growth and prosperity. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stoneham of Droxford for underlining this point.
As we have seen over the past year, UK gilt yields and interest rates generally have fallen dramatically in response to the tough choices that we made in our spending review. Low interest rates help businesses to refinance debt and help families to stay in their homes. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, was quite right to remind us that even in this time of low interest rates, debt is a very real problem for many in our society. Even a 1 per cent increase in interest rates would take £10 billion out of the pockets of families through higher mortgage payments. I therefore applaud the debt advice provided by a wide range of private and not-for-profit organisations. It is important that consumers know that many free and high-quality sources of help and advice are available from publicly supported projects and the voluntary sector.
Perhaps I may add a comment on one aspect to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, drew attention—graduate debt—because I do not entirely share his analysis. Under the new system, all graduates will pay less per month than under the old system and they will have a longer repayment term of up to 30 years compared to the current 25 years. It is important to remember that.
Generally, on the deficit and interests rates, it is by getting ahead of the curve, by consolidating on our own terms, that we have avoided the uncertainty and the instability that have cut through other countries and plunged families in other parts of Europe into even more austerity and difficulty. More than that, in our spending review, we took the decisions to tackle the deficit in a proportionate, responsible, but also a fair, way. Therefore, I completely reject the charges coming from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Indeed, we are all in this together and it is critical that those who can, pay most. That is why we have tackled the deficit in the way we have.
The first transparent analysis of the distributional effects of our budget and spending measures—something never produced by previous Governments—shows that after combining the impact of tax, tax credit and benefit, and public service spending changes announced by this Government, the top 20 per cent of households will make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit as a percentage of their income and benefits in kind from public services. We take those distributional effects very seriously.
We are also taking more from the banks in our ongoing taxation of them than the previous Government did through their one-off tax on bonuses. In relation to VAT, I share the analysis of my noble friend Lord Stoneham of Droxford. I believe that what we did to reverse the previous Government’s national insurance tax—a tax on jobs—is what really mattered in making the difficult choices about where to prioritise tax measures so as to get our economy going again. These are painful choices, but it was our partial reversal of that tax on jobs, which noble Lords opposite did not mention, that was key to getting the economy going again. We took particular care to reduce the impacts on family budgets.
In relation to fuel poverty and rising fuel prices—a very important subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, my noble friend Lord Stoneham and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—we have to acknowledge first of all the reality of rising world oil prices. We cannot be insulated from that. But what has this Government’s response been? We cancelled the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator and cut fuel prices. We have taken action on fuel duty, which has resulted in average pump prices being about six pence a litre lower than if we had continued with the previous Government’s fuel duty plans. A typical Ford Focus driver will be paying about £56 less this year than he or she otherwise would have been doing. We have introduced the fair fuel stabiliser so that when oil prices are high, and oil profits are higher, fuel duty will increase by inflation only. This will ensure that the burden of high oil prices is better shared between oil companies and motorists. I say again that energy price increases are never welcome for consumers and we recognise that. It is important that these are limited to the costs and risks borne and are not about energy companies making excessive profits.
That is why we strongly support Ofgem’s work in ensuring competition in the energy industry, including the recent proposals stemming from the retail market review launched in November last year. That is why we are taking a range of other actions to increase people’s control over—and help them reduce—their energy bills. We are setting up the Green Deal for energy efficiency and the supporting energy company obligations. We are rolling out smart meters that will enable consumers to manage their energy use better and introducing the warm house discount to provide cash rebates for around 2 million vulnerable households by 2014-15. So, yes, we share the concern but I reject the charge that we are not going about it in a sensitive and proportionate way.
Taking some of our other measures to help families, we have made significant above-indexation increases in the child tax credit for the next two years, increasing it by £255 and benefiting 2.4 million low to middle-income families. This will also ensure that modelled tax and welfare policy introduced by this Government will have no adverse impact on child poverty for the next two years. I say that directly to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. He shakes his head but, again, we now have the benefit of the introduction by this Government of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility so that we can no longer make up such claims; all these things have to be independently assessed.
We made changes to the personal allowances to provide support for hard-working families on low and middle incomes, and increased the rewards for work. The increases in the personal allowances announced at the 2010 and 2011 Budgets will benefit 25 million individuals in 2012-13 and take 1.1 million of the lowest-income tax payers out of tax altogether. Our aim is to ensure that no one earning less than £10,000 will be caught in the income tax net. My noble friend was completely right to draw attention to this policy.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would not normally intervene but he mentioned the Office for Budget Responsibility. Would he support the OBR having to report on relative child poverty as part of its reporting?
Lord Sassoon
The OBR has a very clear and extremely wide remit. The previous Government had absolutely no check on any of their numbers. They could rewrite cycles or determine what path of growth they wanted to show. So I think we are now in a completely different world. Perhaps I may press on, because time is short.
We have reformed child benefit so that families with a higher-rate taxpayer are no longer eligible. Low and middle-income families are no longer being taxed to pay for child benefit for the rich. That, again, is another aspect of fairness. Of course, noble Lords have mentioned the important triple lock on pensions that we have introduced.
Finally in this area, this month my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced a freeze on council tax bills. Therefore, there will be a council tax freeze for a second year and that will provide real help for households in difficult times. Of course, in the spending review there were still difficult decisions to make on what to cut, but the previous Government’s welfare spending was both unsustainable and unsuccessful.
Tackling poverty is not about moving families and children above some arbitrary line. It is not reduced by throwing good money after bad. This Government are taking a long-term strategic view to tackling poverty, which is about more than just welfare transfers; it is a strategy focused on transforming people’s lives and the lives of future generations. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for reducing these almost abstract concepts to some really vivid case studies. I say to noble Lords that it is to that end, and it is in recognition of these very difficult situations, that we are increasing expenditure on public services where they can tackle the root causes of disadvantage. That is why we will introduce the fairness premium, refocus Sure Start and improve education. That will help to break cycles of disadvantage. The new fairness premium is worth £7.2 billion over the spending review period and will provide support to the poorest families in the UK. It will extend 15 hours a week of early years education and care from 2012-13 to all disadvantaged two year-olds; it will maintain Sure Start in cash terms, including new investment in Sure Start health visitors; it will introduce a substantial schools premium, rising to £2.5 billion by 2014-15, to support the educational development of disadvantaged pupils; and it will protect those on the lowest incomes in higher education through a scholarship fund of £150 million by 2014-15.
