House of Commons
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
1. What steps she is taking to reduce the administrative burden on farmers.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
9. What steps she is taking to reduce the regulatory burden of inspections on farmers.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Before answering my hon. Friends’ questions, I believe that it is right to congratulate you on a certain anniversary, Mr Speaker, if I am correctly informed, so many happy returns of the day—it is always best to start on a good note.
In my written statement of 3 November I announced the publication of the interim response to the independent farm regulation task force and stated that the Government’s final response will be published early this year. That is still my intention.
Damian Hinds
I thank the Minister for that answer. What reassurance can he give farmers in East Hampshire that reform of the common agricultural policy will reduce rather than increase the administrative burden?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely important question. The only assurance I can give is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working extremely hard not only in Brussels but in capitals across Europe, speaking with fellow Ministers to try to ensure that what appears to be a more complex and complicating set of proposals are altered to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend, his farmers and, I think, every farmer and farming Minister in Europe want to see.
Elizabeth Truss
Tomorrow I am holding a farming forum in Shouldham Thorpe. What can I tell local farmers about progress towards a single farm inspection regime that would save them time and the Government money?
Mr Paice
Although I cannot guarantee a single inspection regime, I am pleased to say that we are certainly moving towards a much simpler regime, as I hope my hon. Friend and the House will see shortly when I publish our response to the Macdonald report. We are using the concept of earned recognition, whereby we can trust farmers who have demonstrated their ability to comply with regulations and reduce the level of inspection on them, and in other cases we can merge inspection regimes so that one person does them for more than one agency.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The CAP regime involves a lot of heavy administration. I have asked the Minister about compliance issues before, but I think that the most pressing issue at the moment is whether single farm payments will continue to provide the kind of support that farmers in the least favoured areas, particularly those in the devolved Administrations, depend upon. What update can he give us on where the Government are heading with that?
Mr Paice
As the hon. Lady will appreciate, I cannot give any absolute answer because I fear that the negotiations will take another 18 months to reach a conclusion, but there is no doubt that the single farm payment or a form of direct payment, whatever it is called, will continue. I cannot tell her what the exact rates will be, because obviously we have not seen any budgets yet. She will be aware that the proposal we support is that all member states and regions should move towards an area-based system, which Scotland has not yet done, so it will face that challenge, as will all the devolved regions. I can assure her that we will do our very best to negotiate on behalf of the whole United Kingdom to get the best deal for British farmers and the British taxpayer.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Mr Speaker, I join the Minister in saying to you: llongyfarchiadau.
With strong cross-party support, Labour introduced the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in response to wide public outrage at the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe bay in 2004. It is an example of good regulation and enforcement, which only last year resulted in 12 high-profile operations and prosecutions and the identification of nearly 850 exploited workers, despite budget cuts. While the exploitation of workers continues, the need for the GLA is as great as ever. Will the Minister guarantee that the red tape challenge will not be used to water down the GLA’s powers and successes and that he will work with us to improve and strengthen it, including through more flexible fines and civil penalties? No one wants a return to the horrors of Morecambe bay or to see the sickening exploitation and trafficking of people by criminal gangs continue.
Mr Paice
I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want a return to that. We are looking at the issue of civil penalties, which he has just described, and at fines. Nevertheless, there is some concern that the GLA has broadened its perspective way beyond the sectors that it was originally intended, rightly, to cover. It had all-party support and still does. I will not deny that we are looking at whether there are aspects of its activities that could be altered, but we will make those announcements as part of the response to Macdonald in a month’s time. The GLA’s core responsibility to protect vulnerable workers must be retained and will be.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
2. What plans she has to promote innovation in the farming industry. [R]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Innovation is essential to enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of UK agriculture, and we welcome the emphasis in the new common agricultural policy reform proposals on stimulating innovation. In March, in partnership with the Technology Strategy Board we are holding an innovation for growth summit with the agri-food sector. The summit will raise awareness of the potential for growth, and it includes a competition with £500,000 in prizes for small and medium-sized enterprises to develop their innovative ideas. As we speak, the invitations are going out.
George Freeman
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does she agree that, as we as a nation look for ways to develop a sustainable recovery and to support sustainable development throughout the world, British agriculture, science and technology have a key role to play as exports, not least through centres such as the Norwich research park in my own county of Norfolk? Does she also agree that we need somehow to create a web that links up our centres of excellence, currently fragmented throughout the UK, to create a portal for global industry to interact with our science?
Mrs Spelman
I completely agree, and I esteem highly the research capacity in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government’s investment of £400 million per annum is co-ordinated throughout the Government, under the UK cross-Government food research and innovation strategy, which is published by the Government Office for Science. The cross-Government and research councils’ programme on global food security will also be a key vehicle for driving that agenda forward.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to enhance competitiveness is to encourage the export of our product beyond the borders of the European Community? Will she outline to the House the Department’s policies, practices and strategy to encourage the export of our food product to Asia, Russia and China?
Mrs Spelman
When we took office, we made it a priority from the outset to encourage the food and farming industry to produce more food sustainably and to think in terms of opportunities in emerging markets. Later this month, we will publish in an export action plan the results of our work with the agri-food industry in the intervening months, but there is absolutely no doubt that the emerging markets of Brazil, China, India and Russia, many of which Ministers have now visited, offer our food and drink industry the huge potential to grow its business.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The UK is already a successful exporter of meat and meat products, and that is a fantastic way of increasing employment in farming and food processing. I have recently returned from Kazakhstan, where there is a huge and unmet demand for meat and meat products. What is DEFRA doing to ensure that all potential exporters are supported, and that we promote the quality of British meat throughout the world?
Mrs Spelman
As I said in my previous answer, we have made that issue a priority since the very beginning. The important point is that the “Made in Britain” label on our food and drink sends to consumers throughout the world a very strong signal of high-quality food produced to very high standards of animal welfare, which our consumers expect and we promote, and of food safety, as the systems that we have built are very strong. Indeed, we should consider exporting not just our food but our systems to emerging economies.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
3. What progress her Department has made on payments to farmers under the single farm payment scheme.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
In December, the Rural Payments Agency made the highest ever proportion of payments to English farmers under the single payment scheme, and it was achieved in the opening month of the scheme payment window. The latest figures, as of 18 January, show that a total of £1.5 billion had been paid to 95,702 farmers, and that demonstrates really good progress, but of course I remain committed to ensuring continued improvements in the service that farmers receive.
Mel Stride
I thank the Minister for that answer and do not underestimate the significant progress that he has made in sorting out the RPA, not least because of the shambles that he inherited from the previous Government. Will he categorically assure me, however, that future payment schemes will be kept as simple as possible, so that the significant difficulties that my local farmers in Devon face are not repeated in the years ahead?
Mr Paice
The assurance I can give my hon. Friend is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will do everything we can to ensure that future schemes are as simple as possible. As I intimated in answer to an earlier question, we are very concerned that many of the Commission’s proposals would actually make the situation more complicated rather than less so, but I assure him of our determination to improve on them.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the average payout is about £13,000 a year and yet we are giving giant CAP subsidies to the richest in the land, such as up to €500,000 to Her Majesty and €800,000 to Tate & Lyle? As we are capping benefits for the poor, should we not cap these agricultural benefits for the very rich?
Mr Paice
I readily accept that capping has its attractions for those who want to level down the payments. One reason why this Government and the previous Government have opposed the principle of capping payments is that it would simply cause the fragmentation of farms as they break up to meet the new criteria. That would provide jobs for lawyers, but I am not sure t it would do any other good.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I agree that improvements have been made, but there is still significant work to do on communication with individual farmers. Will the Minister update the House on how much the RPA is costing the taxpayer in administering the payments?
Mr Paice
I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks off the top of my head, I am afraid. I can assure him that both I and the chief executive of the RPA, whom I will meet later today, are extremely determined to ensure that communication improves. We had a problem last year when farmers were told that they would be paid in X month but they were not. That was very bad news, and it is why that is not happening this year. I am determined to improve that situation, because whatever the state of a claim, farmers are entitled to know what that state is.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
4. What steps she is taking to tackle littering and fly-tipping.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Changing behaviour is the key on such environmental issues. That is why the Government support the national fly-tipping prevention group and initiatives such as Keep Britain Tidy’s “Love Where You Live” campaign, which I launched with Kirstie Allsopp last autumn. We are cracking down on fly-tippers by introducing powers to seize the vehicles of suspected offenders and are working with the court authorities on increased sentencing.
Annette Brooke
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. I congratulate all those involved in community litter picks, including those at Canford Heath in my constituency. Litter alongside the busy roads that link our communities is a blot on the landscape. What more will she do to empower local councils to take effective action against people in vehicles who are responsible for such littering?
Mrs Spelman
I freely acknowledge that that is a problem. When I jog around the lanes where I live in the countryside, it appals me to see what has been dropped casually out of car windows. It is systematically cleared by the council, but within a very short period it is back. This is about changing behaviour. We have to start in schools by educating children and taking them with us on litter picks, because it then dawns on them what a nuisance this is. In addition, an interesting opportunity is presented by a private Bill that is going through Parliament, which will enable London borough councils to tackle the problem of littering from vehicles by making it a civil offence. We should look at the efficacy of that measure to see what wider lessons we can learn.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has mentioned her support for Keep Britain Tidy, yet her Department has cut its grant to that organisation, causing it to lose 50% of its staff. What impact does she believe that will have on littering campaigns?
Mrs Spelman
Such questions from the Opposition always skirt the reality that we are dealing with a deficit we inherited from the previous Government. As shadow Ministers have said, they would have to make cuts too. This is not easy. As I said at the outset, I applaud Keep Britain Tidy’s initiatives. The point is that we need to tackle this together. This is a classic area where the big society can make a difference. I have put my money where my mouth is by helping to launch the “Love Where You Live” campaign. I suggest to hon. Members that that is a campaign we can all get involved in.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
5. What assessment she has made of the benefits to rural areas of rural tourism; and what support she is providing to rural communities to help them secure such benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The rural economy growth review concluded that tourism was a significant contributor to the rural economy and that it had the potential for further growth. The Government have therefore announced a £25 million initiative to promote rural tourism and support rural tourism businesses. That includes establishing a new £10 million fund for the rural development programme for England to provide funding for the development and improvement of tourism destinations, facilities and products.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure he would agree that unnecessary and inappropriate regulations that impede the development of rural tourism should not be introduced. Will he therefore confirm that his Department no longer plans to classify waste from self-catering properties as commercial rather than domestic?
Richard Benyon
I agree that inappropriate regulations should not hinder rural tourism, including self-catering accommodation. However, we also have to face the fact that many councils in areas where there is a thriving tourism industry face huge bills in dealing with the waste that it produces. Given the principle that the producer pays, the Department is considering how to get the balance right. I reassure my hon. Friend that self-catering accommodation is one area that DEFRA is considering as an exception. We will weigh up the matter and make an announcement shortly.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The coalition Government often pick fault with the Welsh Government. May I inform the Minister that the Wales coastal path, a continual path around the whole coast of Wales, is due to be officially launched in May? It will promote rural tourism and has already been flagged up by The New York Times as one of the top places to go in 2012. Why is England’s coastal path being left behind?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman will be very glad to know that I will be going down to Dorset in the next few days to launch the first section of the coastal path, which will be along the Olympic site. We are also working on, I believe, five other sites. The legislation is extremely complex. I would like it to be much more simple, and I am examining ways of making it simpler so that we can speed things up and ensure that the benefits for tourism, health and people’s ability to enjoy our wonderful coast will be apparent sooner rather than later.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
7. What steps she is taking to promote jobs and growth in the food production and environmental industries.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
In the rural strand of the growth review that we published alongside the autumn statement, we announced an export action plan which, as I indicated earlier, will be out later this month, and an innovation summit to support the agri-food industry. We also announced a new £15 million loan fund for community renewables, a £15 million fund for rural growth networks and support for mid-sized businesses to access £6 billion a year of savings available from resource efficiency.
Mr Harris
I think the whole House has a perfect right to know what I had for breakfast this morning. I started with sausages, bacon and egg—only one, of course, because I am on a health kick. In tucking in, I was reassured by the fact that 90% of all the food purchased by the House is sourced in the United Kingdom, encouraging British growth and British jobs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House not what she had for breakfast—too much information already—but what proportion of food purchased by her own Department is sourced in the United Kingdom?
Mrs Spelman
I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that World Trade Organisation rules mean that we can require purchasing to British standards in Government procurement, but we cannot require produce to be British. We adhere to those rules, and we actively promote Government buying standards involving all Departments sourcing food that is produced to British standards in order to promote those standards. In my own Department, the figure is 18%.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Many people are employed in rural areas, particularly the uplands, in livestock production. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the conflicting messages from her Department and the Department of Health about the eating of meat, which could potentially have very damaging consequences for jobs and growth in rural areas?
Mrs Spelman
Clearly nutrition is a lead for the Department of Health, but it is quite clear that meat forms part of a balanced diet. I am very proud of the fact that producers in this country produce meat to the highest standards of animal welfare, food and hygiene anywhere in the world. As we have just discussed, we actively promote the consumption of food that is produced to those very high standards within Government and among the wider public.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Labour believes that public procurement should be reformed to play its part in our economic recovery and to support jobs, skills and apprenticeships here in the UK. The Government spend £2 billion a year on food and are well placed to support British farmers and food businesses by buying British. I heard what the Secretary of State said and was unclear about the percentage that is sourced from UK producers, but her latest figures show that the Department bought less than a third of its food from UK producers in 2011. Why is that, and what does she intend to do about it?
Mrs Spelman
As we have discussed, the situation has not changed since the hon. Lady’s party was in office. The difference is that the Government have placed a requirement on all Departments to procure food to British standards. As a shadow Secretary of State, she cannot encourage the Government of the day to breach WTO rules by calling for British products. That is the distinction. We want to encourage the industry to produce more food to the high standards that we require and to encourage Government Departments and the wider public to consume food that is produced to that very high standard.
Mary Creagh
The Secretary of State is confused. DEFRA Ministers are simply failing to deliver jobs and growth in the UK food industry, which is the country’s largest manufacturing sector. We have seen how unfair competition from abroad for egg producers has been allowed—DEFRA is supine. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the shadow food Minister, has asked many questions, yet No. 10 has not revealed how much of its food is sourced from the UK. There is confusion across Government: some Departments reply on what British produce they bought, and some reply on food that is sourced to UK standards. Will she have a word and ensure that the next time guests sit down for dinner with the Prime Minister, the food they enjoy is 100% UK-sourced and that it supports jobs in this country?
Mrs Spelman
There is no confusion at all here. Government buying standards are mandatory across all Departments. They require food to be procured to British standards. That is compatible not only with WTO rules but with the rules that cover the operation of the EU internal market—the very basic framework that any Secretary of State or shadow Secretary of State should understand.
The hon. Lady also completely overlooks the importance of our drive on exports. I remind her that in the last year alone, there has been an 11.4% increase in food and drink exports from this country to the wider world.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, but questions and answers are, frankly, too long. I am sure we will have a short—that is, single sentence—question from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I shall do my best, Mr Speaker.
If British farmers are to compete on the world market, support systems must not simply allow British farmers to avoid creating the ranch-and-prairie environmental deserts that we clearly do not want. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believe that the common agricultural policy reforms are currently moving things in the right direction?
Mrs Spelman
Within the CAP proposals, there is an endeavour to balance the need to promote animal welfare and protection of the environment in parallel with producing food sustainably, but the important thing in concluding trade deals with non-EU countries—2012 ought to the be the year of UK trade deals as emerging markets offer great potential to our industry—is to have the higher standards to which British food is produced recognised in the wider world and at global level.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
8. What steps her Department has taken to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Following the waste review, DEFRA has already implemented the responsibility deal on direct mail; consultation on higher packaging recycling targets; funding to local authorities to deliver waste treatment infrastructure; and a new reward and recognition scheme on recycling. We will consult this year on introducing restriction on the landfilling of wood waste. The landfill tax is a key driver in diverting waste from landfill, and it will increase to £80 a tonne in 2014-15.
Rehman Chishti
More than 6.7 million tonnes of food waste are discarded each year. Environmental waste management providers anticipate that food waste is likely to be banned completely from landfill soon. Will the Minister clarify whether and when that ban is likely to take place?
Richard Benyon
The Government are determined that no food waste should go to landfill. Recent figures show a 13% reduction in annual UK household food waste since 2006. That is welcome, but we are undertaking a number of actions to divert food from landfill, including a voluntary agreement with the hospitality and food sector, which will be launched in the spring, and our anaerobic digestion loan, the first of which—an £800,000 loan to an AD plant in Wiltshire—has just gone ahead.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the close correlation between high recycling rates, low landfill use and local authorities operating alternate weekly collections? Is he also aware that a recent survey by the Western Morning News showed that not a single local authority in the south-west is going to accept the cash bung from the Communities Secretary to reintroduce weekly non-recyclable collections? Will he tell the Communities Secretary that that money could be much better spent?
Richard Benyon
The right hon. Gentleman knows something that nobody else does, because no announcement has been made on which local authorities are accessing the scheme. I can assure him that it is a matter for local authorities; it is for them to discuss with their local electorate how they manage their waste policies, and it is for them to access the scheme, if they wish.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the Minister share my concern that Cumbria county council is planning to close household waste recycling centres in Ambleside and Grange-over-Sands, given that that will increase the amount of waste that goes to landfill?
Richard Benyon
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not know the circumstances in Cumbria, but I hope that other methods are being put in train by the county council to ensure that the drive for increased recycling continues and to compensate.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What discussions she has had with the chair of the independent forestry panel on its interim report.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The chair of the Independent Panel on Forestry informed the Secretary of State and me on 28 November last year of the content of the panel’s progress report.
John Woodcock
But does the Minister accept the central recommendation from the interim report that the public forest estate should remain in public hands? What reassurance can he give the people of my constituency and the many thousands of others who enjoy nearby Grizedale forest that he has learned the lesson from the forest fiasco that marred the early months of this Administration?
Mr Paice
As I just said, this was a progress report. We await the final report some time later this spring. It is a report by the panel, and we will have to consider the panel’s conclusions when we get the final report later this year. I cannot comment on detail on an interim report.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about the future of Forest Research?
Mr Paice
The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. As he knows, the Welsh Government have decided to take forestry into the remit of their own organisation. The Scottish Government are looking at the possibility of doing the same thing. That has implications for Forest Research and, indeed, for certain other Forestry Commission activities. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer, because we are still in negotiations, but we will ensure that any devolved Administration who take on a forestry role make sure that any costs on the English commission are properly funded.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Government were deeply misguided in viewing our woodlands as assets for stripping, and the public told them so. Can the Minister assure the House that this lesson has been learned, by reassuring us that the Secretary of State will not dispose of the 15% of the public forest estate she was hoping to get rid of without legislation before she had to abandon the rest of her disastrous plans?
Mr Paice
The hon. Lady, as always, gets a bit hysterical. In fact, there never was any intention to dispose of the whole public forest estate. Nevertheless, as we have repeatedly said, all sales, of any scale, are suspended until we get the final report. When we get the final report, we will then consider future policy, and not until.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
I hope we can have a more reasoned and possibly less sexist response this time. The independent panel’s report tells us of the value of the public forest estate in terms of the environment, the rural economy and public access. The Bishop of Liverpool told the Secretary of State that she had “greatly undervalued” our forests and that they should not be sold off, but expanded. Does the Secretary of State agree with the bishop? Will she complete the final curve of the U-turn and call off the sell-off of 15% of the estate? Yes or no?
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
11. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the effect on farmers of the legislative proposals in the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Secretary of State has regular discussions with her opposite number in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a range of issues, including on the establishment of a groceries code adjudicator.
Mr Reid
I am pleased that the Government are introducing the Bill. The groceries code adjudicator will be able to investigate abuses of the market by the big supermarkets. Preventing such abuse is very important to give farmers, particularly dairy farmers, a fair price for their produce. Will the Minister speak to the Government’s business managers and urge them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible?
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
12. What support she is providing to rural communities to encourage enterprise and growth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
DEFRA is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that measures designed to support business and the economy have a proportionate and positive impact in rural areas. On 29 November last year, the Government announced a strong package of new measures designed to stimulate sustainable growth in the rural economy and to help rural businesses to reach their full potential.
Neil Parish
Devon and Somerset are making a bid for £15 million of rural growth network funds. Tourism, farming and business can all come together, along with infrastructure, but it needs to be co-ordinated. I support their bid and would like the Government to consider it sympathetically.
Richard Benyon
I am aware that the local enterprise partnership has made a strong bid, but it is one of many—we are excited by the response—and I cannot say at this stage whether I prefer one over another. Nevertheless, I wish them the best of luck in the transparent process of being accepted as one of the pilot schemes.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the importance of the food industry to the rural economy. We heard previously that the Government are doing nothing on procurement to support the industry. What impact does he think that the cuts to the annual investment allowance will have on those businesses and their difficulties investing in new equipment to drive forward the food industry in this country?
Richard Benyon
Support for the food and drink industry was very much part of the process of the rural growth review, because the industry is a big employer in rural areas. Also, the tourism package that we are implementing will permit further input for local food initiatives. That comes alongside cross-Government plans to reduce regulation and improve the framework for businesses in the food sector. The industry has a real friend in this Government.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. Essential to each of those is water supply. In that context, my Ministers and I will focus extensively on water resources over the coming year, seeking to avoid unnecessary supply restrictions. Last month, I issued a drought order to South East Water to protect supplies to customers in Sussex. Next month, we shall hold the next in a series of drought summits, and thereafter the Environment Agency will update the drought prospects report. With luck, holding a drought summit tends to bring on the rain. I saw that it rained this morning; we need a lot more of that.
Gavin Barwell
Three months ago, my local authority, Croydon, introduced a food waste recycling service, which is on course to divert nearly 12,000 tonnes of household waste from landfill. Will the Secretary of State congratulate Croydon on its work, and will she tell us what the Government can do further to develop the market for other recyclables?
Mrs Spelman
I congratulate Croydon council on that new development. We certainly see the opportunity for local authorities up and down the land to introduce a waste food collection scheme that feeds into anaerobic digestion and, in turn, produces a renewable source of energy. Croydon council predicts that it will help the borough to increase its recycling rate from 32% to 46%, which, therefore, has the full support of the Government.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. In November 2010, I was one of the 5,000 people attacked by a dog since the consultation on dangerous dogs closed in June 2010. For fear of being called to order by you, Mr Speaker, I will not raise my middle finger to the Minister to show him the 1-inch scar left following the attack, but will he bring forward the proposals on dangerous dogs before the February recess?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
We are close to finalising a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners—I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been the victim of such an attack—and we will be announcing those measures soon. In putting the package together, we have considered the benefits of compulsory microchipping of dogs and extending the current law to cover private property, so that the police can deal more effectively with out-of-control dogs on private property. The final package will cover future Government handling of such issues, as well as other plans to improve standards of dog ownership.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
T3. Bearing in mind the years of chaos and the continued uncertainty about the future development of the Port of Southampton, can the Minister tell me what conversations have taken place with the ports Minister about how the Marine Management Organisation operates?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I have had conversations with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), about this. The consultation ends on 22 February. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a real drive among Ministers, and also in the MMO, to see an early resolution to the matter following the end of the consultation.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
T5. Following the Government’s admission that the UK remains in breach of EU pollution legislation, can the Secretary of State tell campaigners such as the Breathe Clean Air Group in my constituency what steps she is taking to address concerns about the impact of biomass emissions on air quality?
Mrs Spelman
We have worked hard with the Commission on air quality. We have brought a number of suggestions to the Commission about how we might help to improve air quality, particularly in urban areas, working closely with the Mayor of London, and also with other cities and their local authorities. The question of biomass emissions is part of that, but with technology advancing, it is possible to have a closed loop fermentation process, thereby minimising the impact of any emissions into the atmosphere.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T4. What is DEFRA doing to ensure that the British horticultural industry is not disadvantaged by the Rural Payments Agency suspending 17 producer organisations from the European fresh fruit and vegetable scheme?
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The European auditors decided a couple of years ago that we were not complying with the scheme, so unfortunately those 17 organisations have been suspended. I can tell him that the RPA is working closely with them to find ways to alter their operations so that they meet the criteria and can re-enter the scheme as soon as possible.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Would the Minister responsible for fisheries be prepared to meet the Yorkshire wildlife trust and other wildlife trusts to discuss the pace at which the Government are moving towards designating marine conservation zones?
Richard Benyon
I have meetings with the Yorkshire wildlife trust—I am a great fan—and would be happy to meet it again. The chairman of the Yorkshire wildlife trust is Professor Lawton, who has talked to me about that and other matters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are moving ahead as fast as we can. We have a cumbersome process, which we inherited, but I can assure him that we will be able to designate in accordance with the statement I issued before Christmas.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
T6. I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that canals and waterways are a great asset to Britain. In my constituency, we have the Stoke Bruerne canal museum and the Grand Union canal, with all the tourism and leisure activities that that brings. Can he update the House on progress towards creating a charity out of British Waterways and tell us what he thinks that will do to improve British tourism?
Richard Benyon
The museums have been a crucial part of the consultation up to this point. The negotiations with the trustees are at a final stage. They are going well, and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. I believe that the new charity will have a huge impact on the use of canals and on facilities such as the museums.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State held a number of round-tables in October with civil society organisations and business about the run-up to the Rio+20 conference next year. Can she tell us what specific measures she is taking to encourage those organisations to get involved in preparing the UK position at that conference—and may I ask her, with respect, to give us some specific measures, not a reference to “ongoing engagement” or something of that nature?
Mrs Spelman
I did indeed come straight back from a ministerial preparatory conference in Delhi, step off the plane and brief two large groups—the business community and the NGO community—at round-tables, the reason being that the Brazilian hosts intend in the days preceding the ministerial segment for business and for civil society to have a specific convention on sustainable development 20 years on from the original summit. We are seeing some early proposals from the Colombians on sustainable goals. In the run-up to Rio, we should reconvene the round-tables when there is something a bit more specific on the table, and work closely with both groups, the important thing being to get a good UK attendance.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
T7. The Food Standards Agency recently announced proposals for changes to the meat hygiene charging system, and I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s views on them.
Mr Paice
As my hon. Friend says, the Food Standards Agency has produced proposals that would lead to full cost recovery, a principle with which the Government agree. However, the magnitude of the increases for some abattoirs is extreme, and we are looking at that matter with concern because we clearly do not want abattoirs to be driven out of business.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), is the Minister aware that, in Westminster Hall yesterday, the shipping Minister described the five years of delays in Southampton’s port investment as a “cock-up” by the Marine Management Organisation and its predecessors? In the light of that, can he assure us that the MMO will have all the resources and expertise that it needs to deal with the application in a timely manner when the consultation ends?
Richard Benyon
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. This has been a complex process, because that action was brought by another company. We want to ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as possible, and I can assure him and other Members that Ministers in both Departments will work with the MMO to find an early resolution to it.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
T8. Does the Minister share my concern at the recent decision by the Food Standards Agency to turn down a licence application by Cranswick Country Foods to export to China? The matter was also raised last week at Prime Minister’s questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). Will the Minister give us some advice on how to bring pressure to bear on the FSA?
Mr Paice
I have already agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) wishes to attend that meeting, he will be extremely welcome. I cannot go into details now, but I must make the point that the role of the FSA is to ascertain whether the abattoirs meet the standards laid down by the Chinese; it is effectively acting as an agent for the Chinese Government in this instance.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there is widespread opposition in the south-west to badger culls in our local communities, not least because the scientific evidence shows that such culls are completely ineffective in curbing bovine tuberculosis. Now that the two pilot areas have been announced, what steps will the Minister be taking to consult local people?
Mr Paice
The answer to that question is in the written statement, but let me repeat what the Government have announced this morning. There are two areas in which the farmers will be invited to apply for a licence. The process from here on is in the hands of Natural England, and it includes a consultation with local people to ascertain their views. That will happen before Natural England decides whether to grant licences to those groups.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
1. What recent estimate the Church Commissioners have made on the cost of metal theft from Church of England property.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
6. What estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the number of churches from which lead has been stolen in the last 12 months.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
Ecclesiastical, the insurance company that insures the vast majority of churches, reports that last year alone more than 2,500 churches suffered thefts of lead, and that the cost of the resulting claims was about £4.6 million. Each of those claims represents a loss to a local community and a distraction to parishes from using their resources for local community life.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. I know that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the theft of metal from churches and from war memorials, and we hope that legislation or regulation will be introduced fairly quickly to deal with the problem. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ecclesiastical has placed a cap of £5,000 on claims against thefts of metal from churches? If that is correct, what is he doing about it?
Tony Baldry
Ecclesiastical is a private insurance company; it has nothing to do with the Church Commissioners. It has to make commercial decisions about the cover that it can provide to churches, and it has clearly taken the view that churches that have had lead stolen from them present a higher risk in regard to actuarial cover. That is all the more reason for us to find a resolution to the problem of metal theft as soon as possible.
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend may recall that last time we met I raised with him the issue of metal theft from war memorials that happened to be on church property. Since then, I have had meetings with people at the Imperial War museum, who told me that, of the estimated 100,000 war memorials in England today, only 60,000 are recorded. Will my hon. Friend enter into discussions with the Imperial War museum—perhaps in association with the Heritage Lottery Fund—to find not only funding but volunteers, so that we can complete the registration of all 100,000 war memorials?
Tony Baldry
As we come to the anniversary of the first world war from 2014 to 2018, I am sure that there will be considerable interest in war memorials. In my constituency and elsewhere, parishioners are writing books recording the history of those who took part, and I am sure that the Church would want to co-operate constructively with the Imperial War museum, the War Memorials Trust and any other organisation that sought to ensure that we protect war memorials. The theft of lead from war memorials is a particularly despicable crime.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
3. What the (a) income and (b) expenditure was of the Electoral Commission in the last year.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission’s audited report and accounts for the last financial year showed a net operating expenditure of £21.6 million and capital expenditure of £1.6 million. All expenditure was financed by income from the Consolidated Fund. The commission also received income of £148,000 from political parties, arising from registration fees and penalties for failure to comply with the rules on party and election finance.
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Electoral Commission will be reducing its core costs by 30% between now and 2014-15. The Speaker’s Committee takes this issue extremely seriously, and it is delighted that the Electoral Commission has come forward with a number of cost-saving measures. It is determined to deliver them and it will deliver them.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In light of the recent Electoral Commission report on registration, which showed a much larger number of unregistered people throughout the country, what consideration is being given to strengthening the Electoral Commission’s role to ensure that that does not deteriorate in future years?
Mr Streeter
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. As he knows, the primary responsibility for electoral registration rests with electoral registration officers. The Electoral Commission has made a number of representations to the Government for enhanced powers to intervene and direct where electoral registration officers are not coming up to the standards that we believe are appropriate in a locality.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
4. What plans the Church Commissioners have to provide support for Christian communities in Nigeria.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
Lambeth palace is in regular contact with the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Following a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury has continued to be closely in touch with him about the ongoing situation in the region. The Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Justin Welby, is currently visiting Nigeria on behalf of the archbishop. The Church of England supports the work of the Anglican communion in working with the Church of Nigeria to end the murder and violence. It is putting its efforts into supporting movements for peace and reconciliation within the northern and central belt communities of Nigeria.
Mr Nuttall
As my hon. Friend will be aware, attacks on Christians in Nigeria have greatly increased in recent weeks, largely due, it seems, to the activities of the Boko Haram group. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning those attacks and urge the Church Commissioners, after considering the findings of the Lord Bishop of Durham, to take whatever action is necessary to bring such attacks to an end?
Tony Baldry
I think everyone in the House would agree that to murder people simply for their religion or simply because they are Christians is totally barbaric, taking us back through the centuries. I very much hope that the Government of Nigeria will do everything they can to prevent the continuing murder of Christians. It is particularly disturbing that the person accused of bombing St Theresa’s church just outside Abuja was found hiding in the home of a local state governor.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I think this is the third month in a row in which the hon. Gentleman has had to answer questions relating to persecution or discrimination against Christians. Does he agree that the issue of persecution of Christians—or, indeed, of those of any faith—must now be taken much more seriously by international agencies, by this Government and by other bodies that can play a role?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
My borough contains the largest African community in Britain. Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the Church Commissioners might communicate better to Christian Africans in Britain what is being done by the Church in Nigeria and, indeed, in Zimbabwe, which is the subject of the next question? Will he also contemplate sending a small group of Church representatives who are from Nigeria and Zimbabwe to those countries, where they may be able to build a bridge?
Tony Baldry
The right hon. Gentleman has made two very good suggestions, which I will discuss with those responsible at Lambeth palace.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
5. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support and monitor the treatment of Christians in Zimbabwe.
Tony Baldry
Following a visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the region, where he and other bishops from southern Africa presented President Mugabe with a dossier of the abuses suffered by the Anglican community over recent years, the Church is very concerned about the increase in hostilities towards Anglicans in Zimbabwe in the past few months. Most recently, on 2 January, local security forces forcibly evicted 80 clergy who had assembled peacefully for an annual retreat.
Martin Vickers
The attacks on the Christian community should be roundly condemned. The Christian community in Zimbabwe will have valued and felt greatly strengthened by the archbishop’s recent visit, but, as the Bishop of Harare observed recently, the persecution continues. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Church Commissioners, in co-operation with the Government, will continue and, indeed, increase the pressure?
Tony Baldry
I can certainly give that assurance. I think it particularly despicable that it is now necessary to obtain police permission to gather for prayer in Zimbabwe: that is exceptionally sad. We will continue to co-operate with whoever can help us to exert pressure to ensure that Christians in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world are free to worship as they wish.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
7. What steps the Electoral Commission plans to take on voter registration in areas where it is low.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission’s research has identified some categories of people who are less likely to be registered, including those in private rented accommodation, those who have recently moved house, those aged 18 to 35, and certain minority ethnic groups. The commission directs its public awareness activities towards those groups. However, it encourages not just electoral registration officers but all colleagues who take a close interest in the matter to do all that they can to deal with the issue of low voter registration.
Mr Buckland
We in Swindon are lucky enough to have dedicated electoral registration officers, but performance across the country is patchy. We have been hearing of the possibility of enhanced powers for the Electoral Commission. How quickly can those powers be awarded in order to ensure that we obtain the highest possible level of electoral registration throughout the country?
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As he says, the performance of electoral registration officers around the country can be patchy. The Electoral Commission works with EROs up and down the land to try to improve their performance, but the process would be enhanced if the Government gave the commission additional powers. When that will happen lies in the hands of the Government, but I am sure that Ministers have listened carefully to this exchange of views.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
9. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with Ministers on the Government's forthcoming consultation on marriage.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
There have already been discussions between Church representatives and Government Ministers on this subject, and more are in prospect. It will come as no surprise to the House that the Church of England holds firmly to the view that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
Andrew Selous
What reassurance can my hon. Friend give churches in my constituency, which have contacted me about their fear that they may be prosecuted for discrimination if they persist with traditional marriage?
Tony Baldry
The Government have given an assurance that that is not the case. The law states plainly that individual denominations may make perfectly clear that they can continue to ensure that marriage is celebrated between a man and a woman, and the Church of England will continue to do so.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
10. How much funding the Church Commissioners have made available to cathedrals in the last year.
Tony Baldry
Next year the Church Commissioners will give Truro cathedral some £348,000 towards the operation and running of the dean and chapter, a 4% increase. The cathedrals building division will of course continue to look sympathetically on any specific request from Truro for support relating to the fabric of the cathedral.
Sarah Newton
I are grateful for that response to the discussions that we have been having. Truro cathedral plays a vital role in the city, not only through its ministry but through its contribution to quality of life and the local economy. I welcome the support that the Church Commissioners are giving to the cathedral, and I hope that they will continue to look favourably on the work that it is doing in its Aspire project.
Tony Baldry
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Nowhere else in England are the early Celtic roots of Christianity so obvious as in Cornwall, with its profusion of local saints. Truro has the distinction of being the first entirely new cathedral foundation since the Reformation. Like other cathedrals, it plays an important part in the life of the local community and the county, and the Church Commissioners will continue to give the cathedral of Truro every possible support.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will know that other cathedrals have also suffered from metal theft in recent days; there were reports in the newspapers this week of Manchester cathedral being hit. Given the impact of metal theft and further to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier answer, will he tell us how many churches and cathedrals have applied for support from the listed places of worship grant scheme and whether the scheme is sufficient to meet demand?
Tony Baldry
There will always be considerable pressure on the listed places of worship grant scheme. Let us be clear that there is no way that the Church of England or any other Church can cope with the present level of theft of lead from churches and cathedrals. I hope that the Government will introduce measures to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 as soon as possible to stop that continuing violation of our national heritage.
Business of the House
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 23 January—Opposition day (un-allotted day). There will be a debate on rising food prices and food poverty followed by a debate on youth unemployment and taxation of bank bonuses. These debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Tuesday 24 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 25 January—European document relating to EU criminal policy. To follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 26 January—General debate on progress on defence reform and the strategic defence and security review. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 30 January will include:
Monday 30 January—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.
Tuesday 31 January—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill (day 3).
Wednesday 1 February—Consideration of Lords Amendments.
Thursday 2 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 2 February will be:
Thursday 2 February—Debate on Network Rail.
This year marks the happy occasion of the Queen’s diamond jubilee and I am today able to announce that an early celebration of that magnificent anniversary will be the attendance of the two Houses on Her Majesty in Westminster Hall for the presentation of Humble Addresses on the morning of Tuesday 20 March. On a day before then, which will be announced in a forthcoming business statement, there will be a debate on the motion
“That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.”
I hope the House joins me in looking forward to an important and happy event. On that theme, Mr Speaker, although the score is somewhat lower, may I wish you many happy returns of the day?
Ms Eagle
We all look forward to being able to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee, a remarkable achievement and a very happy reign.
Yesterday’s unemployment figures were desperate. There are now almost 2.7 million people without a job in this country, a 17-year high. This week, two independent reports predicted that the worst is still to come. One said unemployment would increase to a staggering 3 million, the other that it would not fall for four more years, yet all we get from the Government is talk and no action.
On Tuesday, the Economic Secretary actually boasted that the cost of living was coming down. Over the past year, unemployment has gone up by 17% in her constituency, so does the Leader of the House agree she is now a leading contestant to be this week’s most out-of-touch Minister? The Economic Secretary’s boss, the Chancellor, had to fly halfway around the world to Hong Kong before he felt he had sufficient distance between himself and his Back Benchers to announce that the Government would be willing to increase International Monetary Fund funding. While I understand why he might have wanted to make such an announcement 6,000 miles away, would it not have been better if he had made a statement to this House?
On 6 December, the House voted overwhelmingly to continue a debate on the economy in Government time. Given that the parliamentary managers are yet again struggling to fill the Commons timetable as a consequence of their gross mishandling of their legislative agenda, will the Leader of the House now bow to the clearly expressed view of this House by letting the Chancellor know that it is safe to come home and by finding time for a debate on the Government’s mishandling of the economy?
Will the Leader of the House assure me that if we finally get an announcement on tackling executive pay, the Business Secretary will make it to this House first? It is unacceptable that he appears to have lined up a speech to a think-tank next week to make this announcement. He should make a statement to this House and then give a speech to a think-tank, not the other way around. With bankers set to award themselves massive bonuses while millions of hard-pressed families are struggling to make ends meet, we need Government action now, not promises of action at some point in the future or lectures to think-tanks.
Up to 100,000 people died during the famine in the horn of Africa last year. The House will have seen the report that found that this tragedy could have been averted if the international community had responded faster. There is now a growing food crisis in the west of Africa. Will the International Development Secretary make a statement to reassure the House that mistakes made in the horn of Africa last year are not being repeated in the west of Africa this year?
This week, the Government announced a commission into the so-called West Lothian question. Rather than following the cross-party approach we took when setting up the Calman commission and the current Welsh Secretary took when establishing the Silk inquiry—both of which were on devolution matters—the Government have, outrageously, chosen to proceed without any input at all from opposition parties. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that this is yet again constitutional tinkering to secure partisan electoral advantage. Will the Leader of the House explain why cross-party agreement was not even sought?
Tomorrow there is legislation before this House—not Government legislation, needless to say—to clamp down on metal theft. Will the Government confirm that they will now support this important piece of legislation, given the growing problem, as highlighted in Question Time?
We learned from yesterday’s Telegraph that the Government are to launch a consultation on building a new airport in the south-east. Had the Transport Secretary announced it last week when she was before this House, Members would have had the opportunity to question her. According to media reports, a Conservative source said there were timetabling problems because “at the last minute” the Deputy Prime Minister “stepped in to block” that. Coalition infighting may explain the discourtesy to this House, but it does not excuse it. Will the Leader of the House tell us how much this consultation will cost?