We are also reforming welfare to ensure that welfare payments are targeted at those who need them most and we are reforming tax credits to focus them on those who need them most. That means reducing the rate at which tax credits are withdrawn, while reducing the threshold at which they are paid. Importantly, we want to ensure that those who can move into work have a real incentive to do so. Currently some 800,000 individuals, including around a quarter of a million children, live in households where no one has ever worked. That has to be changed and it will be changed through the new universal credit being introduced over two Parliaments. To support working parents, the Government have agreed the extension of support with childcare costs to those working less than 16 hours, as part of the new universal credit, which will enable the transition of second earners, typically women, into the labour market.
In conclusion, this Government fully understand the difficulties that families face in the current economic environment. The biggest thing that we can do as a Government to help families is to return the economy to sustainable growth: private sector growth through innovation, enterprise and export—sustainable, not debt-fuelled growth—that delivers the stability and jobs that we need across the country. That is our overriding priority. Tackling the deficit is the precondition to realising that ambition. The recovery will be difficult, but we will not let the poor and vulnerable bear the brunt of these difficult times. We are committed to helping families, young people and jobseekers realise their ambitions and fulfil their proposals. I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
That is all right, then. The view from the Treasury is that everything is just fine. To too many families up and down the country, who are really struggling with their budgets, I am afraid that that will sound complacent and out of touch because, quite simply, the Government’s economic policy is not working for them.
We have had a really interesting debate and I am sure that we shall return to this subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, not only for his kind comments about me, but also for being confident and brave enough to take on responsibility for the economic policy on his party’s behalf, the Liberal Democrats, as well as the Conservatives. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lady Pitkeathley for making very important speeches. What my noble friend Lord Stevenson said about the legacy of personal debt is something that we should keep in mind when we return to this subject. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley’s two poignant stories told the stories of so many more people who are now struggling to cope. I am obviously grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon for the detail that she gave us about the impact of the high cost of energy now.
The Minister started off his comments by saying that it is difficult but that external forces are responsible for making the recession more drawn out and more painful. If he is going to pray in aid external forces now for why his Government’s economic policies are not working, he cannot talk any more about the legacy that they inherited and the economic mess because that was down to the external forces of the global financial crisis. I shall come to a truce with him: I will not bang on at him about how he has got it all wrong, how everything that is going on with the economy of this country is all the Government’s fault and I will admit that there are some external forces if he, too, will stop going on about how it is all the horrible inheritance from the Labour Government because that was all down to the global financial crisis. Before that hit, our level of debt in this country was the second lowest of any of the leading industrialised nations in the world.
We shall return to this subject, but it has been a good debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Middle East: Water
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alderdice
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Strategic Foresight Group’s report The Blue Peace on transforming water from a source of conflict into a basis for co-operation in the Middle East.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I am president of ARTIS (Europe) Ltd, which is a research and risk analysis company that takes some interest in the affairs of the Middle East and further afield. I have a number of non-remunerative interests in the Gulf policy forum, International Dialogue Initiative, World Federation of Scientists, Conflicts Forum, and Oxford Research Group. Of course, as I think noble Lords are aware, my real interests in this issue, this area and this subject go back a good deal further than any of my involvements in the organisations that I have mentioned and come from my experience in my part of the world, where I became aware that groups of people can be set against each other not because anybody wants conflict or its terrible results, but because they find themselves trapped in it.
I am particularly honoured not only that a number of noble Lords who share those interests are participating in this debate but, in particular, that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, has chosen this debate for his maiden speech. He is an extremely distinguished diplomat, but I was privileged to come to know him through his involvement as UN special representative and then UK special representative in the Middle East. In conversations with him, I have found him thoughtful, enlightening, instructive, supportive and encouraging. It is a great delight to me to see him on the red Benches of your Lordships' House because I have no doubt that he will bring a very distinctive style and an extraordinary and distinguished experience to the corpus of knowledge and understanding in your Lordships' House.
Even before meeting the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I found myself very much involved in trying to find ways in which it was possible to encourage or facilitate people in the Middle East, not just in Israel and Palestine, although that is an important part of the area, but in other places, to see if any of the experiences that we had in the United Kingdom and more broadly might be helpful to them in finding a way out of the problem. Initially, I found myself doing what I had found extremely difficult to do at home, which was to engage with people who I not only disagreed with deeply but who were prepared to use or to threaten to use violence. I found that although it was possible for me to do that, many others simply found it beyond what was possible for them to consider, at least at that juncture, although my experience is that eventually it is necessary in most cases, but not all, to engage with those who cause the violence if you want to bring the violence to an end.
I then began to look at what had been necessary to create the context where we could address the issues between the British and Irish Governments and within the Province of Northern Ireland. The truth was that we probably would never have been able to do it if there had not been a wider framework in which that was possible: in particular, the European Union, and the good relations of both our countries with the United States. Some noble Lords will remember that some years ago I introduced a debate in your Lordships' House on the development of an inclusive, semi-permanent conference on the Middle East, the creation of a table where people from different countries with very different prospects could meet and engage with each other, as we have done in the European Union. Despite all the current financial and economic difficulties, we must not forget that we have now had two and more generations of peace in western Europe. I sometimes think we forget about that when we get so involved in the economic questions. Fundamentally, the European Union is an instrument of peace and conflict resolution much more than it is a matter of economics, which is the instrument, not the purpose.
I found that even as we tried to press this question there seemed to be a lack of urgency, so I went back to my colleagues in the Strategic Foresight Group, which is based in Mumbai, who had helped to put together that report on the inclusive semi-permanent conference for the Middle East and encouraged them, along with some other friends from the Middle East and the United States, to produce a report on the cost of the conflict, which is many trillions of dollars over a number of years. I rather hoped that when people saw the enormous cost, not just to people in the region, but to all of us, perhaps it might encourage them to address these questions. But while we think that economics is the dominant factor, I am afraid that the truth is that there are some things that are even more important for us as human beings, and we sometimes engage in activities that are to our massive economic detriment because there are other values that drive us.