I am sure the Education Secretary deeply regrets the fact that coalition tensions mean his confidential Cabinet correspondence has been leaked to the media. Will the Leader of the House confirm that a leak inquiry has been set up? Is not the leaking of Cabinet correspondence the latest sign of growing coalition disarray? The Liberal Democrat leader now spends his time doing interviews claiming credit for allegedly blocking Conservative proposals. In turn, an ally of the Prime Minister is quoted in the Telegraph saying of the Deputy Prime Minister:
“No one has noticed, but there isn’t much about him that is British.”
What sort of Government do we have when the announcement of important infrastructure proposals is delayed by coalition infighting, and when the Transport Secretary then announces that policy—in the media—the Deputy Prime Minister briefs the media that he is going to veto it anyway? This is a complete and utter mess.
We learned from Now magazine that the Prime Minister and his wife have a “date night” each week. Given coalition tensions, perhaps Conservative Cabinet Ministers should have date nights with their Liberal Democrat colleagues. May I suggest that the Education Secretary might want to go on a date with the Energy Secretary to discuss the leaking of Government correspondence? I can understand that no Minister would want to ruin their evening by spending it with the Deputy Prime Minister, but perhaps someone could take out the Business Secretary to remind him that since joining the Government he has abandoned everything he said on the economy when in opposition.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to draw attention to your birthday in case the Prime Minister now starts poking fun at you because of your age, but happy birthday—I hope you have a good one.
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity to debate unemployment on Monday, as I note that the Opposition have allocated half a day to it. I just make the point that youth unemployment increased by 40% when world trading conditions were benign and, obviously, it is a challenge for any Government, particularly one tackling a huge deficit, to deal with youth unemployment when world conditions are less benign than they were, but the Government will be happy to set out on Monday the steps that we are taking—the youth contract, the Work programme, and the initiatives on apprenticeships and work experience, among others—to bring down youth unemployment.
This country is a good supporter of the IMF, and there are no firm proposals from the IMF at the moment to increase contributions. Our position has not changed: we have been prepared to provide resources in the past and we would be willing provide them in the future if a strong case is made, but we have made it absolutely clear that the IMF cannot lend money to support a currency and, of course, we would have to come back to Parliament if the request took the Government over the limit that has been voted on.
On legislation, and returning to what the shadow Leader of the House has said in past weeks, I hope she will welcome the fact that a lot of legislation is to be dealt with in the two weeks that I have just announced, with three days of it in the second week. On debating the economy, I just remind her that we had no debate on the pre-Budget report in one year when her Government were in office and had sole control of the timetable. Indeed, we went for months without any debate on the economy under a Labour Government. On the Business Secretary, he is well aware of the ministerial code, which of course he will observe; all important announcements of policy will be made, in the first instance, to the House of Commons.
I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House raises the matter of bank bonuses, because the Labour party did absolutely nothing about them when it was in government. We have already had the Merlin agreement last year, which capped cash bonuses at £2,000, and she must await further announcements about what we plan to do about executive pay.
On what the shadow Leader of the House said about Somalia, my view is that this country led the way in the support that we extended to Somalia and that if other countries had responded as proactively as we did, the harm might have been reduced. However, I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development the point that she made about learning any lessons.
The coalition agreement contained a clear commitment to establish a commission to look at the West Lothian question. That question was one of the many unanswered constitutional issues we inherited from the outgoing Government. On metal theft, the hon. Lady must await the views of the Government, which will be set out in response to the debate tomorrow on a private Member’s Bill.
On airports, the coalition parties are united in rejecting a third runway at Heathrow—the Labour party backed that runway in government but they have now joined us in opposing it in opposition. No decisions have been taken on the estuary airport. As the Chancellor made clear in his autumn statement,
“we will explore all the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 806.]
We will consult on an overarching sustainable framework for UK aviation this spring and publish a call for evidence on maintaining effective UK hub airport connectivity.
On relationships within the coalition, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I are at one; we are as brothers in our approach to the issues for which we have responsibility, and not a cigarette paper could be found between us on any issue.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
On Saturday, I was pleased to welcome the current and former chairman of the all-party angling group to my constituency where we waded—or rather, walked, because we did not have to wade—down the dry river bed of the River Kennet, which is a world famous chalk river. Could we have a debate on the water White Paper, which sets out proposals for changing abstraction regimes, as we as MPs would like to know more about the detail?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for the point she makes and for her interest in angling. I cannot promise a debate on the White Paper in the very near future, but she might like to apply for a Backbench Business Committee or Westminster Hall debate on what is one of the most popular recreational activities in the country.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
The Government have made an announcement on High Speed 2. They are also hinting at having a new airport in the Thames estuary, which the Leader of the House has already mentioned. What local people in Telford want is improved rail services connecting to Birmingham so that they can connect to High Speed 2. May we have a debate in the House on local rail services?
Sir George Young
I announced a few minutes ago that there would be a debate on Network Rail, which I very much hope will provide an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his legitimate constituency interests. We will set out the infrastructure investment that we are putting into the railway system, including new carriages, investment in new lines and increases in capacity, which I hope he will welcome.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out with billions of pounds of public money, saving thousands of RBS jobs, presumably including those of the people who currently run it. However, RBS is pushing Peacocks department stores, which account for 700 shops and 10,000 jobs, towards administration. Is it not the role of the Government to intervene, when they own the bank, and can we have a debate on that?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the future of Peacocks, but I would be cautious about the Government intervening and trying to micro-manage lending decisions, which are best taken by the banks. There will be an opportunity to raise the issue of bank bonuses on Monday, but I shall draw his concerns about the future of Peacocks to the attention of the Business Secretary to see whether there is any action we can take to minimise the pain.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I declare my interest and remind the Leader of the House that 80% of amputations due to diabetes could be prevented and that 24,000 people with diabetes died last year because they could not manage their condition properly? May we have an urgent statement from the Government about what their diabetes strategy will be in the new health reforms?
Sir George Young
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. We do have a strategy for trying to reduce the harm that is done by diabetes. I think it would be an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall, where we could set out our strategy in more detail, but he is right—there is a growing incidence of diabetes and there is an imperative to take action to try to minimise the harm it does.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
May we have an early debate on who speaks for England and who should make decisions for England in an increasingly devolved United Kingdom?
Sir George Young
I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. We announced on Tuesday the establishment of the West Lothian commission, which will look at a range of options. For example, with issues that affect only England and Wales, one option would be that only English and Welsh MPs voted on such matters. In my view, that would be an appropriate rebalancing of the constitution to take account of the fact that in Scotland they have their own Parliament in which issues are resolved on which English MPs cannot vote. It seems somewhat perverse that Scottish MPs can vote on those very same issues when they apply only to England.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
May I welcome the Government’s announcement that during these difficult economic times no taxpayers’ money will be used to fund any building of the royal yacht? May I also ask the Leader of the House to assure hon. Members that that will include publicly owned bodies such as the banks, either directly or indirectly?
Sir George Young
The Government have made their position clear. We think the offer is generous but we have made it absolutely clear that no taxpayer money can be involved. I cannot add to what has already been said.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of a Mr Scott Venning and his company City Watch parking, a seemingly criminal organisation with shaven-headed enforcers who lift people’s cars and then extort money to return them?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend uses robust language. I know, because he has raised the subject before—it is a matter of deep concern—that he knows that the Protection of Freedoms Bill is currently in another place, and that when the Bill hits the statute book, hopefully in May, it will be an offence to clamp on private land and incidents of the sort that my hon. Friend has mentioned will simply be outlawed. In the meantime, I can only suggest that he uses his eloquence to try to get redress for his constituent from the offending company.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has not got anything against people with shaven heads, or who happen to have less hair than other people have, but we will leave it there.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Following on from the comments by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I am happy to report that there is an addition to the big society, and that is the Hannah Mitchell Foundation for the devolution of the north of England. Given the Government’s austerity programme, which is attacking people in the north of England, and the effect that is having, we are seeing a north-south divide, and it is becoming a major issue. Will there be a debate in Government time on the devolution of England, and the opportunity for northern England to seek the same position that Scotland and Wales have?
Sir George Young
I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government went there and tried to sell devolution to the north-east. There was a resounding humiliation for that Government in the referendum on that. I detect no appetite at all for the sort of initiative that he mentions.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if ever there are proposals before the House to change the status of marriage, any votes will be on a free vote?
Sir George Young
The issue of the guidance that may be given to my hon. Friends in the event of a vote would be a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, another of my brothers. My hon. Friend is way ahead of the game on this, in that we are about to consult in March on a range of options, including equal civil marriage. At the end of that consultation period there will then be proposals and possibly legislation, and it will be at that point that decisions will need to be taken about the status of any votes on that legislation.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
In the aftermath of last summer’s disturbances, the Prime Minister said that his Government would help affected businesses to get up and running quickly. However, a complex and bureaucratic application process has left nine out of 14 businesses in and around my constituency still waiting and unable to restock effectively. May we have an urgent statement, updating the House on those businesses still waiting for compensation, and what the Government are going to do to help our small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady is right that the Government made funds available. There was one source of funds, through the police authorities under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and there was another source of funds, I think through the Department for Communities and Local Government. I will pursue the issue that she raises and unblock any hindrance in funds flowing to her constituents, perhaps retailers, who have been adversely affected, and see whether we can make fast progress. It is our view that they are entitled to compensation; we want them to get it.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I also wish you a happy birthday? It is an easy date for me to remember because it is also my birthday.
Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recall me raising, in October 2010, the situation in Parliament square, when I described it as
“a no-go area surrounded by a campsite”.—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 256.]?
Will he update the House on progress in clearing Parliament square?
Sir George Young
I commend my hon. Friend for the initiative he has taken over many years to ensure that Parliament square is restored to its dignity. Following the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, powers were available to the Metropolitan police to clear the encampment, and the House may have noticed that, earlier this week, the majority of the tents were removed using the provisions in that Act. One encampment remains, which is subject to a High Court injunction, which I think will be addressed in a few weeks’ time.
I very much hope that before too long we can restore Parliament square to its former glory. It is at the centre of the finest capital city in the world, with Westminster abbey, the Houses of Parliament and Whitehall, and I very much hope that we can make the space available to people who have been denied that space by the activity over recent years. Finally, I would say that we have also restored the historic right to protest, as long as those protesting go home at the end of the day.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and I wish him a happy birthday too.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This morning we have seen yet again the contempt that the Secretary of State for Health has for professional people working in the health service, as shown by his comments that opposition to NHS reforms is just about spite regarding the pension agenda. May we have a debate in the House about who really supports NHS reform and who does not? May we also, in that debate, discuss why the Secretary of State has so much contempt for nurses and midwives and other professionals in this country?
Sir George Young
That is a travesty of the views of my right hon. Friend, who has on many occasions paid tribute to the work that nurses and doctors do within the NHS.
On the issue of pensions, our view is that a generous offer has been made to doctors and consultants. The average consultant retiring at the age of 60 will get a pension of £48,000 and a lump sum of £143,000, worth about £1.7 million in a pot. We think that is unsustainable, and we want a system that links pensions to lifetime earnings rather than final salary—a reform that I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome.
On the issue of NHS reform, the hon. Gentleman knows that there will be an opportunity for a further debate when the other place has finished its consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill. We believe that that reform is essential and that it is in doctors’ and nurses’ interests, because they are put at the centre of clinical commissioning.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Leader of the House knows that there will be a summit on European matters towards the end of the month—probably 30 January; my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) raised the matter last week. The European Scrutiny Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide for a debate before that summit, on the Floor of the House, for a minimum of three hours. The last time I asked this question, I was told it should go off to Westminster Hall or should be dealt with by a Backbench Business Committee resolution. That is quite inappropriate; this is a serious matter, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. It needs to have a general debate on the Floor of the House. Can we please have one?
Sir George Young
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is inappropriate to ask him to go to the Backbench Business Committee and ask for time in this Chamber for a debate on the European Council. That is precisely the recommendation that was made by the Wright Committee at paragraph 145. It explicitly says that the two days for the pre-European Council debates should be handed over to the Backbench Business Committee and it should find the time for them. My hon. Friend will have heard that the Government have made time available to the Backbench Business Committee. I am not sure whether he approached the Committee with a subject for the debate in the weeks that are forthcoming, but that is the appropriate way to get debates on the European Council, as outlined by the Wright Committee, whose recommendations we have implemented.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
May we have a debate on how local residents can be protected from bad-neighbour businesses, such as European Metal Recycling in my constituency, whose latest trick, flouting planning law, is to build a wall behind people’s homes of shipping containers three high, which it is welding together to make a permanent structure? That is the latest thing that it has done. May we have a debate about bad-neighbour businesses?
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear of the problems faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It is not clear whether the wall that the company has built had planning permission.
Sir George Young
If it has not, enforcement action is available: the local authority may ask that it be removed, and if it is not, remove it and then charge the business. I hope the hon. Gentleman will follow that initiative.
We have passed through the House the Localism Act 2011, which gives more powers to local communities to influence the environment in which they live. I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome the increased planning powers available to local government.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
In Great Yarmouth, we have seen a vast increase in the number of apprenticeships in the past 12 to 18 months. That has been a great asset in trying to match the skills available with the demands of industry in the area. May we have a debate to highlight the importance not just of apprenticeships but of vocational training in developing skill sets required by industry?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope he may catch Mr Speaker’s eye on Monday, when there will be an opportunity to debate the subject. In our first year we delivered more than double the number of extra apprenticeships we promised, and the Chancellor announced in May our ambition for 50,000 extra post-19 apprenticeships, funded from in-year spending cuts in other areas. We are keen to develop the apprentice agenda, and I welcome what my hon. Friend said about his constituency.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker—and my colleague on the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). You share this day with the first anniversary of the introduction of the Health and Social Care Bill—a day that will obviously live in infamy. We need an urgent debate on what is going on on the ground, because we now have credit agencies involved in the health service, 2,000 job losses—according to the Royal College of Nursing—and the Information Commissioner not being able to release the appeal from the Government into the risk assessment. We need the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to answer questions as to why he is usurping the will of Parliament and putting through these reforms before the Act has been passed.
Sir George Young
I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the request that the hon. Lady has made about information—I think that was the gist of her question—and of course I will pass that response on to her. The Bill has passed through the House and, as she knows, once a Bill gets a Second Reading certain actions are allowed to proceed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has done nothing that is in any way inappropriate. As I said, there will be an opportunity to debate the Bill when it returns to the House, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
May we have a debate on child abduction? International rates of child abduction are up 10% this year. Is the Leader of the House aware of the anomaly in the law whereby the abduction of a child to a foreign country is a criminal matter, but if a parent initially gives permission for the child to go on holiday but the child never returns it is a civil matter with little protection? May we address this loophole?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right that the number of abduction cases is growing. If a child is abducted to a country that has not signed up to The Hague convention, there are real difficulties getting them back. I will draw the possible loophole to the attention of the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to see whether action can be taken to close it.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Many of my constituents work in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office in Cumbernauld, the largest in the country, and are worried about what they perceive to be the creeping privatisation of HMRC through the introduction of private providers in its call centres. May we have a debate on whether bringing private providers into the call centres is sensible?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the previous Government used private agencies in public sector organisations where that was the right way to proceed, and I am sure that he would support measures to reduce costs within HMRC and make it more efficient. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team will be here on 24 January for Treasury questions, when the hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to ask his question again.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I asked the same question last week and the Leader of the House replied in his best insouciant manner, but I am afraid that that is not good enough. Today we will have a debate on the connecting Europe facility, which is one part of the matter, but he is denying Members the opportunity to discuss these issues, as other countries do, on the Floor of the House before the Prime Minister goes to the European summit. It is not good enough for the Leader of the House to tell us to go to the Backbench Business Committee. I have been to the Committee, but it has no time and will not give us the debate—it is down to him. This is a major issue, and the House is not overstretched. Imagine if someone had asked for a debate on German rearmament in 1930s and the then Leader of the House had said, “Oh, just go off to Westminster Hall or the Backbench Business Committee.” It is ridiculous. These are important matters that should be in a central debate.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there are regular debates on Europe in the Chamber—there is one today and I have announced another for next week. If I may say so, he glosses over the whole thrust of the Wright Committee’s recommendations, which was that the Government should provide time for Government legislation and no longer control exclusively the diet of the House. The time we used to have for the debate he refers to has been handed over to the Backbench Business Committee. That empowers the House by giving it a power that has been taken from the Government. It is for the Committee to decide whether to give priority to my hon. Friend’s request or to those of other Members. I am not sure whether he has been to the Committee recently to make his request, but ultimately it must decide whether to accede to it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), told a Committee of this House earlier today that Birmingham city council is cash-rich and the Conservative/Lib Dem administration running the city is sitting on millions of pounds. The administration says that the budget is dire, which is why it has been forced to make such savage cuts in services. They cannot both be right. May we have an urgent statement so that we can uncover the truth about the council’s financial circumstances?
Sir George Young
I am reluctant to get involved in a west midlands turf war between my hon. Friend the Minister and the local authority. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise the matter again during Communities and Local Government questions. In the meantime, I will ask the Minister whether he would like to respond.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on nursing care in the NHS, a subject recently raised by the Prime Minister? Most nurses do an excellent job, but sadly some patients have distressing experiences. Does the Leader of the House agree that, rather than focusing on structures, we need to concentrate on high standards of care closely supervised by ward sisters?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend might know that the Prime Minister recently made a speech in which he outlined the steps the Government are taking to remove red tape and bureaucracy so that nurses can devote more time to patient care. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is very much in line with the Government’s policy of enabling nurses to use their skills to drive up the quality of care in our hospitals.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
On Tuesday the Secretary of State for Defence announced that 4,100 servicemen and women will be made redundant. Why was an oral statement not made to the House so that we could question him on the implications of the decision? Will the Leader of the House ask him to publish before next week’s debate a statement on the implications for Yorkshire regiments, such as the Green Howards, and others in the Army’s key recruiting grounds in Yorkshire and the north-east of England?
Sir George Young
I believe that the announcement was made in an appropriate way in a written ministerial statement, a procedure for which I think we can find precedents. I will ensure that by the time we have the defence debate that I announced a few moments ago Defence Ministers will have the detailed information the hon. Gentleman has asked for and, if possible, will let him have it before the debate.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that our country’s reaction to the drought in Somalia was impressive, but it was the worst drought for six decades, thousands of people have been displaced, millions have been left starving and the threat to international trade and security in the region is ever-increasing. May we have a debate on Somalia on the Floor of the House?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Despite the best efforts of the African Union, the United Nations and international diplomacy, Somalia continued to slide backwards. He might know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has convened an international conference on 23 February, to which he has invited representatives of 40 countries and international organisations, in order to identify measures that will restore Somalia to health and help address some of the problems my hon. Friend mentions, such as poverty, the threat to international trade and the threat from international terrorists now based in that country. I have noted his request for a debate.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will next week’s defence debate concentrate on the paramount need to reduce tension between the west and Iran in order to avoid this country stumbling into another avoidable war, and may we explain to those responsible that murdering Iranian scientists can have only one outcome: making war more likely?
Sir George Young
I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman couched his remarks in a suitable way they would be perfectly in order in next Thursday’s debate. I have noted his views. There is a real threat to the rest of the world from Iran possessing nuclear weapons, and I think that it is right that a range of responses is available.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Given the concern expressed in the House about the protection and welfare of children, may we have an urgent statement from the Government on the preposterous actions of the Turkish authorities, who have issued an international arrest warrant for Sarah, Duchess of York, for daring to make a television documentary about looked-after children in that country?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. It is not the Government’s usual policy to comment on individual cases, but the Home Office confirms that it has received from Turkey a formal request for mutual legal assistance concerning Sarah, Duchess of York. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Public Accounts Committee learned yesterday that the NHS strategy for people with long-term conditions was ineffective for those with neurological conditions and not good value for money. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before the Health and Social Care Bill, which will make that pattern the usual one for particular conditions, returns to the House we learn whether that issue is one of the things on the risk register that the Government are seeking to block?
Sir George Young
I will raise the hon. Lady’s concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. She will know that we plan to publish a White Paper on long-term care in the spring, which I hope will drive up the quality of care. I will pass her request for data on to my right hon. Friend.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Last week I paid a visit to the Leek campus of PM Training, a vocational training organisation providing skills and vocational training for the young people furthest from the workplace. One of the keys to its success is its zero-tolerance policy on attendance, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the Government and others can take action to encourage attendance at school and prevent truancy in order to give all our young people the best start in life?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises the important issue of truancy in schools. We have reduced the threshold at which a pupil is defined as persistently absent from 20% of time missed to 15%, ensuring that schools act earlier to deal with absence; and we are looking at the range of sanctions that can be placed on parents of truanting children, with a view to introducing higher fines and a more consistent application of sanctions. I hope that goes in the direction that my hon. Friend has indicated.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I have always thought that the Leader of the House is the most reasonable of the brothers on the Government Front Bench. Does he agree with me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and several Members on both sides of the House that existing firearms legislation, which is scattered among 34 Acts of Parliament, needs codifying, and that, in view of the terrible events in my constituency on new year’s day, it would be timely to have a debate on the merits of such a course of action?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and understand his constituency concern. The Home Affairs Committee recently produced a report on the issue, but it did not recommend a reduction in the age at which people can hold a shotgun licence. There were other recommendations in the report, however, and I will ensure that the Government not only respond to it, if they have not already done so, but deal with the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises about codifying existing legislation on shotguns and trying to achieve a more rational approach.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
The issue of feed-in tariffs is ongoing at the Court of Appeal, and we are still not sure when it is going to lay down a judgment. Will the Leader of the House therefore ask the relevant Minister to table regulations so that the 40-day period can start and solar companies can have some clarity for the future?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have appealed against the initial decision, and we await the outcome. Without the action that we took, the money that is available would simply have been soaked up within a few months, and the entire £800 million budget would have been exhausted. I will pass on to the relevant Minister the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about early action now, in advance of the appeal decision, but I am not sure whether that is a practical option.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and penblwydd hapus i chi.
May we have a debate on the nonsense issue of copyright law and university examination papers? Universities are unable to share past examination papers either in digital form or in photocopied classroom handouts because of third-party information in the questions. That is a nonsense, as universities are liable to prosecution if they do so, and it prevents students from preparing for exams. I am aware that the Conservative party had a manifesto pledge to deal with the issue.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is a long time since I had anything to do with university examination papers, but I will of course raise with my right hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the important copyright issue she raises to see whether there is a way through the dilemma she outlines, whereby it is apparently illegal to share past papers, which might be in the interests of students.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
In Tamworth the governors of Greenacres primary school hope to integrate with the local Landau Forte academy so that both schools can work better together to identify the most disadvantaged youngsters and help them before they reach secondary school. Such vertical integration between schools is highly innovative, so I hope that the Leader of the House will grant time for a debate about it and other similar innovations in education.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point about the advantage of vertical integration between primary and secondary schools. It would be an important issue for a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, and I understand that so far 29 “all through” sponsored academies have opened, with the latest doing so this month. There is a need to promote the seamless transition from one school to another, and the process that he outlines assists that and is greatly to be welcomed.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
In these straitened economic times, I have had to intervene on several occasions on behalf of local businesses, which for non-payment or late payment of taxes have been threatened by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with a range of sanctions up to and including closure. May we expect an early debate, attended I hope by both Business and Treasury Ministers, so that the House can remind them that sometimes a more softly, softly and common-sense approach is more effective and, certainly, more appropriate than one of bullying?
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear that some of the businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency face such action. From my own experience, I know that quite often an intervention from a local Member of Parliament can secure a modified approach, and it is the Government’s view—we have set it out at some length—that, given the problems facing many businesses, HMRC should exercise restraint where appropriate. I shall pass on his concerns to my hon. Friends at the Treasury, and he might like to raise the issue at Treasury questions on Tuesday.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I, too, take this opportunity to wish you a happy birthday?
May we have a wide-ranging debate on Britain’s contribution to the IMF? Would the Leader of the House like to put it on the record that, if any new contribution is sought from the United Kingdom, there will be a vote in this House before it is provided?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that important matter, and the position is as I set out a few moments ago: the Government have authority to increase their subscriptions to the IMF up to a certain level, and if any new bid from the IMF requires a contribution that takes us over that level it will of course be a matter for Parliament to debate and approve.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I confess that I rather like the right hon. Gentleman and his approach to business questions, but he really must answer the point that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made earlier. The feed-in tariff consultation was ruled illegal; the Government have appealed against the judgment, at a cost of £58,000; and as yet there is no outcome. But in my constituency, businesses that manufacture and install solar panels are suffering confusion because of that shambles, so may we have an early statement on the matter?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity next Thursday to cross-question Ministers, but the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would go against the action that the Government have taken to appeal against the decision. He is in effect inviting us to admit, by taking the action that we do not want to take, that we have lost the appeal—[Interruption.] And I see from his body language that I have correctly identified the problem for the Government. We must simply await the outcome of the appeal.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This week the Foreign Secretary revealed that there is a secret bunker from which the Government will be run in the event of some catastrophic and destabilising incident. Unfortunately, we do not know who would be in the bunker or who would be in charge. I should hope that the Leader of the House would make it, and for that matter his brother, the Deputy Leader of the House, but may we have next week a written statement listing all the people who would be in the bunker?
Sir George Young
No. But I was sorry to read in Hansard that among those specifically excluded from the bunker was Mrs Bone.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House say a little more on whether the Government will support the Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill, which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones)? I also heard the comments of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and a great many Members want something done about the issue. Would not supporting the Bill allow action to be taken before the Queen’s Speech and the Olympics? We really do need something doing rather quickly.
Sir George Young
The Government are concerned about metal theft and the damage it is doing to churches, monuments and other buildings throughout the country, and there is a working party within government looking at a range of options, such as banning cash payments and better licensing. The Government will outline their views on the Bill when we reach it tomorrow, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously, we are looking at a package of measures and we want to make progress.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
May we have a debate on the way in which income tax policy affects families? The CARE report on the taxation of families highlighted the fact that single-earner families in the United Kingdom pay a disproportionate amount of their income in tax. In view of the hint by the Prime Minister that the decision on child benefit will be revisited, is now not the time to have a debate on a tax system that is equitable for all families in this country?
Sir George Young
I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. The Government have made it clear that as we reduce the deficit it is appropriate for those on higher incomes to make a contribution. Against that background, we announced that households with one or more higher rate taxpayer would forgo child benefit from next year. That remains our policy. We are looking at how it will be implemented and hope to make further announcements in due course.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a statement later today from the Prime Minister on responsible capitalism? Peacocks, which is based in Cardiff, has gone into administration, as we heard earlier. RBS pulled the plug on the finance for the company, yet we hear that its chief executive, Stephen Hester, is to get a £1.5 million bonus. When will the Prime Minister actually do something about this, rather than giving the impression that he is busy doing nothing and working the whole day through to find lots of things not to do?
Sir George Young
It is not the case that the Government have done nothing about bankers’ bonuses. A moment ago, I outlined the action that was taken through Merlin to cap cash payments at £2,000 and to get bonuses on a downward trajectory. The hon. Gentleman will know that we finished consulting on executive pay in November. We hope to make an announcement very soon. His Government totally failed to take such action over 13 years.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Huddersfield Town fans, and I declare an interest as a season ticket holder, are campaigning for the return of the club’s original 40% share in its home ground, the Galpharm stadium. I hope that an amicable agreement can be reached between the chairman of Huddersfield Town football club and the chairman of the Huddersfield Giants rugby league club. May we have a debate on football governance that focuses not only on club ownership but on the ownership of football grounds and stadiums?
Sir George Young
I, too, hope that there is an amicable resolution. An unamicable resolution between those two formidable people would be a sight to behold. There has been a Select Committee report on football governance. I hope that in due course the Liaison Committee will propose it for debate. That might be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise his concerns. In the meantime, I will see whether there is anything that Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can do to resolve the local tussle to which he refers.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health has now united doctors, nurses and midwives against the disastrous Health and Social Care Bill. In view of his comments this morning, will he be coming to the House to provide evidence for his claim that that is more about pensions than concerns over the Health and Social Care Bill? My constituents who work in the health service are concerned about the disastrous effect that the Bill will have on health and social care in this country, not about pensions.
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has consistently made clear his views about the valuable work that is done by nurses, doctors, midwives and others in the NHS. We are disappointed at the response to our proposals on pensions, which are based on the Hutton report. My right hon. Friend addressed the House on health at some length on Monday. Of course, he will also be available for Health questions. I reject the assertion, which we have heard on several occasions, that he does not value the work done by workers in the NHS—of course he does.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
There is considerable concern not just in Greater London but beyond about Thames Water’s proposal to create a Thames tunnel for a super-sewer in the near future. Will the Leader of the House look into how soon we can debate the Government’s policy statement on waste water, which is awaited? Will he confirm that this House will have a debate and a vote on that policy statement and on the power to transfer the decision on planning to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend raises an issue that is important not only to Londoners but to others who would benefit from the proposal. It would be an important infrastructure investment and I agree that it should be subjected to appropriate debate in the House. If he will leave it with me, I will see what would be the most appropriate forum for that debate. If certain issues were raised, there would have to be a debate under the Localism Act 2011. He should leave it to me to find an appropriate avenue for that debate.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are keen to see justice, self-determination, peace and prosperity for people in Kashmir. May we have a debate on that issue, because it would enable the relevant Minister to update the House on the Government’s work to encourage talks between Pakistan and India and to encourage economic development and better education and health care systems? Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be a good idea for a Foreign Office Minister to come to constituencies such as mine, where there are constituents who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise on how Britain could help in this area?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending a generous invitation to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which I will of course pass on. There was an opportunity on Tuesday, when we had Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter. I will pass on his concerns to the Foreign Secretary and ask my right hon. Friend to write to him.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Teachers’ ability to instil discipline in schools plays an important part in driving up educational standards. May we have a debate on this issue to ensure that teachers have the necessary powers and clarity on policy to reintroduce discipline?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right: teachers need to be able to enforce discipline in their classes. We have issued new, simpler guidance for teachers on discipline, cutting the length from 600 pages to 50. The new guidance states that no-touch policies are unnecessary, that teachers can use reasonable force to control or physically restrain disruptive pupils, and that heads can search for items such as alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property. I hope that that is a move in a direction that my hon. Friend can support.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Further to the exchanges that the Leader of the House had with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), may I join the calls for a debate on Somalia? There is a humanitarian crisis in that country, its political instability is well known and the conference that the Prime Minister is convening in February is potentially an important moment. It would be beneficial to have a debate ahead of that conference. I join the calls of other hon. Members for the Leader of the House to consider that request and I hope that he looks upon it kindly.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he couched that bid for a debate. I agree that it is an important issue. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I would like to reflect on the case that hon. Members have made for a debate on Somalia.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Last year, under the European health insurance card scheme, the UK paid £1.7 billion to other European economic area nations for the treatment of Britons abroad but recovered only £125 million from EEA countries from the treatment of their citizens in this country. May we have a debate on the efficiency of NHS trusts in auditing, and therefore in recovering, such costs?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about that imbalance in trade. My understanding is that it is due to the fact that more UK pensioners retire to other EU countries than residents of EU countries retire here. Under EU rules, we have to pay for the health treatment of those who retire to EU countries. The imbalance that he refers to is not a result of health tourism or the abuse of the NHS, although we are of course against those things, but due to the fact that more of our citizens retire to the EU than EU citizens retire here.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Next month, I will attend the official launch of the Ormiston academy in Cradley Heath in Sandwell, which is the latest school to become an academy in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on giving schools that are currently in LEA control similar powers to academies, so that we can drive up teaching standards and attainment in areas where LEAs are underperforming, such as Sandwell?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that we now have more than 1,300 new academies. The number of academies has risen sevenfold since we came to power. All the evidence is that schools that convert to academies do better than those that do not. On the issue of extending to local authority schools the powers that academies have, which was the thrust of his question, my initial response is to ask why such schools do not go for academy status and get the benefits in that way. I will, of course, pass on to my ministerial colleagues the suggestion that he has made.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Health Secretary claimed that the Health and Social Care Bill would put clinicians back at the centre of the NHS. In the light of the decision by clinicians to withdraw their support for the Bill this morning, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to make a statement to set out a permanent pause to this ill-fated measure?
Sir George Young
No. There was, as the hon. Lady knows, a pause last July when we had the NHS Future Forum, in which nurses and doctors were involved. I am sure that when the Bill goes through, doctors and nurses will welcome their increased responsibility for clinical commissioning, and it must be right for that to be transferred from primary care trusts to professionals and the NHS, who are more aware of the needs of those who need treatment.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker, and may you preside over many future such occasions in the Chair of the House.
Harrow council is currently considering two major developments. The first is a commercial development on Whitchurch playing fields and the second involves the demolition of a library, building on a car park and the demolition of a community centre, all to provide a superstore. The one common factor is that Harrow council owns the land and has failed to consult the public on the proposals. May we have a debate on transparency and consultation in local government?
Sir George Young
If the local authority has failed to carry out a statutory responsibility, namely to consult those affected by a development, my hon. Friend should raise the matter in the appropriate way. He can also refer it to the local government ombudsman if he believes that the local authority has in any way been guilty of maladministration. He will know that the Localism Bill will introduce a new requirement on developers to consult local communities, so I hope that in future local people will have more of a chance to comment on developments than they have at the moment.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Next month will see the 500th day in which the Leader of the Opposition has been in his post. Could Government time be given up to commemorate the occasion?
Sir George Young
House time is regularly given up to the Opposition, and there will be an Opposition day on Monday. The Opposition might like to take the opportunity to clarify some of the confusion that has arisen recently about what exactly their policy is on the measures that we have taken. First the shadow Chancellor says that the Labour party accepts them, then the deputy Labour leader says that it has not accepted the austerity cuts. I hope that when we have a debate on these issues on Monday, the Opposition’s position will become clearer.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House allow a debate following the recent disappointing report by the Government of Sri Lanka into the atrocities that took place there? May we have a debate on how to get justice for the innocent civilians who were killed?
Sir George Young
I commend my hon. Friend’s work as chairman of the all-party group on Tamils. I will raise with the Foreign Secretary the report to which he refers and see what action Her Majesty’s Government can take in response to it.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
May we have a debate about skills in the workplace? In my constituency, businesses have raised with me some of the challenges that they face in filling the vacancies that they have simply because of the lack of skills among applicants. They have also told me of their support for the various Government initiatives to address the problem, particularly higher-level apprenticeships.
Sir George Young
We all have a role to play in drawing to the attention of local employers what is available under the apprenticeship scheme and the youth contract. Under the youth contract, help of more than £2,000 a year is available to employers who take on young people. I hope that we all play a role in highlighting the Government’s provisions to reduce youth unemployment in our constituencies.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of a recent report stating that there were 2,823 incidents of honour-based violence in our country last year. May we have an urgent debate to consider what more can be done to address such horrendous acts of violence?
Sir George Young
Honour-based violence and killings are appalling crimes, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do all we can to tackle them. He will know that we published last year our action plan to end violence against women and girls, which outlined a range of initiatives, including some funds, to drive down that horrendous crime.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Staffordshire county council will shortly integrate adult social care and health services with the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership NHS Trust. I believe that that will bring great benefits to people across the city, the county and my constituency, and I pay tribute to all those involved for their hard work. May we have a debate on the integration of adult social care?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises perhaps the most important issue confronting the NHS, which has confronted it for many years, namely the iron curtain that has historically existed between the NHS and social care. I welcome the work to which he refers, which is breaking down the barriers, and I am in favour of joint commissioning and joint budgeting. I hope that the White Paper that we have promised in the spring will take that agenda forward, and I commend the work that is going on in his constituency.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
As we all live longer and enjoy more and more birthdays, Mr Speaker, not only social care for the elderly but palliative care is becoming the greatest challenge for the Government and Parliament. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there are early opportunities to debate those issues in the Chamber?
Sir George Young
One of the first actions that we took on coming to power was to ask Andrew Dilnot to undertake a review of the issues to which my hon. Friend refers. He reported last July, and we then consulted for a period of up to three months. We are working on a White Paper, and my hon. Friend will have seen that talks between the parties on the issue have now started. I welcome that development, and I very much hope that we can get a consensual approach to the long-term funding of social care.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Last year the Government estimated that cybercrime cost the UK economy £27 billion. May we have a debate on the issues surrounding cyber-threats to UK citizens and businesses?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Some 6% of gross domestic product is now accounted for by trade on the internet, and that figure is likely to rise. Of course, we want a secure digital environment so that that trade can flourish. He will know that on 25 November we launched the cyber-security strategy outlining a number of measures to protect economic prosperity, and we are investing £650 million in making our cyber-security capability even better. I would welcome such a debate, and he might like to approach the Backbench Business Committee.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
There has been a 70% increase in apprenticeship starts in Pendle over the past year, which is a bigger proportional increase than in the north-west or England as a whole. May we have a debate, particularly ahead of national apprenticeship week in February, to mark what the Government have done and what more can be done?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who may like to intervene in the debate on Monday about youth unemployment. He asks what more we are doing. We have commissioned Professor Alison Wolf to review vocational education, and we are trying to remove perverse incentives that may push pupils into easy options. We are working with employers and universities to identify the best vocational opportunities.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
In the light of today’s welcome report by the Procedure Committee, will my right hon. Friend make a statement about ways in which debates on e-petitions can be better accommodated by the House?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the Procedure Committee for the report on e-petitions that it has just published. He will know that some 3 million people have engaged with the e-petitions system that we launched, and it has inspired a number of good debates in the House and helped to shape Government policy on some key issues. The Committee states:
“The system introduced by the Government has proved very popular and has already provided the subjects for a number of lively and illuminating debates.”
I propose to consider the detailed recommendations in the Committee’s report and respond in the usual way in due course.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that ahead of all future European Council meetings, we have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we have the opportunity to set the agenda? In respect of the forthcoming European Council meeting, he set out in his reply to the business question that there is, in effect, a blank day that is set down for a general debate. May I urge that that day be used to discuss the agenda for the next European Council?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising and underlining a point that was made earlier in these exchanges. I think I am right in saying that the day that I identified for a general debate on a subject to be announced is after the European Council rather than before it, but of course I have taken on board the suggestions made by him and other hon. Friends. Along with the Backbench Business Committee, I will consider the matter before the next European Council meeting later this year.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can only assume that you have saved the best till last.
In reply to my question last week after the statement on high-speed rail, the Transport Secretary replied favourably to my request that everything possible be done to ensure that British-based companies receive the orders, such as my constituents who work at Tata Steel in Scunthorpe. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement on how the Government intend to achieve that?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know from the national infrastructure plan that HS2 will form part of a long-term pipeline of infrastructure projects enabling private sector firms to plan for the future. We are very keen that the UK’s supply chain industries should be able to benefit from those investments, and we want to ensure that our tendering procedure does all it legitimately can to enable locally based suppliers to bid. We are opening a dialogue with UK-based suppliers to ensure that they can bid competitively for future contracts, and we are using pre-procurement dialogue to encourage efficiency and innovation and to establish more sustainable supply chains.
Mr Speaker
I thank all 60 Back-Bench Members who asked questions on the business statement.
Personal Statement
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I would like to make an apology to the House.
A report has been published by the Standards and Privileges Committee following an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I failed to update in time my initial registration in respect of payments received from my previous employer during the months of June to October 2010. This I have now done. I also failed to declare an interest in speaking in two debates on 16 June and 16 September 2010.
Notwithstanding that the commissioner found, and the Committee noted, that the breaches were unintentional, I want to apologise unreservedly to the House, and I will in future fully abide by the rules of the House.
Mr Speaker
I thank and am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I remind the House that points of order do not arise on personal statements, but unrelated ones can now be raised.
Points of Order
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order for Ministers to abuse Opposition Back Benchers on the basis of their age or gender—[Laughter.] Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister do that to the 79-year-old hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). That problem was repeated today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Mr Shelbrooke, who is now engaging busily in a conversation with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones): calm yourself. The hon. Lady is raising a point of order about manners, to which I intend to listen and with which I will deal, and it hardly helps if people are sniggering and smirking at the point she is making.
Fiona Mactaggart
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Minister of State, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, did the same thing today when he described the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) as “hysterical”. You used the word “manners”, Mr Speaker. Is there anything you can do to promote better manners in this Chamber, so that Members do not face abuse from Ministers?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that “Erskine May” is clear that good temper and moderation in the use of language are the hallmarks of parliamentary debate—to those I would simply add good taste. I hope that that is helpful.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s business questions, I asked about a little boy who was being denied cancer treatment. Thanks to the intervention of the Leader of the House and the immediate intervention of the Secretary of State for Health, that treatment was granted. Sometimes the public get the impression that Parliament does not work, but on that occasion it clearly did. I wondered how I could get that on the record.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has done so and he knows it.