I went back to my colleagues in the Strategic Foresight Group to think about whether there were things that we were missing or that we did not understand and were necessary. As we looked back at the European Union, whose development has been of such importance, as I have said, we were struck by the way in which, after the Second World War, the matters chosen for co-operation—coal and steel—were the very materials used to create the weapons of war and were based in the very areas that had been matters of dispute. We began to ask whether there are similar commodities in that region that could be or could become the cause of conflict, but which, if handled in a different way, could become the mechanism for co-operation, because they are shared requirements and shared needs. In the Middle East, the issues are not coal and steel, but water, energy and the environment. These things transcend borders in any case, but in a region like the Middle East many borders were simply straight lines drawn on a map with little cognisance given to social questions of tribe or community, to geographical and economic geographical questions, or to rivers and mountains and other kinds of naturally bounded communities. Things like water, energy and the environment transcend all our borders, especially in the Middle East.
Through colleagues in the World Federation of Scientists and a number of other such specialist groups, we began to look at water in particular. We thought that, if it is possible for people to understand that we need to engage with these issues as human communities and that we can learn a great deal from each other, perhaps with that engagement on human, social, economic and scientific projects, separate from the apparently almost insoluble political questions, we can build relationships between the countries that will enable us to address these other questions, as has been the case in our own part of Europe.
Our friends in the Strategic Foresight Group put together a report, which some noble Lords will have read while others will have read a précis of it. But noble Lords will clearly see that a thorough, thoughtful and deep piece of work has been done on many of the technical and scientific questions that must be addressed. But that, in a way, is simply to show that these are serious issues which need exploration. In practice, when we have gone to these countries and Governments, and have been able to bring many of them together in conferences in Turkey, Switzerland and elsewhere, it has been clear that there are opportunities to co-operate.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we very quickly ran into the problem that most countries in the region simply would not sit down with the Israeli Government. We tried various ways to facilitate that but we came to the conclusion that for the present that is not possible, which is a dreadful pity. The Israeli Government and the Israeli scientific community have been remarkable in the developments of technology that they have been able to make in their region. Their capacity for recycling water, for example, and for using it is way ahead of any other country in the world. There are so many things that they could give—and in terms of the availability of water, a country like Turkey has so much to give. But it simply proved to be impossible to get them together at this stage.
Therefore, we tried to bring together those countries in the north—Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan—and to bring Israelis together with Palestinians and, indeed, with Jordanians. There has been some progress and there is an interest in moving forward on these issues. Of course, it is true that with the advent of the Arab spring, profound uncertainty has been thrown over all of this. In particular, it is impossible to do any work with Syria and the Syrian Government at the moment. One might well say, “Surely, that just throws the whole thing to the side”. I do not believe that for two reasons. First, the proposition that we tried to create institutions that enabled governments to co-operate on issues like water is not something for this week, next month or even the next year or two. We did not develop the European Union over a year or two but over many decades. This approach requires decades of overcoming hurdles and working together. The second thing is that if we do not have positive outcomes and directions for the Arab spring, then what may have started as an exciting prospect for the region could turn out to be much more disappointing and difficult.
I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise this question and I hope that the Minister may at least be able to indicate Her Majesty’s Government’s preparedness to address this issue. We are not looking for money from the Department for International Development but for diplomatic encouragement through the Foreign Office to our diplomats in the region.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alderdice for putting down this subject for debate in your Lordships’ House. I also thank him for inviting me to a seminar earlier this year where I heard detailed speeches about the report to which he refers. It made me thirst to find out more about water. We must remember, as he has said, that there are other examples such as the European Coal and Steel Community, which was a six-nation international organisation. That brought people together in what were difficult times. Whatever one’s views on the European Union—this week there have been a lot of views on the European Union—it must be said that linking economies together has resulted in western European peace for over 60 years.
So can the same be achieved by a regional sharing of water? I believe it can. The problem is that there is not enough natural water to go round. Water or lack of it could be tomorrow’s conflict in many arid regions—Turkey/Syria, Turkey/Iran and Egypt/Sudan to name several. The region described as the “southern circle” in the tome to which my noble friend Lord Alderdice refers shows how co-operation in this field can be made even without formal peace and has been shown for decades between Israel and Jordan. I take a certain amount of pessimism from his comment about people not being able to sit down, but Israel and Jordan have been sitting down quietly on this issue. I believe the way forward is shown by water technology in Israel, as he referred to. Israel is a leading producer of alternative, marginal water—essentially, desalination and waste-water treatment. This will in the next 10 years make up 50 per cent of Israel’s total water supply. Ninety-two per cent of Israel’s waste water was treated and about 75 per cent of that is used in agriculture. Other technologies include three large desalination plants. Within 10 years 23 per cent of potable water in Israel will be from desalination. Of course, the water of choice is freshwater and recharge from rainfall.
In the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, waste-water treatment is sadly poor and there is no production of desalinated water. They have obviously had other problems which have been given priority. There are some desalination plants in Gaza but there is a great need for more. With Gaza’s geographical position on the coast, there is a huge potential for more desalination. As the Arab spring, referred to by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, moves into the autumn, it is bound to struggle. When economies suffer terribly and agriculture is sadly devastated because of water shortage and desertification, co-operation needs to be built as soon as possible. Know-how on water treatment, sophisticated desert agriculture and the fight against desertification exists in the region in centres of excellence. I hope the EU, including the UK, will push forward with cross-border co-operation in these areas without waiting for slow political processes or listening to extremists in any country who flourish when conditions deteriorate. Co-operation in these areas is vital and might create better grounds and confidence that will accelerate political solutions.
I welcome The Blue Peace report on which this debate is based. There is, however, a view in the region that existing co-operation on water resources in what is called the southern circle in the book—that is, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian territories—is already more advanced than the proposals in the report. Things move fairly quickly but there is always room for improvement. As an example of this, an expert on regional water co-operation at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs was this week in Oman at the biannual meeting of the organisation for regional co-operation in water, the Middle East Desalination Research Center. The organisation is located in Muscat in Oman, and its members are, amazingly, Oman, Qatar, USA, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.
Next week, Israel is planning to hold a course on desalination in Israel for Palestinians and Jordanians. Next week, too, the biannual meeting of another regional organisation for co-operation on water, EXACT, will take place in Jerusalem. At the same time, a new trilateral project between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians, managed and sponsored by the USA and Norway, will be launched to deal with monitoring polluted ground water.
There is already impressive dialogue and co-operation on water issues between Israel and its neighbours in the region. This far exceeds regional co-operation in other areas and, amazingly, has managed to survive the problems that have beset the peace process.
Regional co-operation and dialogue on water issues began as long ago as 1992 as one of the five working groups established at the Madrid summit in 1991. The five areas covered were, as your Lordships will remember, water, environment, refugees, regional economic development and security. Water is the only main activity that has survived from the five groups and it remains active. Matters have moved on from the position in the Blue Peace paper.