Bill Presented
Civil Aviation
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Theresa Villiers, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Justine Greening, Mr Secretary Paterson, Secretary Michael Moore, Mrs Secretary Gillan and Mr Francis Maude, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of operators of dominant airports; to confer functions on the Civil Aviation Authority under competition legislation in relation to services provided at airports; to make provision about aviation security; to make provision about the regulation of provision of flight accommodation; to make further provision about the Civil Aviation Authority’s membership, administration and functions in relation to enforcement, regulatory burdens and the provision of information relating to aviation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 275) with explanatory notes (Bill 275-EN).
Connecting Europe Facility
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 281 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16176/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 16499/11, No. 16006/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 15629/11 and Addenda 1 to 35, No. 15813/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to the European Commission’s draft regulations on the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20; supports the Government’s view that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial increases in EU spending in this area compared with current spend is unacceptable and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken to bring deficits under control in both the UK and countries across Europe; considers that spending in this area should focus on identifying and providing genuine EU-added value, and not on spending where domestic governments and the market are better placed to act; and further supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce both the Commission’s proposed budget for the Connecting Europe Facility and the overall level of spending in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20.
The European Commission’s proposal for a connecting Europe facility for transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure cuts across the work of Government. I am therefore grateful that I have been joined in the Chamber by ministerial colleagues from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in putting forward the Government’s case on the motion.
Matters of deficits, spending and growth are at the top of all of our concerns, not just here in the UK, but across Europe. Those issues go to the very heart of the continued instability in the euro area. That ongoing instability vindicates the Government’s decision to get ahead of the curve, cut our deficit and impose strict financial discipline on our budget.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Whereas many hon. Members will agree with the sentiment of the Government’s motion, the idea that we should contribute to the EU indirectly through the International Monetary Fund on the scale that is proposed is unacceptable.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend’s point is outside the topic of the debate this afternoon. He is aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments and assurances on that matter.
As I have said, at home, we have taken tough decisions to tackle our deficit and demonstrated leadership. We expect exactly the same leadership on spending in Europe from the European Commission, but whether on the annual budget or the financial framework, such leadership has been completely lacking. Instead of finding ways to cut spending or to drive better value for money, the Commission, through the connecting Europe facility, proposes to increase spending on transport, energy infrastructure and telecommunications by 400% as part of a multi-annual financial framework that increases payments by more than €100 billion over its duration.
Just as at home, where we have prioritised spending on growth while tackling the deficit, the Government would like a higher proportion of a restrained EU budget spent to promote sustainable growth. The proposal does not achieve that objective. We are arguing that spending should be lower, and that what spending remains should be focused on areas that offer genuine added value across the EU.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
A number of people who have written to me condemning the High Speed 2 project have alleged that Britain has to build it under the EU network ruling. Will the Minister confirm that Britain remains free to make its own decision on whether to have High Speed 2?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Following the intervention from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), is not the nation state rather than the EU the best place to judge how much should be spent, what it should be spent on and how efficiently it should be spent?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a debate to be had on where such decisions should be taken and what our priorities should be. That is why it is important for us to impose discipline on the EU budget and try to influence debate on it to ensure that when money is spent, it is spent well and wisely in pursuit of our objectives.
Let me remind the House of three key aspects of the Commission’s proposal for the next financial framework: first, an increase in the budget of more than €14 billion a year compared with a freeze on current levels; secondly, a new financial transactions tax to fund the EU budget; and thirdly, an end to the UK’s permanent rebate. That financial framework proposal and the proposals to increase spending through the connecting Europe facility are unacceptable.
In November, the House agreed that the Commission’s financial framework was
“unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control and stimulate economic growth”.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am following the Minister’s logic carefully and agree with him, but would it not be more sensible to set an objective of reducing the European budget by around a third, which is the cut that has been imposed on local government?
Mr Hoban
I will set out the Government’s position on the financial framework in my own sweet time.
Continuing financial instability in the eurozone owing to unsustainable levels of public debt makes the case for restraint stronger: the EU budget must be part of fiscal consolidation, not immune to it. As the Prime Minister has stated, alongside leaders from France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, the maximum acceptable increase in EU budget size until 2020 is a freeze in current payment terms.
Since November’s debate on the financial framework, we have made significant steps towards achieving that goal. In the face of a Commission proposal to increase the 2012 budget by 4.9%, the UK led the European Council in demanding, and achieving, a restriction of the 2012 budget to a real freeze to 2011 payments. In pursuit of a real freeze in payments, the UK’s position must, and will, be consistent and clear in annual budget negotiations, financial framework negotiations and negotiations on the individual spending programmes that make up the framework, of which the connecting Europe facility is one.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
When the Minister refers to seeking to achieve a real-terms freeze, what deflator or measure of inflation is he using?
Mr Hoban
The measure that is used in these discussions is the forecast of inflation provided by the EU, which is currently 2%.
The nature and size of these spending programmes are negotiated in parallel with the negotiations on the overall financial framework. That means that the eventual size and shape of the financial framework are influenced by negotiations on those individual programmes. Given our call for a real freeze, any increase in the size of individual programmes means a corresponding decrease in other programmes.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Will he confirm, as appears from the documents before us to be the Government’s view, that in just one of the documents—that on the trans-European networks—the European Commission is proposing a €40 billion increase above the level of the freeze he described?
Mr Hoban
In that €40 billion, there are three components. At the moment, about €6 billion is spent. The proposal before us represents an increase of €24 billion, which takes us to €30 billion. In addition, there is a transfer of €10 billion from structural funds, which gets us to the €40 billion figure. The actual increase is €24 billion, or about 400%. I think the whole House would agree that an increase of that scale is not acceptable. The €24 billion increase set out in the documents has to be seen in the context that the Commission’s financial framework proposal is €100 billion more than a real freeze. The Government cannot accept the Commission’s proposal for an increase in the facility, and we will argue for significant reductions to it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In discussions with the Commission about the proposed increases in spending, what justification does the Commission give regarding the ability to afford this extra spending, given the crisis afflicting the eurozone?
Mr Hoban
Of course, in a way, the Commission’s view is that it is probably somebody else’s problem to resolve the financing. It put forward measures in the multi-annual financial framework that will increase the amount of money flowing to Europe. It has put forward an EU-wide financial transactions tax, which we object to. Its view is that if such a tax went ahead, the revenues would go not to member states, to spend at their discretion, but to the European Commission to spend. As part of its financial framework, the Commission also proposed the end to our rebate—another proposal we would reject.
The Commission would look to member states to meet the cost of these projects, which is why it is absolutely vital that we work with like-minded allies to restrain the EU budget and ensure that we can spend more money at home, while less money goes abroad. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) chunters, but if he had listened to my speech, he would have heard me say that we have signed a letter with the Chancellor in Germany, Angela Merkel, and with the French President calling for a real-terms freeze in payments. That is the sort of alliance we can build in Europe. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment later, but I am rather bemused: the Labour Government talked tough in EU negotiations, but they happily gave away our rebate, costing this Government €10 billion over the life of this Parliament.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister is being far too generous to Labour Members. Over the last five years of the Labour Government, our net contribution to the EU was an extortionate £19 billion. Under this Government, it will be £41 billion, because Labour gave away a large part of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate. That is a disgrace, and Labour should be held to account for it.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
My understanding—I was not in the House at the time, so perhaps my hon. Friend can help me—is that the rebate was given up in exchange for reform of the common agricultural policy. Will my hon. Friend update us on how well that is going?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there were bold and tough words from the previous Government about being prepared to give up part of our rebate for real reform of the CAP. Well, we gave up our money, but we did not get real reform. That was typical of the Labour party’s reactions when it was in government: lots of tough talk, but no action to back it up.
Kelvin Hopkins
Like Government Members, I was opposed to giving up that great tranche of our rebate. The Government have made much of the issue. Is it not time they started trying to renegotiate the rebate to get it back again?
Mr Hoban
We have made it absolutely clear that the rebate is there to stay, and that is one of the key parts of our negotiating strategy.
I want to say a few words about infrastructure spending. The Government have made it clear that focused infrastructure improvements are a domestic priority. When undertaken wisely, it is clear they can boost growth, protect the environment and improve lives. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced investment of £100 million in the creation of up to 10 super-connected cities across the UK with 80 to 100 megabits per second broadband and city-wide, high-speed mobile connectivity. Last week, the Secretary of State for Transport announced details of the new high-speed rail network.
However, the key is having carefully focused investment. When prioritising spending for infrastructure, the Government have taken the wider economic context into account. The urgent need to reduce our domestic deficit has meant that we have had to choose our investments carefully and focus infrastructure spending on where it can have the most positive effect.
That is the approach the Commission needs to take to European infrastructure spending, focusing affordable levels of spending where they will make most difference. Therefore, while the Government will, first and foremost, argue for a reduction in the overall size of the connecting Europe facility budget, we will endeavour to ensure that the final settlement agreed is focused on spending money where it will add most value. That means spending money only where neither the market nor domestic Governments are better placed to act—the point the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made in his first intervention.
We will be pushing the Commission for additional information to allow us to judge where the money will best aid growth and support our environmental objectives. That is consistent with the Government’s desire to see spending that promotes sustainable growth take a bigger share of a tighter budget in the next financial framework. The ambition of the connecting Europe facility, while laudable, must respect the fiscal realities of Europe.
The Opposition have tabled an amendment to today’s motion. It is rather incredible, in a week when Labour’s policy on deficit reduction has become ever more confused, that the hon. Member for Nottingham East has tabled an amendment calling for an effective deficit reduction strategy. Ever since the shadow Chancellor said on Saturday that
“we are going to have keep all these cuts”,
the Labour party has been totally confused, with its deputy leader later saying:
“We’re not accepting the Government’s austerity cuts, we are totally opposing them”.
So Labour Members accept the cuts, but then oppose them.
Labour Members cannot say they are credible on the budget, because of the legacy they have left. Despite our entering the downturn with the largest structural deficit in the G7, the Labour leader told Andrew Marr this weekend that he did not think Labour spent too much. Let us remind him that it is because of Labour’s record on spending that our triple A rating was on negative outlook when the Labour party left office. That downgrade threat has been lifted because this Government have a credible and effective deficit reduction strategy. One would think that the Labour party would have learned from that, but, no—its five-point plan would add £20 billion to the deficit this year. Rather than seeing an effective debt reduction strategy from Labour, all we have is more of the same: more spending, more borrowing and more debt. So before Labour lectures anybody else on the deficit reduction strategy, it had better get its own house in order.
If that was not bad enough, the hon. Member for Nottingham East has scored another own goal in his amendment by calling for reform of the common agricultural policy—we touched on that earlier. We have heard brave words before from Labour politicians about CAP reform. Tony Blair said that
“the rebate remains because the reason for the rebate remains. Of course, if we get rid of the common agricultural policy and we change the reason why the rebate is there, the case for the rebate changes.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1293.]
Those were tough words, but as we know, he gave way to the French, sacrificing €2 billion in our rebate a year, which will cost the country €10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. In the current financial framework, CAP spending has not fallen, as Labour said that it would, but increased by €3 billion. So it is all very well the hon. Gentleman talking tough in his amendment, but we have heard it before from Labour—all bark and no bite.
Achieving the priorities that the House has supported in the next financial framework will not be an easy task. The Government need to defend the rebate, resist EU taxes and restrain the budget size. The UK can deliver results in Europe, as outcomes in the 2011 and 2012 annual budget negotiations have shown, but to achieve our overall aims we must be constant and vigilant in our resistance to increases in the budget. A 400% increase to infrastructure spending in the EU budget, without any corresponding reductions elsewhere, is unacceptable in the current economic environment. We will work with our allies to cut this programme down to size, delivering fiscal restraint and value for money. Although we are clear that we need infrastructure investment to boost productivity and growth, projects need to be effective and affordable, but the plans in the connecting Europe facility proposed by the Commission are neither. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to support the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I call him to move the amendment.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment (a), in line 5, leave out from ‘2014-20’ to end and add
‘believes that there should be no overall increase in expenditure compared with current levels; takes note of the concerns about the Eurozone economy expressed by Standard and Poor’s that “a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”; calls on the European Commission to reduce its proposed budget and the proportion of the Multiannual Financial Framework set aside for the Common Agricultural Policy and to reorder the Connecting Europe Facility proposals to phase capital infrastructure components so that they enhance employment and economic growth within a more limited multi-year budget; supports action to promote EU competitiveness and review the impact of the structural funds; and calls on the Government to develop more effective deficit reduction strategies at home and across the EU by advocating urgently a credible plan for growth.’.
I am glad that the amendment has been selected, because the Government’s motion is missing a rather important component—something conspicuous by its absence. To give hon. Members a clue, it is a word missing not only from the motion but from our economy.
What problem do the Conservative party, and those very full Liberal Democrat Benches, have with the concept of economic growth? The lack of growth is the reason the Government say they have to borrow £158 billion more than planned last year. It helps to explain why in the three months to November unemployment was at its highest level since 1994; and, of course, it explains why business confidence has collapsed. The Government are either ignorant of the negative impact that an austerity obsession here and in Europe is having on the prospects for growth, or they are wilfully pulling the rug from underneath the economy in the twisted expectation that that will somehow restore confidence and deal with the sovereign debts created in the wake of the global financial crisis.
The European Commission’s plans before the House are revealing of the current approach to economic policy across Europe and of the Government’s lack of influence and lack of interest in showing a positive lead. We are all agreed on the need to reduce the planned budget for the multi-annual financial framework for the years until 2020, and we too believe that there should be no overall increase in expenditure when compared with current levels, but why are Ministers totally failing to make the case for a proper growth strategy in Europe with our main trading partners, with whom we need to do well if our exporters are to succeed?
Mr Cash
I am extremely interested in the shadow Minister’s approach to the question of growth. When Labour was in government, over several years I raised the question about lack of growth and the vast increase in indebtedness, but there was no response or attempt to deal with over-regulation—over-regulation being one of the main reasons we are not getting growth. Does he accept therefore that it is difficult to stomach any lectures from him on growth? I have criticisms of the failure on growth in Europe and in this country, but we certainly do not want any lectures from him and his team.
Chris Leslie
I hope that I am not striking a lecturing tone. I am simply imploring the Government to pull their finger out and do something about economic growth in the UK and Europe. I am making the point that what happens in Europe affects our economy. The regulatory debate did indeed go on for many years. The Minister himself called for deregulation and light-touch approaches across the City and elsewhere. We have to get regulation issues correct, and we all have lessons to learn from what went wrong in that regulatory debate. We have admitted that mistakes were made, but I am still waiting for the Minister to accept that he too made poor decisions in calling for deregulation, particularly in financial services.
Nothing in the Government’s motion seeks to steer the Commission towards a more activist role in boosting and stimulating European economies, particularly in the short term. There is no sense that the Government are seeking to influence this connecting Europe facility in order to re-phase capital investment and bring real help now to an economy on the brink. One-dimensional collective austerity, as advocated by our Government—and also, unfortunately, by the Germans and others—makes it harder to get deficits down, not easier to reduce public debt.
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Six days ago, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s, after downgrading the status of some eurozone nations, stated that
“a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”.
Even the credit rating agencies are now worried about the lack of growth in the European economy and about whether the eurozone has the right strategy for building its way out of the fiscal hole in which it finds itself.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Given that we are net contributors to the EU budget, which puts a great burden on our taxpayers, will the hon. Gentleman explain how building a railway in Romania would help the UK economy?
Chris Leslie
It is important that the European Commission, and the eurozone in particular, focus on getting economic growth. My simple point is that it is not happening. An austerity-only approach is being taken, but it is not working, just as it is not working in this country. Of course we have to ensure that we reduce the proposed budget increases—we do not disagree with that—but there are ways to stimulate an economy within that envelope, including through a phased approach towards the European spending review process. That is my point. It is the glaring omission from the Government’s plans so far.
Mr Redwood
Will the shadow Minister bring us up to date with Labour thinking on the IMF having more money to lend to save the euro? Does Labour think that it would be a good idea because it would promote growth, or a bad idea because it would damage the British budget?
Chris Leslie
We are all waiting to see what proposals come forward. The Chancellor has said that he will come to Parliament and let us have a say on many of these things. Indeed, perhaps the Minister can help us out with the timing of those proposals—[Interruption.] If he would care to listen to my questions, perhaps he could also tell us when we will get the Bill to enact the European financial stabilisation mechanism permanent bail-out fund. We are all waiting for that. The eurozone countries are supposed to be rolling together the European financial stability facility and the EFSM into that permanent arrangement, but as I understand it we will have to legislate for that. Will he tell us when that will happen, because it is related to this question about potential IMF funding? We need clarity from the Government—and from the IMF as well.
Graham Stringer
I completely follow my hon. Friend’s logic, but surely this is not the largest issue facing the future of the European economy. The largest issue is that the people running Europe are determined to keep a political project going by competitive deflation in the countries of Europe. The best solution for the whole European economy is for an orderly break-up of the euro, particularly for those economies, such as Greece and probably Italy and Portugal, that are, in effect, bankrupt.
Chris Leslie
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the break-up of the euro would be in the UK’s interests, but there are dangers with a permanent deflationary lock in the fiscal policies of the eurozone countries. That is why, both in the UK and across the eurozone, far more must be done to get growth into those economies. They have to grow in order to build their way out of the hole that they are in. In that sense, the ambitions, which many people share, of improving infrastructure across the EU, while laudable, need to be seen in the context of the affordability criteria that must be applied to them. We have to act to unblock the clogged arteries of Europe, connecting the major cities of the continent, making it easier for business and opening new opportunities for growth in the single market. Capital investment in infrastructure is extremely important as a driver for growth.
What progress are Ministers making in shaping the European spending review? That is absolutely at the heart of today’s debate. After December’s phantom veto—the first veto in history that stopped precisely nothing—the UK has to pick up the pieces and try to influence the important EU budget process. The Minister was throwing around history lessons about the common agricultural policy and various other things. However, we need to know what exactly this Government are going to do about the common agricultural policy. What is he going to do about the spending proposals? Rather than walking away before the negotiations even begin and leaving another empty chair, the Minister has to raise his voice, build some alliances and secure a more appropriate level of expenditure that also shifts priorities.
Mr Bone
We have an excellent shadow Minister, who is always on top of his brief, but I do not think he was here when Tony Blair gave a commitment that the CAP would be reformed, so that our net contributions to the EU now would be at the same level as they were then. Clearly that was wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman and his party support our most excellent Minister going into battle and saying, “We’re not going to pay any more than our initial subscription was to the EU”?
Chris Leslie
I did not quite hear that from the Minister. If that is the Government’s position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Prime Minister on these matters—I would be very interested to hear it.
I agree that the proposed budgets for EU institutions are still too high. Export refund practices have to be cut back. We have to change agriculture policy so that it is fairer to smaller farmers and ends the ridiculous tobacco and wine subsidies that are lavishing payments on some of the very wealthiest players in the wealthiest EU countries.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s proposals might mean for crofters in the highlands and islands of Scotland.
Chris Leslie
We have to change the common agricultural policy. My point is that the CAP is far too heavily involved in subsidising the big multinational farming institutions, which are the largest agricultural producers, and is not fair enough on some of the smallest farmers and crofters.
Kelvin Hopkins
One simple point, which I have made before, is that if the common agricultural policy were abolished, we could continue to subsidise farmers at the same level and be net beneficiaries.
Chris Leslie
There is much agreement on the need to reform the common agricultural policy. More should have been done in the past, but more needs to be done now. I want to hear the Government’s strategy on that. I want to hear how they are going to win some concessions and what they are doing to change the negotiation stance. They are certainly doing nothing about refocusing growth priorities or reforming the common agricultural policy.
We have to re-order the connecting Europe facility so that we can phase capital infrastructure components and enhance employment and growth. While the 26 other countries are busy negotiating their new economic treaty without the UK taking part, they will realise that the EU budget is highly relevant to their economic predicament, particularly in the eurozone. I would therefore like to ask the Minister an important question: how will he ensure that he keeps track of all those discussions on the sidelines—all those deals being done in meetings that he will not be party to—so that the UK voice is part of the process?
We are discussing an important series of proposals, which touch on broadband, transport and energy policy. A year ago, the Government unveiled their broadband strategy. It is becoming clear that the vast majority of local authorities are not likely to meet the Government’s universal broadband target by 2015, which has already slipped by a couple of years compared with the target that we set when in government. We tabled some freedom of information requests before the Christmas break and discovered that 70% of local councils said that they had
“not made any plans, provisions or budgeted to take advantage of the Government’s funding allocation for broadband provision,”
and that 74% had had no assessment made of the likelihood that the roll-out of superfast broadband in their areas would be completed by 2015. The Minister therefore needs to explain why a quarter of local authorities say that they have not even been contacted by BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—about the need to secure funding; indeed, only a quarter have made plans to finance universal broadband roll-out. Even the Countryside Alliance and the Federation of Small Businesses agree that the Government are not doing enough to support Britain’s digital future.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It was the previous Labour Government’s policy to have a telephone tax. Does the shadow Minister still believe that the telephone tax is the right way forward? Yes or no?
Chris Leslie
I really do not think that anybody was proposing a telephone tax in the sense that the hon. Gentleman characterises it. We have to find ways to fund improvements in broadband communication, but my question to him and the Government is this: what exactly is their target for broadband roll-out? They have still not said. The EU is talking about some 30 megabits per second and 50% at 100 megabits per second by 2020, which is quite an ambitious target, and we had our targets for 2012. Perhaps the Minister can consult his colleagues on that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Chris Leslie
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but perhaps the Minister can listen to this. What exactly is the Government’s 2015 target, by megabits per second, for broadband roll-out? I would be very interested if he could elaborate on that. I will give way to the Minister if he has an answer to that, but perhaps my hon. Friend can also help me.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. It should also be pointed out that the Labour party’s target for universal broadband was fully funded from the digital switchover. The Minister talks about the need for targeted infrastructure investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that what businesses need right now, particularly rural businesses up and down the country, is a decent broadband speed to enable them to get online and contribute to growth as part of our recovery?
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is imperative that rural businesses should have that connectivity and that level of dialogue, e-mailing and information exchange as soon as possible. The data must be able to get out from those businesses and their localities. This delay and prevarication from the Government, in a strategy that does not even seem to have a target, is entirely atrocious.
On transport, no one would disagree—there is quite a lot of cross-party consensus on this—that we have to tackle bottlenecks and missing cross-border links, and promote new ways of improving the single market. We agree with the Government that there are potentially added elements of bureaucracy in the proposed project management of the core networks which conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. There is a risk that the comprehensive networks, and not just the core corridors that the EU is focusing on, might lose out if structural funds are not available for UK transport infrastructure projects. We want the trans-European network policy to concentrate not just on jobs and growth, but on decarbonising the transport sector—a modal shift from road to rail, particularly for freight—on greater connectivity within networks and, of course, on improved transport safety. A transport infrastructure that addresses economic disparities, and is aimed at delivering jobs and tackles the pinch points, gaps and capacity constraints in the EU networks is essential to tackling Europe’s continuing economic issues.
The Commission is probably correct to highlight the infrastructural deficiencies in our collective electricity and gas networks. However, there are some highly prescriptive elements of the Commission’s proposals, which may not allow the right degree of flexibility to accommodate some of the domestic UK projects and procedures that are already under way. For instance, there is a danger of overlap of activity on the North sea interconnector, which is currently being examined for feasibility. As for planning issues, much of the streamlining process has already been dealt with through the Planning Act 2008, despite the fact that the Government have already stepped away from some of the benefits of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We see no benefit in overlaying anything on that, leading to duplication and slowing processes down. We suggest that the Commission should instead concentrate its energy infrastructure proposals on the carbon capture and storage agenda.
Existing procedures for bidding for EU funding are under way, but the value of the funding is affected by the carbon trading regime. In recent months it has fallen, making the available investment worth less. Carbon capture and storage could make a significant difference to the viability of fossil fuel electricity generation, and has yet to be proven on a commercial scale. The role of EU funding in this area is becoming more significant since the collapse of domestic carbon capture and storage projects here in the UK in the past year. Despite the Government’s promise that the £1 billion funding would remain available for CCS, it has now been reallocated to the wider infrastructure fund announced in the autumn statement, leaving carbon capture strategy in the UK in some doubt.
The Minister mentioned the fact that the proposals touch on innovative financial instruments. There is a serious lack of clarity on what exactly the Commission is proposing, and what exactly the Government’s principles are on innovative financial instruments. We need more substantive debate on this matter, and more information ahead of the discussions. The Commission needs to reduce its proposed budget, and the Minister needs to get off the sidelines and step into the negotiations. The Government should be doing far more to reorder the phasing of the capital infrastructure schemes here in the UK and across Europe. Above all, they should develop more effective deficit reduction strategies at home and across the EU, with an urgent and credible plan for growth.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
As I understand it, the EU’s ambition is to develop a trans-European network in transport, telecommunications and energy as part of the treaty on the functioning of the EU. It therefore wants the budget for 2014 to 2020 to include sufficient funds to put an extra €50 billion into a connecting Europe facility. However, it also wants to regulate EU-wide programmes. Specifically, on transport, it is proposing that member states commit to a core network by 2030, and to a comprehensive transport network by 2050. The EU estimates that it would cost Britain between £64 billion and £137 billion to meet those targets over that period. Does the Minister believe that if such a regulation were to come into force under qualified majority voting, it could force Britain to spend that amount of its own resources in a way that would be directed by the EU? That would be an astonishing outcome.
On energy, the Commission believes that member states need to spend €200 billion on electricity and gas networks alone, and that €1 trillion is needed for EU energy infrastructure in total. Will the Minister tell me what proportion of that the UK would be required to spend, and whether that requirement would be enforceable at EU level under QMV?
On telecoms, the EU target for rolling out broadband is different from that of the UK. The Commission believes that there are telecoms bottlenecks that hinder the single market. In the light of our own recent commitment to rolling out superfast broadband, I would be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the British Government need the EU’s advice or the Commission’s targets on how, and to what level, we roll out superfast broadband here. Are those legitimate areas for the EU to be involved in, or are they domestic matters? Does the Minister see a pan-European angle to these questions or not?
What is the Minister’s view of top-down EU expenditure, made entirely at the taxpayer’s expense, as opposed to private sector, or combined public and private sector, investment? Is he aware of any efforts by the Commission to test private sector interest in some of its pet schemes? What proportion of the roughly €7 billion that Britain’s taxpayers would contribute to the connection fund would be spent here, where there is a huge backlog of infrastructure needs, rather than elsewhere in Europe?
I want to make three broad comments on the proposals, in support of the motion. First, I find it astonishing that the European Commission seems to be the only bit of Europe in which the recession, the financial crisis and the issues of sovereign insolvency have passed unnoticed. It is as though it were inhabiting a parallel universe.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of moving from Brussels to Strasbourg on a regular basis is an ideal budget item to be struck through before forcing member states to spend money on these proposals?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent idea. That would be high on my list of bits of wasteful bureaucracy to get rid of.
What sort of parallel universe is the European Commission inhabiting, if it thinks it reasonable to be expanding the European budget for 2014 to 2020 in the current climate? Why is the EU seeking to take power and control over these particular policy areas, at a time when they are already high on our own Government’s agenda? Requiring Britain to contribute to EU funds is not acceptable, and giving the Commission the authority to require Britain to make expenditure on its own domestic projects is equally unacceptable.
My second point is that the EU has proved itself time and again to be an inefficient allocator of scarce resources. In regard to structural funds, Open Europe estimates that Britain has contributed €33 billion between 2007 and 2013, and that we have received roughly €9 billion. If we took back control over that €33 billion, we might well wish to continue to contribute to the poorer EU member states—that is, those with a national income of 90% of the average or less. However, if we had contributed the same amount to those poorer member states, we could also have spent the same €9 billion that we received from the structural fund, creating a £4 billion saving. If Britain had allocated that same amount, €9 billion, to its own regions, plus the same amount to the poorer EU states, there would have been a £4 billion saving that could have gone towards reducing our deficit or investing further in the poorer regions of the UK. The difference identified by Open Europe’s estimate is a result of the leakage due to the recycling of cash between the richer countries.
It is interesting to note that the Department for International Development spends about 4% of its budget on administration, with a target of 2%. By contrast, the EU Commission spends 5.4% of its contributions to overseas aid on administration. No doubt it is very conscious of that figure, as it has been singled out for comment.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Lady is making quite an interesting point, but does she not agree that the problem with her argument is that the British state does not have any convergence mechanisms?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry, but I am going to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question. It does not have any what?
Jonathan Edwards
It does not have any convergence mechanisms for redistributing wealth around the British state; that is the whole problem.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He makes a good point, and he is absolutely right. It might interest him to know, however, that of the UK’s 37 regions—as defined by the EU—only two, Cornwall and west Wales, are net recipients of structural funds. All the other regions have been net contributors, including the highlands and islands region, which has contributed a net €66 million to structural funds over the past seven years, and the Tees valley and Durham region, which has contributed a net €453 million over that same period. He makes an interesting point, but in my view Britain would be far better placed to decide where to allocate those scarce resources.
Another illustration of the EU’s inability to do that job is the recent Commission study that found that 170,000 full-time equivalent personnel were needed for a whole year to administer the EU’s structural funds during the last budgetary period. That is an unbelievable number of people. On the grounds of efficiency, therefore, the allocation of funds would be far better being done at home.
My third point relates to legitimacy and localism, particularly in the areas of transport and energy. We are talking about huge, extraordinarily expensive projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. There is no doubt that, while we all want instant access to energy, we are not all so keen to have a nuclear power station two miles down the road. The case must always be made by democratically elected, legitimate leaders for the need for a particular project and/or location. HS2 is a very good example of a project on which a majority of those consulted rejected it, yet where the Government decided that it was in the national interest to disregard their views. In the case of the third runway at Heathrow, the Government decided that public opinion outweighed the national need for aviation expansion. My point is that the EU, with its remote and bureaucratic image in Britain, is hardly the right place from where decisions on projects that affect lives and communities should be taken. The great risk is that local priorities for infrastructure will be undermined while infrastructure for energy and transport projects will be forced on local communities that do not want them.
Let me end with a word of friendly advice to the European Commission. It should focus on facilitating the single market, expanding its membership and contributing to areas that are of common interest to all member states and where the EU together can add value. It should keep away from European domestic affairs and avoid the pernicious creeping power grab that this latest proposal so clearly highlights.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I disagree with the Government motion. I do so in part because the economic and financial position set out in it is in opposition to the policies I have espoused since I was elected, and I oppose it in particular because it would have the effect of further disadvantaging my constituents and my country.
The budget for the entire European Union looks small by comparison when placed in the context of national budgets. The majority of expenditure is on items related to agriculture and to those parts of the European Union that qualify for the cohesion fund in order to promote those areas so that their gross value added is increased to compete with more established areas of the European economy. What a pity that the British state does not employ similar convergence mechanisms! I hope that explains my earlier intervention.
The cohesion fund areas include my constituency in the west Wales and the valleys region. Whatever the arguments for the whole of the UK, and we have heard many powerful arguments to that effect, the redistributive nature of European funding is beneficial for many of my constituents. Indeed, the €50 billion recommended by the Commission in the next multi-annual financial framework for the connecting Europe facility specifically includes 20% ring-fenced in the cohesion fund for transport infrastructure.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I shall touch on that as I continue with my speech. That is certainly the case as far as transport investment in Wales is concerned.
In terms of the TEN-T—the trans-European transport network—the proposals for UK core nodes show little connection with the needs of Wales and the improvement of Welsh infrastructure, which is key to developing the economic prospects of Wales. None of the nine urban nodes is in Wales—neither the Cardiff nor the Swansea city regions—while Cardiff airport is not included in the airports provisions. Although Cardiff and Newport ports are both included among the 15 named ports, neither is in the west Wales and the valleys areas that receive cohesion fund support.
The Commission determines a Dublin-London-Paris-Brussels corridor—corridor 8, which includes a route from Belfast to Birmingham through Holyhead. However, critically, no southern corridor route through Wales is referenced among these major routes. Milford Haven in south Wales is the third largest port in the British state and an ideal point for a southern corridor route to and from the southern parts of the Republic of Ireland. I notice that Cork—a port, and the obvious linkage between the Republic of Ireland and Wales—is instead linked with Dublin, Southampton and Le Havre. If Wales were an independent country inside the European Union, it is difficult to imagine that it would be neglected in this way by the European Commission. A designated route along south Wales would bring significant economic benefits to the region, including to the communities I represent in Carmarthenshire, as well as the future development of Milford Haven as a port.
Having spoken to representatives of the Milford Haven Port authority, I understand that Milford Haven meets all the requirements of the European Commission. It is among Europe’s largest 80 ports and handles cargo of more than 43 million tonnes. It is a core link between the Republic of Ireland and Europe. Does the UK Government’s refusal of the connecting Europe facility mean that west Wales is being let down not just by the European commissioners, but by the London Government who are not fighting for the necessary improvements?
The UK Government will know that I have been a keen supporter of the electrification of the great western line not just to Swansea, but further to the west of Wales, and especially through my constituency in Carmarthenshire. It remains a disgrace on the part of the British state that while Glasgow to London was electrified as far back as 1974, the electrification from London, even as far as Cardiff, still remains in the planning stages and about 80% of even that electrification will take place in England.
Electrification is one of the criteria for rail in the comprehensive network, yet electrification of the north Wales coast line or the great western main line west of Cardiff are apparently not up for discussion—even though these would largely qualify for cohesion fund support. I hope this clarifies my response to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). To what extent was this considered when the business case for electrification to south Wales was put forward, particularly with regard to the port of Milford Haven? Given the answers I have received to written parliamentary questions since May 2010, I imagine that little thought has been put into this proposal, as no estimate has been made of the cost of electrification for the areas past Swansea, despite the importance of the ports of Fishguard and Milford Haven. Rail connection from London through Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea itself is, in the annex to the proposal of 24 October 2011, identified as part of corridor 8, and it is described as “upgrading”.
We know, of course, that without a U-turn from the UK Government the electrification will go only as far as Cardiff. The European Commission thinks that electrification to Swansea is important as part of Europe-wide rail and transport links, but the UK Government do not, it seems. In a nutshell, here is one reason why my party prefers full member status within the European Union to the present constitutional position. While the EU shows interest in cross-European co-operation and investment, UK policy in recent decades has been increasingly to concentrate on promoting one part of the British state down here in London.
As to the remainder of the proposals, we welcome the support provision for telecommunications in the Commission’s recommendations. When we were in government in Wales, the increase in broadband across Wales was a major plank of my party’s economic renewal plan. Improved telecommunications allows Welsh businesses and Welsh customers to be at the heart of Europe in a way that occasionally our geography does not. That applies particularly to digital connectedness in rural areas such as my own constituency. Will the Government confirm that, despite their opposition to the proposals in the Commission’s draft regulations, the digital facilities in Wales will be at least as good as the goals identified in the digital agenda for Europe and that support for cross-EU help for businesses and individuals will be similarly provided?
On energy, we support the fastest possible and credible reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and a switch to renewable energies from fossil fuels. It is only a shame that Wales is not an independent country able to control its own energy mix and that major energy decisions are made for us instead here in London—either via the Infrastructure Planning Commission or in future by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. As a country, we generate more electricity than we consume, so transmission is always a very important issue. I must refer once again to Milford Haven—an important energy portal where liquefied natural gas is imported from across the world.
To conclude, my party’s policy throughout the economic crisis since 2007 has been to argue that capital infrastructure spending is vital for the revival of the economy in both the short and longer term—maintaining the construction industry in the short term and increasing opportunities for the future. In Wales—a country that has the same amount of electrified railway as Albania and Moldova, and whose transport infrastructure is geared to move extremely slowly from east to west and not from north to south—infrastructure investment is important.
Wales sees many benefits from the European Union, not least from the common agricultural policy and from the cohesion fund. However, these proposals from the European Commission do not go far enough in supporting infrastructure improvements in Wales, yet they are ironically being rejected by the UK Government because they involve spending too much. I call on various Ministers in this place and in the Welsh Government to work together with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to achieve a better deal for Wales in the connecting Europe facility.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s approach to this and connected issues. I agree that large increases in EU spending are not acceptable at present, and that they jar with the necessary and tough measures required by member states to tackle their deficits. Measures that would impose substantial bureaucracy and associated costs on member states, and on our local authorities and businesses, are both unwelcome and unnecessary. Allowing such decisions to remain with member states would not erect a barrier to the progress of schemes that would benefit the single market.
It will come as no surprise to many Members who are present, particularly the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), that I intend to speak mainly about funds for the core and comprehensive transport networks, as I never need much excuse to start talking about trains. The main purpose of the funds is to promote co-operation and co-ordination. We need only look back to the early days of rail to see that that is very important. In the 1870s, the Great Western Railway was busily laying a gauge of 7 feet while every other company was busily laying gauges of 4 feet 8 inches, and better planning would certainly have saved Brunel and his contemporaries a lot of grief, but such co-operation does not require us to pay into a centrally administered fund. We should spend the money on projects that benefit the UK directly, which would not preclude co-operation.
Transport spending must be directed towards projects that will support growth and investment in member states, but that should be a matter for individual member states. The Government are prioritising new projects that will yield a substantial return on investment, such as High Speed 2, Crossrail, Thameslink and, in order to make faster journeys possible, the electrification of key routes such as the First Great Western service between London and Cardiff, the First TransPennine Express route from York, Leeds and Manchester, and services between Liverpool, Preston and Manchester. Many of the schemes are controversial, and following consultation the Government have made changes. What chance would our citizens have to influence such schemes if the decisions were not made by the Governments of member states?
As well as yielding a good return on investment, the Government’s schemes will reduce the impact on the environment, and the aim will be to keep pace with public demand in terms of both capacity and quality. Other member states should be doing likewise. I am concerned about the idea of the UK’s paying into a fund and receiving very little back, in the form of either infrastructure or benefit from a scheme in another member state. I think that that is true of any member state, but our geography makes it doubly true of us.
According to my quick and dirty assessment, given the focus on the missing border links scheme and other measures intended to support growth in the single market, many schemes favoured by the UK would be very low in the pecking order were the Commission’s proposal to proceed. Moreover, member states would be given no incentive to put their own houses in order and prioritise spending, because some of the criteria for the operation of the fund would be skewed towards states that had continually failed to get to grips with balancing their books and controlling their spending.
As Ministers will know, my hobby horse extends beyond greener and faster transport to comfort standards and the opportunity presented by rail franchises. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a neighbour of mine, will know of the campaign to prevent South West Trains from continually replacing rolling stock that it should be using for main line services with substandard suburban stock. Those issues are not as high-profile or sexy as the issue of new routes, but they are very important to the public, and they affect the viability of particular modes of passenger transport as much as new routes.
In a short space of time, franchise agreements and many other factors will present us with real opportunities. We need to seize those opportunities, and given that they will be time-sensitive, the more healthy our financial position and the more flexibility we have in making decisions and attracting investors, the better. I am firmly in favour of member states retaining as much control as possible over these investment funds.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I strongly support the amendment and its heavy emphasis on growth, because growth is the way to reduce deficits. Members who have seen The Independent today will know that our deficit is rather lower than those of many other major European member states, and that our biggest debt is located in the banks rather than in state spending. The fact remains, however, that the way to lower deficits is to achieve growth. Creating employment and ensuring that people pay taxes rather than living on benefits is the way forward.
I agreed with most of what was said by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in the Chamber. In particular, I agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who pointed out that we do not need the European Union or the European Commission to tell member states what they need and what they should build, and to spend our money for us. Member states themselves know best what they need, and what should be done to meet those needs. International co-ordination is best achieved through bilateral and multilateral agreement and collaboration, rather than through the bureaucratic controls imposed by the European Union.
Big infrastructure has indeed been built by European national Governments, especially rail freight infrastructure. We have our own channel tunnel, which is a product not of the European Union but of a collaboration between France and Britain. We have the channel tunnel rail link, which is also nothing to do with the European Union. We have rail tunnels through the alps, built to a broad gauge that enables trains to carry lorries and double-stack containers and providing a freight link from southern to northern Europe. Those were built by states using state funds. The Brenner pass, a 28-mile tunnel built to a broad gauge through faulted rock, also carries freight between northern and southern Europe, and it too is the work of member states rather than the European Union. We have the Betuweroute, another broad-gauge freight route linking Rotterdam to the Ruhr. When I visited it, I asked who had paid for it. I was told, “The Dutch Government, of course.” The state bears the cost, not the European Union.