The idea proposed in the Blue Peace paper to import water from Turkey is currently off the table for Israel as well for the Palestinian Authority, first of all for economic reasons. Even if Israel were to change its mind, it would need the water only for the next two years before it completed its national desalination project in 2013-14. The Palestinians do not have the facilities to absorb and distribute this water, even if Turkey were to provide it for free, although that may be a pessimistic viewpoint.
The paper suggests that the RSDSC—the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal—is a long-term project, but the feasibility study is, I am pleased to say, in its final stage. By way of a subproject of the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal, the general intention of the three beneficiaries, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians, is to build a desalination plant in Aqaba to create additional water for all three parties in the short term.
Co-operation on water between Israel and Jordan has improved in the past two years. During that period, because of the drought in the region and common work on the feasibility study for the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal, new ideas were exchanged and things have moved forward, and there is an element of optimism. With the Palestinians, relations are more complex—perhaps I should not go into them in detail.
Israel implements its commitments on water provision. However, it is true that not everything goes smoothly and none of the Governments in the area is perfect. But generally, if one takes into account the multilateral regional co-operation, it can be said that the water situation is in some ways the opposite of the political situation in the region.
Water co-operation can help to build confidence between rival parties. No doubt this can be a good model for other areas of co-operation, but it cannot be a substitute for other tracks of the peace process.
We have a conundrum: can water bring peace, or does peace bring water? I am not sure, but what I am sure of is that I compliment my noble friend Lord Alderdice on bringing this debate to the House, on the expert way in which he has presented the paper, and on the background briefing that he has given to people such as me to make us more enthusiastic about water as a means to peace.
Lord Williams of Baglan
My Lords, I begin by thanking your Lordships for the warm welcome that I have received from all sides of this House. Noble Lords may recall that I was introduced on 18 October last year, but took a leave of absence from the House to continue my assignment as UN under-secretary- general for the Middle East for 12 months. I take this opportunity, therefore, to apologise to your Lordships for the delay in my maiden speech.
There are many Welsh men and women in this House, and two bear the name of the town in which I was brought up—Aberavon, or Port Talbot, in English. Indeed, as a child, I remember my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, fighting the general election of 1959 for a seat in the other place.
I have spent nearly my whole career in international affairs. It has often taken me overseas for extended periods, to Indonesia, Bosnia, Cambodia and Lebanon. I have worked as an academic, as well as for Amnesty International, the BBC World Service, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the United Nations.
In my UN career I had the privilege—not always a pleasure—of addressing the Security Council on several occasions, usually on the Middle East. I find it somewhat daunting now to address your Lordships’ House in this important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He has shown a strong interest in the Middle East over many years, and I commend his attention to an area that remains critical to world peace. I also thank him for his very kind remarks about our previous meetings and my experience in the region.
I have spent the last six years working almost exclusively on the Middle East, the past three based in the region. In particular, I was entrusted by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and then by his successor, Ban Ki-Moon, to secure the cessation of hostilities established by Security Council Resolution 1701 following the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. That resolution has worked remarkably well in securing stability, and there have been no major incidents between the two countries over the past five years. The people of Lebanon have been spared the many Israeli incursions that marked the quarter of a century between 1982 and 2006. For their part, the people of Israel, as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked to me, have been spared the many Hezbollah rocket attacks and raids that marked the years before 2006.
However, it has not been possible to move forward to a formal ceasefire, let alone a peace treaty. To some extent, the intransigence of both parties is at fault. In particular, there are Israel’s daily violations of Lebanese airspace and continued occupation of a Lebanese village. On the Lebanese side, there is the presence of perhaps the world’s most strongly armed non-state actor, Hezbollah, an organisation with a formidable constituency among Lebanon’s Shia community. On the one hand, Hezbollah presents itself as a party that contests Lebanon’s democratic elections and, on the other, it maintains a powerful militia outside the authority of the Lebanese state.
The failure to secure a Lebanese-Israeli peace, despite the fact that the two countries were until recently the only democracies in the Middle East, has been maintained by other factors. One has been the role of President Assad’s Syria casting its dark shadow over Lebanon and facilitating Hezbollah’s rearmament by an Iranian leadership that denies the very right of Israel to exist. Finally, the absence of progress in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians inevitably freezes the prospects of peace between Lebanon and Israel and between Israel and Syria.
The immediate prospects for peace appear bleak. Frustration among the Palestinian leaders has led to their bid for statehood at the UN. That frustration has been intensified by the Palestinian sense that the efforts of President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to ensure security in the West Bank have not been met by an adequate response from the Israeli Government. In recent years, I have seldom met an Israeli general or security chief who has not attested to the genuine endeavours of the Palestinian leadership in this regard. Israel has offered talks, but with the continuation of extensive settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem and with far-reaching security demands regarding the Jordan Valley.
It is striking and ironic that the impasse over the Middle East peace process, the most serious since the Oslo agreements of 1993, has coincided with the unprecedented wave of political revival in the Arab world epitomised in the last week alone by the elections in Tunisia on Sunday and the demise of Muammar Gaddafi. Israel has not been alone in failing to comprehend the strategic significance of the Arab spring. The era of one-man rule and of authoritarianism is drawing to a close in the Arab world as it did earlier in eastern Europe and other regions of the world. We must brace ourselves for further political tumult in the region, some of which may not be to our liking.
In the Middle East, differences between states are too often seen through the prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue of water raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is one such. Palestinians believe strongly and with some justification that their water resources have been taken advantage of by settlers in the West Bank. One often hears that argument, with less justification, in Lebanon and other Arab countries. It often fails to recognise the fact that while Israel goes to great lengths to preserve its water supplies, Lebanon’s infrastructure, for example, is woefully inadequate in this regard.
In recent years, new sources of tension have arisen, aside from the issue of water that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has drawn to our attention. I think particularly of the development of maritime resources and, above all, gas. Israel is well advanced now in the exploitation of natural gas in the offshore blocks that abut its coast. Cyprus and Lebanon are taking the necessary steps in this regard and Turkey has recently signalled its intent to embark on exploitation of maritime resources in the eastern Mediterranean. I hope that these resources can be seen as a source of opportunity and work for all the countries and peoples of the region but, in a region where maritime borders and boundaries are barely defined, I am concerned about the potential that exists now for further sources of conflict between its countries.