We know that the EU offers token amounts to investment projects to try to confer some relevance, presence and significance on itself, but that is not the real deal. The real deal is that states decide what they want and need and pay for it—sometimes with private finance, but largely with state funds—and, on occasion, collaborate with neighbouring states to ensure that things work well.
What the United Kingdom needs is investment in a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow. Although we are somewhat peripheral to the continent in geographical terms, we need to be linked with its economy. I refer to the continent rather than the European Union because we are talking about the whole continent, which extends beyond the bounds of the European Union as it is currently constituted.
We need to be linked to the continent by freight as well as passenger rail, and that will be possible only if the delivery system on this side of the channel is capable of taking trains carrying lorries and full-scale and double-stack containers, and, indeed, continental-gauge trains, which cannot gain access to our platforms or our tunnels. In fact, I have been involved with a scheme—which I have mentioned in the Chamber a number of times in the past—to build a line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations of Britain and capable of doing all the things that I have just mentioned.
Mr Bone
The hon. Gentleman is making an enormously powerful speech, as he normally does on these issues. Does he share my concern about the fact that, although members of his party and the nationalist parties have been in the Chamber today and the Conservative Benches are full, not a single Liberal Democrat Member has been present? Given that the Liberal Democrats make such a fuss about Europe and restrict what the coalition can do about it, where on earth are they?
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I have to say that the Liberal Democrats are in a coalition with his own party. It is his grief rather than ours, I think, so I will not intrude.
To an extent, work on a dedicated rail freight line has already begun. A terminal at Barking is taking trains from as far afield as Poland. However, although they can travel as far as Barking using the channel tunnel rail link, they can proceed no further because the gauge will not allow it.
According to an old chestnut, if we build HS2 we shall be able to take the passengers off the west coast main line and free it up for freight, but making that line capable of taking continental-gauge trains, double-stack containers and lorries would be prohibitively expensive. We need to build a line to take the freight off the west and east coast main lines and off our roads, so that the lines can be freed up for more and faster passenger trains and we can provide more capacity for passengers travelling to the north while taking as much traffic as possible off the roads. It is estimated that we could take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads simply by building that route, which would be economically viable and cheap to build.
The scheme has a precise route that uses old track bed and under-used lines, and requires only 14 miles of new track, mostly in tunnels. It will be easy to construct, it will not cause any environmental problems as the track bed is already there and it will be cheap to build. Some estimate that the whole route will cost as little as less than £4 billion. We have put in an estimate of £6 billion, which is still a third or so of what we will spend on Crossrail—I support Crossrail—and a tiny fraction of what will be spent on HS2, yet we would get an enormous advantage to our economy and transform road transport in Britain as we would not get the road damage caused by lorries, as the freight would be on trains instead.
The scheme would attractive to hauliers because they would not need to worry about drivers’ hours problems. They could put their lorry trailers on trains in Glasgow, south Lancashire, south Yorkshire or the north-east and, eventually, in the south-west and south Wales, and overcome such problems. On the question of unemployment, there is a shortage of long-distance lorry drivers because it is not a popular job. It takes people away from home and it is very difficult. The little group proposing the scheme even has a major haulier working with it.
That scheme is what Britain needs. It has nothing to do with the European Union, which would not pay for it—we would. It would offer value for money, it would be profitable and economical and it is vital for our future. I hope that both the Government and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen carefully to our suggestion.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I, too, support the motion, although it is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), with whom I sit on the Select Committee. I support very many of his considered views on Europe.
This strikes me as a classic European measure with excessive spending, excessive bureaucracy and excessive meddling. As the Minister said, the amount required will shoot up from about €7 billion to €50 billion. That is excessive at a time when no sensible Government and no sensible European Union or Commission would want to increase spending.
Another thing that I find extraordinarily bizarre is the idea of a core network, core corridors and corridor co-ordinators. It is yet another nascent European bureaucracy to build up extra numbers of people in Brussels and large programme management costs, and it seems to me to offend against the principle of subsidiarity—as has been said, this should be done more nationally—and to feed the unnecessary bureaucracy in Brussels. The key question, to my mind, is the concern that the so-called corridor co-ordinators who seem to have crept in could become corridor meddlers and start telling member states what to do, issuing directions and making orders. That is entirely undesirable.
It is much better for there to be co-operation between nations, which is the principal reason I wanted to speak. There is a lot to be said for nations working together on cross-border transport corridors. The draft proposals— beautifully and lucidly set out in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister of State tabled last November—talk about core network corridors, which the Commission defines as
“an instrument to implement the Core Network. Each Corridor must involve at least three Member States. Will be based on modal integration and interoperability and have a coordinated development plan and management structure.”
That is classic European-speak. I do not think that that needs to be done by the European Commission; it could be done by the UK and individual nations, working to improve cross-border networks. That is particularly important for the transport networks in Kent, which join the rest of the continent to our country and our transport networks so well.
My principal concern is that for many years there has been under-investment in those networks. We have the M20, which is a kind of concrete motorway, and the A2, which has been waiting to be upgraded. On the continent, likewise, the road network, as anyone who has travelled there knows, could be better. A key area for cross-border co-operation could be for the UK Government to consider how those networks could be improved along with the French, the Belgians and the Dunkirk port. A map of Europe shows the so-called golden banana stretching from south-east England towards lower Bavaria, at the heart of which is the Dover strait and the Dover-Calais crossing. Indeed, the Dover-Dunkirk crossing is an important part of the communication and trading links that are so important to our nation’s prosperity and to that of Europe.
If, despite our warnings in today’s debate, the fund is to be extended as suggested, it should not be invested in rail networks in Romania, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggested it might be, but in upgrading international transport links between the UK and other countries in the so-called golden banana to help Europe to grow. It is important that we have more growth in Europe and that we support first the area that can provide the value added and recovery generation to drive our European economy forward. My plea to the Financial Secretary and to the Minister of State is to meet me to discuss what we can do in Kent to make the case to France and our friends in Belgium, to ensure that we at least get a fair part of the fund to see whether we can improve the transport networks in Kent and take forward the lower Thames crossing.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The problem with this over-arching proposal is basically that it will be carried by qualified majority vote and is therefore, in effect, a form of taxation. Whatever proportion of that overall budget of £43.7 billion eventually falls on the United Kingdom, the Committee of which I have the honour to serve as Chairman believes that the scale of the Commission’s ambition for the 2014 to 2020 financial period is clearly unacceptable. On that basis, there is no doubt that the thrust of the Government’s motion is correct.
Although I happen to agree with the proposals on growth in the Opposition motion, the fact is that the Opposition are guilty of having severely restricted any opportunity for growth through the massive increase in public expenditure that they imposed on the United Kingdom. I and two or three other Conservative Members continually attacked that increase for the best part of three years and, as I repeatedly said at the time, there was no proposal for growth, which was connected to the problems of over-regulation, of which these proposals are yet another example.
The truth is that there should have been a full debate—there still may be opportunity for such a debate—on what is going wrong with the European Union as a whole. That debate is necessary because, as the Government have pointed out, the EU is calling on member states such as ourselves to produce more money for projects that could be better carried out under the so-called principle of subsidiarity at a national level.
At the same time, it is abundantly clear that there is no money in the European coffers. We should be debating the eurozone crisis as a whole in a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, which my Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide, but when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) repeated our calls this morning for a general debate it was denied by the Government, yet again.
Mr Cash
I certainly would. I endorse that course of action, and I would be grateful if the Whips on duty would pass that message to the Chief Whip—and, indeed, the Leader of the House—because we are faced with a monumental crisis in the European Union. That is only a symptom of the problem, which is generated by the intrinsic defects of the accumulated treaties, particularly since the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s.
So much is decided by qualified majority vote despite the fact that we currently face such severe restrictions and so much austerity, which is causing difficulties for our hospitals, schools, transport and so much else. Proportionality in respect of allocations is required. Getting that balance right is vital for our national interest. We should therefore have a debate on the Floor of the House, and not only on this one issue, important though it is.
I attended the multiannual financial meeting of about eight weeks ago as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the United Kingdom national Parliament, and I felt compelled to get up and complain bitterly about the complete “Alice in Wonderland” attitude that prevailed there. People were calling for an ever-greater increase in the amount of money that should be made available to the EU, and they were justifying that by reference to the Lisbon treaty, for example. They said that as the functions had grown, there ought to be more money. There is absolutely no recognition of the fact that there is simply not enough money to go around. We should be proceeding on the basis that we must reduce, rather than merely freeze, the budget.
The Government motion is right, therefore. However, we are facing demands from the financial transaction tax—I accept that we can veto that—and there are also attempts to stop our rebate and proposals to increase own-resources. Cumulatively, those moves are putting pressure on us to move in the wrong direction. There are great opportunities for the UK in a trading environment that is global—across the world, rather than just in the EU, important though that may be—and that is the direction we should be going in. All transport issues, including aviation policy and the development of our local infrastructure, should be taken by ourselves in the interests of the UK, rather than determined by QMV involving the other member states.
The European project is completely misconceived, and it is failing; the eurozone crisis will ultimately lead to collapse. The current situation is rather like the phoney war of 1938 and 1939: everybody knows the situation is doomed, but they are continuing to pretend that somehow something will turn up.
My message is that the Government motion is right in general, but that there is not enough determination to renegotiate the treaties. I welcome the veto, but once we cross the Rubicon, we cannot cross back. The reality is that any attempt to do so will meet with disaster, division and acrimony.
I am glad that we have had this debate, but there are also more important matters that must be debated as a matter of urgency. As I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Bury North and many others have said, we must have a proper debate on the extent, range and depth of the eurozone crisis and its impact on the UK.
We must also explore the other key issues facing us, such as why we are being confronted with QMV decisions to impose what is, in effect, a form of taxation to provide for certain facilities. Such decisions should be made on a bilateral national basis. It is not anti-European to say that is what we should do, because doing that is in the interests of Europe. What Europe is doing, however, is determinedly pursuing a completely false prospectus and then compounding that—sadly, with our Government in agreement, it appears—by proposing that we should find yet more devious means of providing money through the IMF to support what is an insupportable project. That simply flies in the face of common sense.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is, as ever, absolutely right in all he says.
On the issue of our having a day-long debate on Europe, I am pleased the Deputy Leader of the House is present. The Leader of the House is right that the Backbench Business Committee has been given the authority to authorise debates. If we were to have a bid for such a debate at one of our Committee meetings—which are held on Tuesdays at 1 o’clock—I think it would be given very careful consideration. The problem we have is that the Government do not allocate days to us far in advance. From what the Leader of the House said, we know that Thursday of next week has been allocated for a general debate, although at present a general debate in Government time. If the Government were to release that to the Backbench Business Committee, we could consider this question on Tuesday, and if there was a representation from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and, perhaps, other Members—we could have such a debate on Europe.
It concerns me that so few Liberal Democrat Members are present for the debate on this motion. I am not concerned that we are missing their contributions, because what they would say would not be worth hearing. My concern is that they might be boycotting again. Is this the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempt to have another boycott?
Mr Clappison
The general debate that my hon. Friend is arguing for is directly relevant to the motion, because tens of billions of pounds in extra expenditure will have to be found, and a large and disproportionate amount of that will have to come from this country. Some of that will come out of general taxation under the funding mechanism for the EU, adding to our indebtedness—and presumably other member states will face a similar situation.
Mr Bone
I concur with that remark, of course.
I do not blame any Member currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench for this, but the real scandal of the last Labour Government is what Tony Blair did. I do not blame Mr Blair either, because he may well have believed at the time that what he was saying was true. He stood at the Dispatch Box and gave away an enormous amount of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, which has led to an enormous increase in the amount we are having to contribute to the EU budget. He believed that would not happen because there would be major reform of the common agricultural policy. That has not happened, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on that. The Labour Front-Bench team may well support Mr Blair’s original position, so will the Labour Opposition and the splendid ministerial team we have combine and go to Europe and say to them, “Because you haven’t kept your part of the bargain in reforming the CAP, we will only pay the amount of money we were paying under the previous Government”? The sum in question is £19 billion over a five-year period. That is an enormous amount of money to join a club that does nothing for this country. But if we kept to that £19 billion, we would free up more than £21 billion during this Conservative coalition Government.
Many hon. Members have talked about growth, but nobody has really suggested how it could be achieved. I suggest that the £21 billion of extra money that would come to the Government as a result of paying only the amount that we were paying previously could be used either for tax cuts, which would be my preference, or for infrastructure plans, as the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) were suggesting. Alternatively, some of the money could go on tax cuts and some could go on infrastructure. That would not cost the taxpayer a penny, because all we would be saying to Europe would be, “We are paying just the £19 billion over five years as the ridiculous amount of money for our subscription to the European Union.” So instead of paying £41 billion for joining this club we would be paying £19 billion. If hon. Members think that I am being unfair to the European Union on this point, they should consider the reality of what happens. This is not just about the £7 billion or £10 billion that our “net contribution” is each year, because the EU actually takes £14 billion or £15 billion. [Hon. Members: “£18 billion.”] Oh, it has gone up. The money goes to the European Commission, which then gives some of it back to be spent on its pet projects, which it thinks should be what we want in this country—we should have control of that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
What is even worse is that the EU, when it has spent our money, then has the cheek to fine people for failing to fly the European flag. The way in which it wastes British taxpayers’ money is absolutely disgraceful.
Mr Bone
Of course my hon. Friend makes eminent sense, as always.
There is something even more worrying about this situation: all these billions of pounds are going into the European Union but it cannot even get its auditors to give it a clean bill of health—the accounts are rejected year after year. We would not give money to any other organisation—in this country—that did not have audited accounts.
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is raising an interesting point about how much of this money, were it to be granted—I hope it is not—is likely to be spent in this country. Has it escaped his eagle eye that a substantial proportion of the money referred to in the documents before the House—€10 billion-worth—is ring-fenced for the cohesion countries, and so not a single penny of that can come to this country? I have looked at these documents and if they are approved—I hope they will not be—it appears unlikely that very much money would come to this country as a result.
Mr Bone
That point was made eloquently in the debate earlier, and I noted with interest that only two regions in this country would benefit from any of that funding. My objection is not at all to what the Government are doing in this motion—it is a fine motion and in recent months the Government have been absolutely spot on. I will not say when they started to change their position on this—[Interruption.] If Ministers want to know when they changed it, I shall tell them. I believe it was after that little vote on a Backbench Business Committee motion when there was some division within the Conservative party. I urge all Members to support the Government today and oppose Labour’s opportunistic amendment—let us win handsomely.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Could those Members who are not staying for the next debate please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?
Public Bodies
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That the following new Standing Order be made—
‘(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the select committee charged with reporting on a draft order for the purposes of section 11(5) and (6) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 shall be—
(a) the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to Government departments) appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department of the Minister who has laid the draft order; or
(b) in respect of a draft order laid by a Minister in the Cabinet Office, the Select Committee on Public Administration.
(2) The Liaison Committee may report that it has designated a select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to Government departments) or the Select Committee on Public Administration as the select committee charged with reporting on a specified draft order for the purposes of section 11(5) and (6) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 in place of the select committee to which paragraph (1) applies.’.
Let me start by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House, because what remains of my voice may be barely adequate to the task this afternoon. However, I shall do my best.
The Public Bodies Act 2011 received Royal Assent shortly before Christmas. The Act represents a central part of the Government’s strategy for the reform of public bodies, which will lead to a cumulative reduction in administrative spending of £2.6 billion over the spending review period. The bodies to be reformed under the Act are listed in its schedules and the detail of the reforms is to be set out in secondary legislation. The motion will enable that secondary legislation to be subject to proper scrutiny in the House, when it is in draft form, before it is approved by the House. The relevant provisions of the Act are described in the explanatory memorandum to the Act and the proposals in the motion are described in an explanatory memorandum that is available in the Vote Office. The motion has been the subject of consultation with the Liaison Committee and the Select Committee on Procedure, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) for their contributions to the consultation and for agreeing to add their names to the motion.
The proposal relates to the specific question of which Committee should be able to examine a draft order with a view to the possible use of the extended period for scrutiny, and then making recommendations on the substantive provisions of that draft order. We propose that that role should fall to the relevant departmental Select Committee or, in the case of draft orders laid by Cabinet Office Ministers, to the Select Committee on Public Administration. In addition, we propose to give the Liaison Committee a power to designate an alternative Committee. We do not expect that to be used frequently, but it could be helpful if there were machinery of government changes in the future.
We believe that departmental Select Committees represent the right option in this case. They are most likely to have a prior knowledge of, and interest in, the subject matter of the draft orders. The Liaison Committee has agreed that the proposal in the motion
“seems sensible and complements the arrangements in the Lords”.
The Liaison Committee sought a number of assurances, and it was particularly valuable to have the short delay from before Christmas until now in which to have a dialogue with the Liaison Committee. I have responded in detail, in correspondence which is available in the Vote Office and which I will place, in due course, in the Library. In particular, steps have been taken to ensure that relevant Select Committees are informed about the earlier draft orders to be laid before the House, and that discussions can take place between Departments and Select Committees about the operation of the procedure and the timetable in particular cases.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Although I strongly endorse and very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Select Committees examining these orders, does he not agree that Select Committees are already heavily overburdened, given the amount of work that they are doing? I wonder when he thinks we shall find time to look into the orders in the way that he describes.
Mr Heath
Obviously, that was one consideration. Against that should be set the question of who is best placed to know the operations of bodies within the remit of an individual Select Committee, and what the Department’s objectives are in bringing forward an order. It would be very difficult for any other body in the House to have the same level of expertise. In the initial stages it is a matter of determining whether further scrutiny is required. That is the trigger that we are asking the Select Committees to pull, and they are very well positioned to do so. There is also a finite number of bodies for any one Select Committee in the Public Bodies Act 2011. It is not an open-ended Act, as I know full well, having assisted with the Bill’s Committee and Report stages. There is therefore a reasonable expectation that the task will not be too onerous for Select Committees. I certainly discussed that consideration with the Liaison Committee and others, and we felt that at the end of the day no other body was as well suited as the departmental Select Committee.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
What procedure, if any, might a Back Bencher be able to use to propose further scrutiny by a Select Committee over and above what it is tasked with doing? For example, if we wanted the Treasury Committee to scrutinise some of the EU financial services legislation that passes through the House, which is normally, rightly, in the hands of the European Scrutiny Committee, would there be a way in which one could put that forward?
Mr Heath
That takes me away a little from the matter of orders relating to the Public Bodies Act, but it is always open for Select Committees to consider their work programmes and to put forward proposals, and it is equally open to hon. Members to make suggestions to Select Committees. Part of the Liaison Committee’s role is to try to prevent any undue overlapping of work among Committees and, where there is a potential trespass, to police it, adjudicate and find a successful way forward. There is probably no obstacle to my hon. Friend's suggesting that the Committee look at something, but equally the Officers, Clerks and Chair of that Committee have a responsibility to ensure that they do not inappropriately usurp the work of another Committee.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I commiserate with my hon. Friend, who sounds like a cross between Barry White and Louis Armstrong. Is he aware that the Procedure Committee has looked at this matter and is satisfied with what he proposes? Despite the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who is a valued Committee member, I do not think that the proposal will place too great an additional burden on Select Committees. It is right and proper that the Select Committees undertake such scrutiny.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House say a little more about how he proposes to deal with cross-cutting Select Committees, particularly the Environmental Audit Committee, which does not follow one Department but has an obvious interest in some cross-cutting issues and the need for the Government to join up policy?
Mr Heath
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but let us remember that the proposal is for a trigger mechanism to enable the House to consider matters further; it is not an end in itself. The process as set out in the 2011 Act enables the House to say, “Hang on. We want a little longer to be able to discuss this matter”, or for the Minister to put forward proposals in a debate, normally on the Floor of the House if that is requested. Therefore, if one of the cross-cutting Committees has an interest, I am sure that it would rapidly communicate it to the relevant Departmental Select Committee, and that in itself might pull the trigger. I do not think that there is a difficulty. This is not an exclusionary procedure, but simply one suggesting that someone can say, “Stop. We want this extra time so that the House can consider this on its merits”, and the decision will probably be that the departmental Select Committee is best placed to do that.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I very much welcome what my hon. Friend is putting forward. May I ask him about joint working by Select Committees? As he knows from the passage of the 2011 Act, I have an interest in the position of S4C. There have been times in the work we have undertaken on S4C when there has been joint working between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does he envisage such joint working continuing under this approach?