In closing, I wish to record my indebtedness to my sponsors, my noble friend Lord Dubs, and my former UN colleague and noble friend Lord Malloch-Brown. I also register my gratitude to the staff of this House, without whose advice a new Member would not find his way around.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan. He and I share many similar interests. He read international relations a few years before I did, but he put it to far better use through a long and distinguished career in academia, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United Nations and think tanks. Looking at his background, I was struck that our House, too, is becoming a refuge for that elite band of political fixers, the special advisers. The noble Lord was a special adviser to the late Robin Cook and to Jack Straw, Foreign Secretaries who in their time were certainly in the hot seat.
The noble Lord also brings a wealth of knowledge on the Middle East, as we just witnessed in his maiden speech. He will be pleased to know that a singular feature of this House is its expertise and strength in numbers of Peers who speak on foreign affairs. No matter how esoteric a subject, he will always find friends here to share his concerns and we look forward to his active participation in this House.
I turn now to the substantive debate, for which I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Alderdice for initiating. It is seldom that one sees an initiative on peace in the Middle East without the presence of my noble friend somewhere in the frame.
Water was always a source of conflict, but what has changed in recent years is that it is being seen much more clearly in that light. It is therefore appropriate that the Strategic Foresight Group has gone to the heart of the region which is most conflict prone—the Middle East—to look at this aspect of what constitutes an impediment to peace and prosperity.
Prosperity in the region, and the role of water in providing for this, is the key to future development for the millions who live there. The pressures of demography, the requirements of agriculture and food security, jobs and livelihoods, sanitation and health and the natural environment are all dependent on adequate supplies of usable water. The politics of water is therefore closely linked to the politics of sovereign statehood. It is seen as an essential element of territorial integrity, but one which is increasingly beyond the control of a single state, if it ever was.
One factor that is gaining recognition in the debates over water security is the advent of climate change. As is now widely recognised, continuing climate change will exacerbate the water crisis in arid regions of the Middle East. Given that average global temperatures are likely to rise by 2 degrees Celsius during the 21st century, Middle Eastern countries are inevitably faced with a worsening water crisis.
This report builds on a successful record of transboundary water co-operation, which can be drawn on as models to go forward. In 1963 the European countries along the Rhine river signed up to the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution. This helped to institutionalise co-operation between Germany, Switzerland, France and the Netherlands, and led to a dramatic decline in pollution. In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes agreement to protect the Great Lakes from pollution. This, too, significantly improved water quality in a heavily industrialised area.
The single distinguishing factor in those successful examples was that those countries already had good relations between each other. There was little fear of conflict and all had an economic interest in improving quality rather than disputing quantity. The main problem with water in the Middle East is scarcity. The competition for scarce water promotes a zero-sum mentality and can lead to greater tension.
Pollution issues, by contrast, are more amenable for resolution in a co-operative manner, as they can give rise to positive-sum co-operation. In the case of the Middle East, as we know, history has a long tail. The legacy of Ottoman rule still affects relations between Syria and Turkey. The more recent tensions in the Lebanese-Syrian relationship are being further aggravated by current events in Syria, and the Israel-Palestine dispute is one which has been already mentioned. The deteriorating relationship between Turkey and Israel also makes political co-operation in the region more challenging, as does Iraq's relationship with Turkey.
Let me turn to the most significant proposal in the report—that of taking a coalition of the willing, to establish mutually agreed circles of co-operation. A body comprising a political mechanism to define and take forward a common vision, to identify priorities, and to arrive at and implement decisions, would represent a major step forward. I like, too, the idea that the co-operation council would create protocols, devise guidelines and promote practical measures for joint projects. In reading the report I was struck by the singular lack of scientific consensus on how much water, and of what quality, was available as the sources flowed downstream. The lack of agreed data sets is bound to lead to conflicting versions of reality. This is further compounded by seasonal variations in rainfall and water surges across the region, which makes it impossible for one country to be able to realistically measure what has happened in another country without any co-operation on the ground.
It is also right that the envisaged activities of the council focus on issues that are less politicised and require relatively low levels of international co-operation. Developing common principles, promoting research, setting up early warning systems and developing methodologies for water management are all sensible steps and can be achieved below the level of high politics. Streamlining the legal architecture within countries is far more doable than trying to get countries to sign up to fresh treaties from the outset.
The proposals are ambitious—rightly so, in my view—in calling for engagement at the level of heads of government and/or high representatives. Unless the political will is there to support and deliver the objectives of the co-operation council, there will be little advance in policy co-ordination.
What was nevertheless confusing in the proposals was the rejection of the council as a negotiating platform. It seems to me that it is sort of self-contradictory to define a body as being run by Governments to reach political decisions yet to deny that negotiations between the parties will take place, particularly where concessions are sought in the face of a perceived national interest.
However, I also take encouragement from the examples of co-operation in the report, using water as an instrument for peace. The 1993 formation of the executive action committee including Israel, Palestine and Jordan, to share information and keep a dialogue open regarding their shared water resources, points the way. The setting up of joint measurement stations on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers also moves us forward. The initiatives between Syria and Turkey in 2009 and 2010 also show promise by focusing on areas where agreement is within reach, rather than being bound down by the evident disagreement that already exists. However, with the political situation in Syria, as with all other politics I suspect that there is now little progress in building on those measures.
Turning to that other long-term conflict—that between Israel and Palestine—I welcome the proposals for confidence-building measures between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. What is urgently needed, however, are moves towards reconciliation between the Authority and Hamas to allow for the Palestinian people to be represented by a single Government. I was in Gaza in July and saw for myself the effects of water scarcity there which are so graphically described in this report. In fact, at the main water management station which we visited, the maps defining usable aquifers painted an even starker picture than that presented in the report.
Overall, the report gave us a wealth of ideas for managing the problem of water. Seeing how pressing the problems are, I was disappointed in its lack of development on the theme of demand management. We know that poor infrastructure, inadequate use of waste water, leaking pipes, agricultural misuse and household demand are all significant contributors to water waste. Lebanon, which is described as being in the middle of the spectrum of water scarcity, loses over 40 percent of its available water to leakage and poor transportation networks. We have the example of Jordan, which loses 35 per cent of its water to bad systems and old pipes, while in some parts Syria loses 60 per cent.
Many of the solutions to managing water can be found in domestic politics and can thus be adopted without waiting for international solutions. Developing a comprehensive water law, investing in drought and flood management and improving water use efficiency by households and businesses are all measures that can be undertaken here and now. I note that the report details Israeli expertise in this area and points to successful pilots in reusing waste water in the West Bank territories. I also know that the UK has expertise in all these areas. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us today whether the Department for International Development has resources that can provide assistance in this regard?
To conclude, the work of the Strategic Foresight Group has provided an excellent platform for anticipating a potential problem, looking at it comprehensively and arriving at pragmatic solutions which can be implemented in the short, medium and long terms. All that remains is to find the political will to implement it. The changes in the Arab world in the past year have provided both opportunities and threats. It is for the countries involved to see that doing nothing is no longer an option. If they are to safeguard the interests of all the people who live in the region, The Blue Peace’s idea is one to build upon.
Baroness Deech
Like others of your Lordships, I welcome and feel privileged to have been here for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan. We can readily see that the House will benefit from his wide experience and I wish him a long and happy career here. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and agree with all the encouraging words and actions that he has described, stemming from his own experience. I express an interest as a trustee of the Jewish National Fund, which invests inter alia in environmental projects in Israel.
I welcome the fact that the international community is addressing in a constructive way, in the excellent report The Blue Peace, the issue of transforming water supply into a trigger for collaboration and peace in the Middle East. As I will show, there are some grounds for hope. Already, as a result of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994, Israel provides Jordan with a significant contribution to Amman’s water supply, plus a storage capacity, and in return Israel is allowed to pump groundwater from the Arava basin from wells in Jordan. Israel and Palestine have an active joint water committee that meets regularly and Israel supplies water to Gaza, although maintenance is another issue.
The entire region is beset by common problems; a growing population, a diminishing supply of water and elevated expectations coming with higher living standards. Syria is drought-hit, through climate change, manmade desertification and lack of irrigation. One has to think long-term, for the alliances and enmities in the Middle East may change. Alongside the massacres inflicted by Syria’s Government on their own people, their mismanagement of agriculture and irrigation add to their woes. Israel can hardly be expected to reach a deal with Syria over Lake Kinneret while that country is in a state of uprising. Iraq accuses Syria, Iran and Turkey of practices that reduce the flow of water to the Tigris and Euphrates. The political instability of these countries exacerbates the environmental concerns. Turkey is unlikely to be a reliable partner in relation to the export of Turkish water to the Jordan Valley, a project which has been considered, because of Turkey’s changing needs.
However, there is good news too. At Ben Gurion University in the Negev there is funded a joint project between Israelis and Palestinians to address clean water issues in the West Bank area of Nablus; the team includes one person from Ben Gurion University, a professor from the Biodiversity and Environmental Research Centre in Nablus and an American. They are working on purifying secondary waste water, an immediate resource for irrigation. Also at Ben Gurion University, researchers have an award from the NATO Science for Peace programme to work on desalination in Jordan and in Israel; they work in collaboration with colleagues from the Hashemite University of Jordan and from the US. Ben Gurion University has its first Jordanian PhD student. Having completed his first degree in Jordan, he went on to earn his masters degree at the Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research and then on to the PhD program there in the Negev and it has resulted in published research by Palestinian, Israeli and Jordanian authors together. Israeli technology is being introduced into Jordan.
There is a project known as the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal project, already mentioned this afternoon—sometimes called the peace conduit—which, if it comes to fruition, will be a joint Israel-Palestine-Jordan undertaking. It envisages a pipeline from one sea to the other that would carry up to 2 billion cubic metres of seawater per annum to the Dead Sea, of which half could be desalinated and the rest would replenish the Dead Sea. The water level there has dropped in 50 years by almost 30 metres and the surface area has shrunk by a third in a century. There are environmental concerns with the project, which the World Bank is considering at the moment, but if it worked it would be a splendid demonstration of regional co-operation. The potential donors to this are Italy, France, Greece, Korea, Japan, Holland, Sweden and the USA. One can but hope that the current euro financial crisis does not weaken this venture, one I hope that the UK Government will encourage. Its success would arrest the deterioration of the Dead Sea environment and provide drinking water to the Middle East.
Israel, Jordan and Syria have all diverted water from the upper Jordan Valley and deprived the Dead Sea of the input of water. But the situation is not necessarily a manmade problem. Research has estimated that today’s low level of the Dead Sea was also the case in about 800 AD. The temperature in the Middle East over the centuries has oscillated between calamity and abundance, the researchers say. We should not always blame human activity, for over time climate change has affected human behaviour in migration and agriculture as much as the other way round. Nevertheless, at this time drought is increasing in the Middle East.
It does not help the situation for accusations to be flung by one country at another. They are all in it together. Amnesty International rather predictably whipped up what has been called hydro-hysteria in its report Thirsting for Justice in 2009, which took a one-sided approach to the evidence on water resources between Israel and Palestine.
The Palestine Water Authority has had much responsibility for water delivery since the mid-1990s and is beset by accusations of mismanagement, although it is in receipt of grants from the World Bank and others. Before 1967, only 20 per cent of the Occupied Territories was connected to a water network; now 90 per cent has running water. Israel has stuck to its commitment under the Oslo peace accord and has even increased the committed allocation, with the result that the water supply for Palestinians is better than that provided in Jordan and Syria. However, 30 per cent is lost through leaks in the West Bank.
What are the solutions? First, the UK Government should urge the World Bank to progress the Red Sea-Dead Sea project and join in themselves, if they can. They should encourage the joint Palestinian-Israeli meetings taking place through the joint water committee. They should publicise and, if possible, assist in grants to the outstanding initiatives of the Ben Gurion University, with especial emphasis on desalinisation and joint working; there is already one scholarship for a Ben Gurion University student to Oxford and a project to create another at Oxford Brookes. They should note that the Palestinian National Authority is the world’s largest per-capita recipient of international development assistance, and try to ensure that some of that largesse is devoted to water management and improved water delivery.
The thinking behind the Blue Peace report and all the many studies of the water issue rests on an assumption that people want to live in peace and use water as a natural way of sustaining life. If martyrdom is preferred, then all assumptions collapse. There is an old fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip but the scorpion argues that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but mid-way across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature. There is a variation on the ending in which the scorpion says, “It is better that we should both perish than that my enemy should live”. This is what I feared might apply to water in the Middle East, but I am cheered and wish to end with the words of the Jordanian PhD student at Ben Gurion University, who maintains that water is a great conduit for peace in the region. He says:
“The problem in what’s happening right now in the region is that there’s no trust at all between our leaders—but between our scientists there is trust”.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, it is very useful to have this debate at this time. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and all noble Lords who have taken part. I especially congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, on an outstanding maiden speech. He is a great friend, a great diplomat and a great addition to your Lordships’ House.
At present, little is happening to inspire confidence in the Middle East peace process, much as we would all wish it. This fact alone should encourage us to seize the moment to engage in genuine strategic thinking about what is happening, what could make the problems of the region more acute and what might be done to mitigate them. To be candid, I fear that today’s debate will identify a problem that has been explored before. However, what we have is an opportunity to review past efforts to consider water insecurity and to evaluate whether any new proposals can take us forward appreciably. It is in this light that I welcome a debate on the work of the Strategic Foresight Group and the publication of The Blue Peace. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for making sure that I had a full copy of it; I appreciate that greatly.
In particular, I welcome the fact that the report starts with hard data. No solutions, other than those that take a hard look at hard data, have any prospect of success. Some of the data are telling. The region is home to 6.3 per cent of the world’s population but contains just 1.4 per cent of the world’s renewable fresh water. Climate change will make that worse. This is a region greatly challenged by developing efficient, collaborative, multinational governance systems. All of these factors bear on the issues that we are discussing.
I started by saying that the issues of water insecurity and its implications for regional peace and prosperity have been discussed on past occasions. I shall set out just one or two examples. They have not led to concrete action and they illustrate why it is sensible to look at a new programme. First, in its quite remarkable periodic exercises in scenario planning, Shell considered not oil but water security in the Middle East. It considered social, economic and political dynamics in that context. Its analysis illustrated the dangerous confluence of factors that might increase regional insecurity.
The demands for reliable water sources in the region become sharper when considered against the background of demographic change. Developments in medical science are likely to have a large impact on a region’s population, especially when it becomes increasingly possible to intervene in, for example, genetically carried diseases that have lowered life expectancy in the Middle East. Although the number of live births per mother halved between 1960 and 2001, it remains likely that the upward trend in population will continue. A far larger, healthier and, by definition, initially far younger population will in due course place greater demands on water resources. The more this trend develops, the greater the competition for water resources will be. Indeed, as Shell suggests, it will become more significant than competition for oil resources. Between the nations of the region, the population grew from 173 million to 366 million between 1970 and 2001. However, the amount of fresh water per capita halved in that period. The greater the competition, the sharper the possible conflicts over control of river flows, especially where there are few viable developments in the use of seawater or desalination.
The second example comes from the work of RUSI and Chatham House, which suggests that states in the region have begun to turn their attention to securing the military capacity, if necessary, to secure their future water requirements. I do not suggest that this inevitably leads to an arms race but it is likely to produce a significantly different military doctrine in the region. In a troubled region, that could promise still more trouble, as several noble Lords have said.
These have been brief summaries of important past analysis. I suggest with great respect that this report might have been a little stronger if it had also made an assessment of those efforts. However, what this research unquestionably adds to the past thinking flows from what I have tried to summarise. If water insecurity is liable to prepare people for potential conflict, it is imperative to argue that the better alternative is regional co-operation among nations that have not co-operated to any great extent. Water sources know no boundaries and the route between open and inland seas almost always passes through more than one polity. Cross-border management of this scarce resource is possible only if it is a peaceful option. A good deal of work, including by the Swiss Foreign Minister, has been done in observing that five of the seven nations covered by this report are already experiencing a structural deficit in water, with a huge depletion in the rivers of the region.
I am able, with some enthusiasm, to support the creation of joint water co-operation councils. Given the river flows—I will return to artificial channels—it is rational to advocate the creation of a council involving Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, although there are obvious problems in the practicality of the grouping at this stage. I can see the rationale for a further joint water council, involving Turkey, Syria and Iraq, to manage the Tigris and Euphrates river basin. On the artificial channel proposals, I also support the idea of pressing the World Bank to go beyond its report and its research stage to see whether it can drive this towards reality.
My reservations are all obvious. In many countries, in each council grouping, there is more of a history of mistrust over water than there is of co-operation. That must change, but it will not happen soon. Some of the countries—Syria is the most obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, noted—show that they are more likely to tear themselves apart and their political institutions are not likely to deal adequately with that. So that change will not happen any time soon either. The report suggests circles of co-operation, with Israel becoming involved only in a second phase. That may be a statement of regional realism, but I suspect that if there is not parallel development—or an attempt at parallel development—across all the nations in the region at the same time, one key and very valuable goal of this report could be undermined. That goal is this reality: with water co-operation and water security, it is not only available, potable water that hugely improves the human condition, but the development of the prospect of diplomatic normality, of peaceful co-operation in other spheres and of mutual economic development—in short, the creation of social circumstances in which health, education and all other advances become possible.
I wholly subscribe to that perspective, but I observe that the possibility of delaying the entry of one of the major military powers in the region, a state which has projected military power when aspects of its security are believed, by it, to be at risk, may significantly limit the potential for peace and normalisation that this kind of programme could achieve. This analysis may be wrong, but I think it identifies an important risk which may not have been addressed fully in the report.
If this report is to be successful in the way it is received, it needs to do a number of things with great effect. First, we must ask whether the proposals constitute a viable plan, owned and led in each of the participating nations and to which the international community and the domestic military of those nations can contribute without shaking local ownership. Secondly, will the institutional forms created generate coherence and greater coherence from the outset? There is a risk that they could be a theatre for staging conflict and we need to be sure to mitigate that risk. Thirdly, are all the lead nations involved? I have already commented on that. Fourthly, will the programme build local capacity, to ensure local ownership of technical and managerial objectives? I believe it has that capability. Fifthly, will the programme help focus aid and development priorities, providing the best and most sustainable outlets for aid expenditure? Sixthly, will the programme create employment, providing routes out of poverty and will it grow employment by cutting the costs of starting and doing business? The provision of potable water has, in general, been a significant factor in achieving that objective. Finally, is there a reliable and detailed audit of the impact of this kind of programme on all the local economies, showing the value of peace building as opposed to conflict and helping the programming of donor support? I admire much of what is in this report. If it can begin to address those questions about long-term stability, it will be a very important contribution indeed.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alderdice for bringing this interesting and challenging report to the attention of the House. I know that he works tirelessly on the issues of peace and reconciliation, and he is to be commended for this work. Given his profound experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, it surely behoves us to listen to him closely. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate—contributions that are clearly borne out of deep experience. I especially congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, on his excellent maiden speech. His detailed knowledge of the region shows the profound challenges that the region faces and how important it is that we listen to those with possible routes through. I look forward very much indeed to his future contributions. I know that we will all benefit from his engagement here.
This report presents us with an innovative and striking proposition. We are all aware that factors such as resource scarcity—including that of water—climate change and population growth may increase the potential for conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly emphasised the key importance of population growth in the region. On water, the facts seem to bear out the potential for conflict. By 2025, more than 2.8 billion people in 48 countries may face water scarcity. Meanwhile, the International Water Management Institute has estimated that demand for water for agriculture alone could increase by over 30 per cent by 2030. My noble friend Lady Falkner flagged up the great significance of climate change in all this.
However, this report puts forward the premise that water should become an instrument of co-operation rather than conflict. As the report notes, water sources and rivers are no respecters of national boundaries. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice and others have so eloquently explained, water could become a theme of dialogue and co-operation between nations. All in a particular region must, of necessity, have an interest in resolving the challenges posed. This could then assist in other areas. As he said, this may not be achieved in a day or a week. The true resolution of conflict is a long-term challenge.
From noble Lords’ accounts, we can see how deep are the problems in terms of conflict, simply over water—not that there is yet even an agreed set of data, as my noble friend Lady Falkner pointed out. Set that against some of the political problems, as laid out, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lady Falkner, and one can see the depth of the challenge. However, as my noble friend said, doing nothing is no longer an option.
The Government place high value on innovative approaches such as those that look at how to use issues of mutual concern, such as shared and scarce resources to reduce conflict. Seeking to reduce conflict is a key element of our foreign and development policy. We have committed to spend 30 per cent of development aid in fragile and conflict-affected states by 2014-15. The Building Stability Overseas strategy published in July of this year, which spans the FCO, the MoD and DfID, sets out the UK Government’s overarching approach to try to prevent conflict and tackle instability through a strong integrated approach, bringing together all these areas of development, diplomacy and defence. A key pillar of this strategy is to invest in upstream prevention to tackle the underlying drivers of conflict and build capacity to manage tensions within and between nations constructively.
The type of approach suggested in this report on using water management as a source of regional co-operation rather than conflict has been seen to work well in some areas of the world that share scarce water resources. The Department for International Development is currently supporting regional initiatives, mainly in Africa and Asia, which have shown that water resource management can serve as an entry point for co-operative development. These include the water initiative under the Southern African Development Community, the Nile Basin initiative, and the South Asia Water Initiative.
The initiatives have already helped to build trust and stronger relationships between countries, and this improves the management of water within and between countries for the benefit of all. These approaches have worked well where initiatives were effectively co-ordinated and avoided duplication of effort.
Another lesson, which the report supports, is that, while distribution and management of water is highly political, it is sometimes better to treat co-operation on water as a technical, rather than a political, issue and hence to encourage practical co-operation between experts rather than politicians. We have heard from both the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, details of some of the university and other collaboration which is currently under way. That is very encouraging.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, rightly emphasises the importance of co-operation in science and technology and noble Lords will be no doubt be interested in the UK Government’s recent initiatives in this field. Tonight, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will travel to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; during his visit he will launch the new UK-Israel high-tech hub and give political profile to the importance of co-operation in this field.
The report we are discussing today specifically focuses on the Middle East, where the fair and effective distribution of shared water resources is an absolutely key issue. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are its main focus. The report, however, is cognisant of the enormous political difficulties, including those between Israel and its Arab neighbours, and therefore presents a road map for action which begins with efficient internal management, storage and distribution. It also proposes the interesting idea of establishing a co-operation council for water resources for Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey and, separately, a confidence-building initiative between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We pay tribute to the authors and the sponsors for exploring and raising these ideas.
Noble Lords will be very well aware of the dramatic changes that have affected the region and the challenges and opportunities that they bring. The report was, of course, published before the remarkable events of the Arab spring, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have referred. Many states are undergoing rapid transition and leaders in those countries have pressing issues to deal with so that they can respond to the legitimate demands of their population. The Government are committed to working through the Arab Partnership with the international community to support the democratic transitions that we hope are under way. However, we are aware that each of these countries will face a great range of challenges, not least in resource allocation. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is surely right to say that, as we focus on what is happening in the Arab spring, we should not forget the other challenges that these countries will face.
In the region, the UK funds the Global Water Partnership, which has supported a regional water partnership for the Mediterranean. Partners have included Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, among others. These independent regional groups have promoted the concept and implementation of integrated water resources management as a vital approach to managing this area’s resources.
Water is, as we have heard, one of several important subjects for negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians. Noble Lords have shown how acutely aware they are of this problem. UK officials regularly raise concerns over water issues with Israeli counterparts and we have brought the Foresight report to the attention of the EU donor and co-chair of the water sector working group with the Palestinian Authority. I reiterate that our immediate focus remains to bring the parties back to peace negotiations. However, my noble friend Lord Palmer urges us not to wait for the political process before advocating co-operation on water.
My noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lord Palmer emphasised how much Israel can contribute through its technological expertise—a point also emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I agree that the use of technological solutions may well be one of the key ways to address water shortages. Individual, practical and immediate water management measures should not need to wait for political negotiations to be completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, posed a series of challenges, which showed his very deep knowledge of this area. I hope that the authors of the report respond to those challenges, and I should be extremely interested in knowing what those responses are.
My noble friend Lady Falkner wondered whether DfID would consider working in waste water management in West Bank territories. There are currently 30 donors, NGOs and agencies working on water issues in the West Bank, and DfID has therefore decided not to focus on water issues because of this good coverage. However, as I said, UK officials have brought the report to the attention of these groups. Nevertheless, we would be happy to host a round table meeting on the challenges of conflict over water in the region and all noble Lords will be encouraged to feed into this.
In conclusion, I again thank noble Lords for their participation in this very important debate. It has highlighted the issues of water and conflict, and the need to identify innovative and new approaches to address some of the challenges that they will increasingly pose in the future. We have a shared interest in preventing conflict, promoting constructive dialogue between nations to manage scarce resources and ensuring a sustainable supply of water to all populations. We therefore very much commend those who are working to develop ideas on how best to achieve this.