Mr Heath
I was beginning to think that we would have a short debate relating to the Act without any mention of Sianel Pedwar Cymru, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rectifying that omission. I reiterate that I do not think that the proposed procedure creates any obstacle to a Select Committee going about its work in the way it feels is appropriate. This is a trigger mechanism for the House. Where more than one Committee feels that they might have a role, the Liaison Committee would be able to help and ensure that there were no hurt feelings. The case of S4C might be an obvious example of where two departmental Select Committees have a legitimate interest and, I am sure, would want to express a view at some point in the procedure.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I hope to make a speech later, but, on the discussions between Departments and Select Committees, what procedures will be followed when a Department is not keen to give the most desirable outcome of 30 days’ advance notice in all cases?
Mr Heath
It is clear, from the exchanges that we have already had with the Procedure and Liaison Committees, that we expect Departments to provide that level of notice, and they will normally do so, but there is an exceptional position in the very first instance. We have some bodies on which consultations took place prior to Royal Assent, as was allowed under the legislation, and a dialogue between the Department and the Select Committee might be necessary to ensure that we achieve an acceptable result.
I know that the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Committee that she chairs, has been having such a dialogue with the Department that her Committee shadows, and I am more than happy to assist in any way that I can to ensure that we have a satisfactory outcome. I have given that assurance in correspondence with the Chair of the Liaison Committee, and I am very happy to repeat it today. The guidance to Departments will be very clear about what is expected of them in the execution of their duties under that part of the 2011 Act, and on that basis I hope my assurance is helpful to the hon. Lady. This is a new procedure, and we need to watch all new procedures very carefully to ensure that they achieve the results that the House expects of them.
In conclusion, I assure the House that I will monitor the procedure’s operation carefully to ensure that the concerns of Committees about matters on which they have sought assurances are fully responded to. I have reiterated today that the Government are very happy for the operation of the new arrangements to be reviewed about a year after they come into operation. This is an opportunity to enhance the House's scrutiny of secondary legislation, and on that basis Members should welcome it. I commend the motion to the House.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The motion lays down the process for the Select Committee scrutiny that will be required when the powers enabled by the Public Bodies Act 2011 are exercised—legislation that we opposed, as the House knows, on its Third Reading in October.
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made it clear that we agree that the “quango state”, as he put it, should be kept under review, and that the Opposition do not oppose the removal of quangos that have served their purpose. He went on, however, to say that
“Ministers have been fair-minded”—
and it is important to put that on the record once again—
“but the truth is that this whole process has been ramshackle. Giving Ministers the power to strike down organisations without there being proper parliamentary scrutiny is the worst kind of government; that simply does not meet the high standards this House should expect.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 277.]
First, and most fundamentally, therefore, the motion before us is based on deeply flawed legislation, as this Government demonstrated with the forced reversal of their decision on the chief coroner.
Secondly, the motion touches on only one aspect of the scrutiny required of draft orders, but the issues involved are wide-ranging—a point that the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), made in his letter to the Deputy Leader of the House in December. He went on in that letter to seek assurances on a wide range of issues. The Deputy Leader of the House initially responded to the concerns raised in December, only a day before this motion was originally scheduled for debate on the Floor of the House. One can only wonder why that business was cancelled at such short notice. Needless to say, a further letter in response to the representations of the Chair of the Liaison Committee was provided on 13 January.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had raised in correspondence the need for an assurance that the Government would not seek to overturn a Select Committee’s recommendation for an extension of the time required to report back on a draft order. The Deputy Leader of the House stated in his initial response that it was “very unlikely” that such a request would be turned down, but made it clear that if the Government disagreed with a request for more time, they would expect the House to acquiesce. I suggest that that was a rather dismissive approach to the right of this House to ensure that adequate time is available for Select Committee scrutiny of such important proposals. In his further letter, the Deputy Leader of the House gave a “personal assurance” that he would make representations to ministerial colleagues, as appropriate, to seek their co-operation. That is not exactly a robust mechanism for guaranteeing that the time judged necessary by a Select Committee for the scrutiny of draft orders is available.
The Deputy Leader of the House also refused in his first response to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to guarantee that the Government would accede to a Select Committee’s request for the debate on a draft order to take place on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee. In his further response, however, he stated that
“the recommendation of a select committee as to the appropriate forum for debate should be viewed as a representation of especial importance for the reasons you set out.”
It will be noted that, even now, there is no firm assurance on that point, only warm words that allow the Government to defy the views of any Select Committee on this point if they so wish.
The responses of the Deputy Leader of the House have deepened the conviction of Opposition Members that the Government are intent on using their powers to force through proposals to abolish quangos without adequate scrutiny by this House. In particular, the refusal to give firm assurances that debates on orders will take place on the Floor of the House when the relevant Select Committee recommends it is shocking and only goes to show that we have a Government intent on getting their own way, regardless of the democratic rights of Members of this House.
The route of this legislation through Parliament was unsatisfactory and the proposals before us only provide further evidence of how inadequate the safeguards are as against the extent of the powers that are being given to the Executive. As I said earlier, this procedure allows for the reversal of primary legislation. It effectively means that bodies such as the Agricultural Wages Board could be abolished on the back of a debate in a Delegated Legislation Committee. That would potentially mean the loss of £90 million to the rural high street. Given that the impact of these powers could be felt by thousands of people who may lose their jobs as a consequence, it is utterly unacceptable to Opposition Members that such decisions be made in this way.
We fear that the powers made available to the House to scrutinise the decisions made by the Government under the Public Bodies Act 2011 are inadequate. With the will of the House, we will seek to press the motion to a Division.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome this little debate and the measured approach of the Deputy Leader of the House. I know that he is aware of the interest in this matter of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I have the honour to chair. We are enthusiastic about the possibility of scrutinising such draft orders.
I understand that their lordships had sight of the proposals at an earlier stage, and therefore more time to consider them. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, brought that to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House.
I should like to raise a couple of substantive points, if I may. The Deputy Leader of the House adequately addressed my concern, and that of my Select Committee, about the procedures to be followed when a Department and a Secretary of State fall short of making any formal commitment to meet the desired time frame. I would welcome guidance from him about what is the appropriate forum for scrutiny and who will take the decision to have such scrutiny.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was informed by the Secretary of State—I suppose one would say formally—on 15 January that three orders would be laid before the House in February. I understand that the Committee’s role will be to indicate its desire and intention to scrutinise an order within 30 days. We would like confirmation that when a public body falls within the work of a departmental Committee, it will be for that Committee to scrutinise an order rather than a Delegated Legislation Committee.
I will take a specific example, which is the transfer of functions of British Waterways to the new Canal and River Trust. I do not want to pre-empt in any way what conclusion and considered view the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee might reach on that having taken advice and evidence from witnesses, but what would happen if the Committee felt that it was a matter of such importance that we wished it to be debated on the Floor of the House? Will the Deputy Leader of the House be good enough to indicate whether that would be possible? Would a Committee be empowered to make such a recommendation, and who would take it forward?
The Deputy Leader of the House referred to the savings to be made. I am sure that the estimate of £2.6 billion is a conservative one, and I would hazard a guess that most of those savings will come through the disappearance of arm’s length bodies, including those accountable to DEFRA. However, we thought that the Commission for Rural Communities was going to disappear, but many of its officials have been absorbed into a unit of the Department and the CRC still exists. What scrutiny can a departmental Select Committee such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee carry out of that aspect of the matter?
As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) indicated, the draft orders give Departments a huge power to disband a particular arm’s length public body once and for all time. I know that many arguments were made in the other place in favour of public bodies remaining, and some of those bodies are now not to be removed. It was a pity that we did not have a chance to have such a debate in this House.
Within one month, the Committee will be asked to look at two other draft orders: one to abolish the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and one on the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) raised the work load of departmental Select Committees. I pay tribute to those with whom I have the honour to serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I am delighted that we will welcome two new Opposition Members to it this coming week, but considering three such significant draft orders in one month is a tall order, as I hope the Deputy Leader of the House agrees.
The Deputy Leader of the House might confirm that most of the draft orders under the secondary legislation, which gives immense powers to one Department, is trundling along at a time when the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is doing significant work on the natural environment White Paper and expecting a draft Bill on water—yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that we can expect comprehensive legislation on water in the new parliamentary Session. We are also taking evidence on common agricultural policy reforms and reaching our conclusions on common fisheries policy reform. Those two reports are significant—we are asked to look at those matters once every 10 years—and I am delighted to say the Committee has taken them very seriously and responsibly.
We will hopefully be able discharge our duties on draft orders under the new powers, but—I am seeking guidance from the Deputy Leader of the House—if we are given only one month to lay the order and 60 days to look at it, we will come under enormous pressure to meet our duties, which I am sure colleagues on the Committee would wish to do.
I think I have raised all the issues and the Deputy Leader of the House and Mr Speaker are aware of our concerns. I am delighted that the motion has attracted cross-party support, and I hope the Committee can have significant leeway in the timetable accorded to it to enable us to undertake our proper function of holding the Department to account on the draft orders.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I am pleased to participate in this debate on the scrutiny of draft orders on public bodies, having spoken on Second Reading of the Public Bodies Act 2011. I was unfortunately unable to make as significant a contribution as I had wished to the progression of the Act because amendments that I tabled on Report were not selected, and because amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) that were selected were not reached before the guillotine.
Our purpose today is to discuss the scrutiny of draft orders on public bodies listed in schedules 1 to 5 to the 2011 Act in accordance with sections 11(5) and (6). The intention of introducing such scrutiny is that Select Committees will be charged with making recommendations and reporting on draft orders. That appears to have been agreed in correspondence between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), in his position as Chair of the Liaison Committee, and the Deputy Leader of the House, who was responsible for the progression of the Act.
The argument is that those public bodies are under the control of specific Departments, and that the Select Committees that scrutinise those Departments contain experts on their operation, and should be tasked with the examination of the proposals. That appears to be a sensible course.
The subsequent suggestion is that members of the Select Committee charged with reporting on the draft proposals will be included in any Delegated Legislation Committee convened to consider them. Again, ensuring a level of expertise appears to be a sensible course, but I would like to raise the issue of territoriality. Inside a single unitary state in which there is a single point of responsibility and accountability, the proposed mechanisms would make a great deal of sense, but I contend, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) would agree, that the practical elements of devolution mean that we must also consider alternative options when we deal with the potential impact of such draft orders. I welcome the opening remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House—he said that he has an open mind on that.
For example, the National Consumer Council, which is also known as Consumer Focus, is included in schedule 1 of the Act. As hon. Members might be aware, the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a proud member—as is the hon. Member for Ceredigion—published a report as recently as last week on its inquiry into the representation of consumer interests in Wales. I have no problem whatever with the UK Government’s aims in giving enhanced roles to the citizens advice service following the scrapping of the National Consumer Council, and there are many clear, tangible benefits to combining advice and advocacy functions. However, I am concerned that the level of consumer advocacy functions currently provided to the people of Wales will be lost.
As I said, this is a territorial argument, which is based on the fact that devolution means that we do not have a single jurisdiction, but several. As a Welsh nationalist, I believe it should be for the Welsh Government, rather than the UK Government, to determine what consumer advice and advocacy structures they want, particularly if the current structures are to be abolished. The lack of consideration we have witnessed from UK Ministers regarding the Act’s impact on Wales further strengthens my convictions.
It is interesting that the UK Government’s preferred structure does not impact on Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate citizens advice bodies because responsibility for such functions is devolved for our Celtic cousins. The fact that we in Wales find ourselves in our current position as a result of the Act is a further reminder of the hotch-potch nature of the devolution settlement across the British state and of the dangers that Wales confronts when faced with an inferior settlement. That is why scrutiny of any changes proposed in the draft orders is so important.
Given the reality of a distinct Welsh political agenda, Citizens Advice Cymru has, remarkably, punched above its weight over the years, but it is a fact that Citizens Advice as a whole regards the Welsh context as an afterthought. That is hardly surprising, considering that the key policy levers remain reserved down here in Westminster.
Consumer Focus Wales, on the other hand, has a tremendous research capacity, with some incredibly gifted staff, but it is nearly wholly dependent on other bodies and on commissioned research for the evidence on which it bases its reports. Consumer Focus Wales is very much an equal partner, and it has a more federal approach to England and Wales relations.
There are many benefits, therefore, to empowering Citizens Advice with the functions of Consumer Focus Wales, if all Consumer Focus Wales functions and resources are transferred to Citizens Advice Cymru. Indeed, on Second Reading of the Act, I impressed on Ministers the fact that there was strong support in Wales for advice and advocacy functions to be brought within one body, and I hope that that will be reflected in the draft orders, when they are brought forward for scrutiny.
With the devolution of large areas of consumer policy already having taken place, and the likelihood of more in the years to come, the natural conclusion would be an independent Citizens Advice Cymru, but who will make that argument or question it in scrutiny of the UK Government’s proposals? That is the point I am trying to make.
Proposals for the National Consumer Council’s abolition will go to the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, on which there is not a single Welsh MP. The same is true in the case of S4C, whose management organisation will be changed as a result of being included in schedule 3 to the Act. Following agreements between the BBC and S4C, those changes are expected to be agreed.
Mr Mark Williams
Does that not point to the issue I raised with my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House about joint scrutiny and joint working between Committees? The hon. Gentleman has made a compelling case regarding the independence of advocacy services in Wales—the kind of case some of us, as he rightly said, would have liked to make in the Public Bodies Bill Committee had we had more time. There would, however, be an opportunity for those of us on the Welsh Affairs Committee, working with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, to make such points. Surely that is the way forward.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive intervention, and I fully agree. I will go on to make the same point. I often find myself in complete agreement with him, and I remind him that there is plenty of room on these Benches if he wants to cross the Floor.
There remains a real need for scrutiny. Like the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport does not feature a single Member representing a seat in Wales. Given the importance of S4C to Wales, which members of the Public Bodies Bill Committee will know of, there really must be more scrutiny in this place than just that provided by a Public Bill Committee.
In the Public Bodies Bill Committee, the Minister agreed that S4C governance changes
“will be subject to consultation with absolutely everybody who has a legitimate interest in it, and I am happy to reiterate that that will include the Welsh Government.”––[Official Report, Public Bodies Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2011; c. 195.]
I welcome that commitment. I do not wish to go through the whole list of public bodies and make suggestions—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members want to make the journey back to their constituencies. I am not going to suggest how all these matters might be perceived differently through the prism of devolution, but what, for example, would happen to the excess land of BRB (Residuary) Ltd? Should that be at the disposal of the Welsh Transport Minister?
Although I fully understand the reasons behind the proposed means of scrutinising draft orders, I request that issues of territoriality and devolution be taken into consideration. I do not pretend to have the solution and neither do I wish to encumber ourselves with more work, but perhaps a settlement could be found in which Select Committees scrutinise draft orders if they are considered relevant to their work, and subsequently, perhaps, their members could be made members of any Delegated Legislation Committees. I can certainly imagine that members of the Welsh Affairs Committee would show a particular interest in the case of S4C and Consumer Focus Wales.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, I should like to thank Members for that short debate.
I shall deal with the points made in reverse order, and turn first to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He will be aware that the Committee discussed the Welsh aspects of these bodies an awful lot—I remember detailed discussions of the merits, or otherwise, of Pobol y Cwm and so on. I absolutely understand the locus that regionality has in some of the bodies. The suggestion is that the departmental Select Committees have that trigger—I think that he understands that—but he made a perfectly valid point: where there is a strong territorial element in the body in question, the trigger should be exercised in the knowledge of the effect it would have in an area.
I would expect the Welsh Affairs Committee to play a part in matters relating directly to Wales and to make early representations to the relevant Select Committee, encouraging it to pull the trigger for the 60-day process. Once that process was in place and the scrutiny period under way, however, I would expect the Committee to produce a short report, particularly on matters relating to Sianel Pedwar Cymru but also on other things in which it has an interest. The report would be treated as a representation under section 11(6)(a) of the Public Bodies Act, and the Minister would have to have regard to it.
I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the Welsh Affairs Committee would have a direct locus in intervening to make the House aware of its concerns. Although the Public Bodies Act stipulates that there may be a delegated powers Committee, we have made it abundantly clear that if a request was made for the matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House it would normally be acceded to. In that case, all Members with an interest would have an opportunity to participate and make their views known before the House finally reached a decision. I hope that that goes some way to assuaging his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is an utterly reasonable chap. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman agrees with him so often.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) expressed a number of concerns on behalf of her Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which, again, I well understand. It so happens that her Committee has an early rush, as it were, on the provisions in the legislation, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to make early proposals, as she said, on British Waterways, the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances.
Let me say first that, yes, if the House accepts this Standing Order today, the hon. Lady’s Committee will be the relevant Committee. Therefore, she has that trigger in her hands—or the hands of her Committee—for extended scrutiny. I understand that that will involve a reasonable work load for her Committee. I sympathise with her about that, but I believe it is better for her Committee to do that work rather than somebody else, elsewhere in the House, who knows nothing about the subject. There is no limitation on what Committees can scrutinise in their role as departmental Select Committees. That extends not just to bodies that are listed in schedules, but to those where there are no changes. If there are no changes, she will not be acting under this procedure, but her Committee will still have the capacity to consider the matter.
I understand the hon. Lady’s point about the House of Lords having its arrangements in place earlier than the House of Commons. I would have liked to introduce things earlier, but it was important to have the conversation and dialogue with the Select Committees of this House, through the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, to ensure that we got it right. This House has a much more complex Committee structure than the Lords—we have departmental Committees—so a slight asymmetry in the way we did that was inevitable. However, I hope that I can persuade her that what we are doing in this case is probably the best way forward.
As far as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge (Angela Smith) is concerned—
Mr Heath
Is that not what I said? I do apologise: Stocksbridge. Speaking as someone whose constituency name is almost always mispronounced, I have the greatest sympathy if the hon. Lady has the same problem.
I was disappointed by what the hon. Lady said. She seems to be taking up the concerns of the Liaison Committee, even though I have satisfied the Liaison Committee. The fact that it is content with my proposals is not good enough for her. She still thinks that the Liaison Committee ought to be more upset than it is. Well it is not: the Liaison Committee is satisfied with our proposals. She adduced the “mystery” of why the matter was not put before the House in December, but I made it perfectly plain that the reason was a problem with the motion, which was down to an administrative error. However, given that we could not propose the motion on that day, I aimed to derive what I hoped would be some benefit from the delay by saying that it gave us more time to explore and satisfy the concerns of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and that is exactly what we did.
I have given clear indications about the procedures that we will adopt to ensure that Committees are not disadvantaged, but have the opportunity to make their cases properly. However, at the end of the day, I cannot go against the legislation. I cannot rip up legislation that this House and the other House passed so recently and say, “Right, we’ll now have a completely different procedure.” However, I can work within the legislation to maximise scrutiny by the Committees of this House and the wider House and ensure that every Member has the opportunity to have their say. I believe that that is what we have put before the House today, after consultation with the Committees, and I urge the House to support the motion.
Question put.
National Policy Statement for Ports
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to the final part of a debate on which the House embarked back in November. There could be no better port with which to end it than the port of Felixstowe, which is in my constituency.
I support the Government’s market-based approach to ports, but I want them to receive one message loud and clear, namely that ports should be treated consistently and allowed a level playing field. I believe that the Minister supports that view. Liverpool recently secured £30 million of regional growth funds for help with dredging. I do not resent the recognition that my home city, where I grew up, needs a bit of support to bring about regeneration and create jobs. We must make sure, however, that such—how can I put this?—gifts are targeted so that they do not discourage private investors at other ports around the country.
It is also important that we have joined-up thinking with other policy statements on rail and road. We have some great ports in our country, but we need to ensure that once the containers and so on come off the boats, we have great networks to move the containers around the country.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She raised similar points yesterday in Westminster Hall in a debate on the port of Southampton and I was very reassured by the Minister’s comments in response. Was she also reassured?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I was very reassured, but I am merely trying to re-emphasise that we must ensure that Departments work together, whether that means that the Department for Transport works with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or with the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the UK economy as a whole can benefit from fantastic ports. I also support the coastal shipping initiative, which I know my hon. Friend the Minister is championing.
In the adjourned debate, my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) mentioned nature issues and habitat directives. I share many of their sentiments, as we need to have an appropriate balance, but that does not mean that everything should be swept aside. Just next door to my own port is an area of outstanding natural beauty: 1% of the world’s sea pea happens to be right there alongside a heritage asset, a Napoleonic fort. Although we must be mindful of the need to ensure that such things do not get in the way of port development, successful ports can have both. In fact, birds are attracted to the cranes and so on, so the area has become a rather distinguished twitching zone where people can go and spot rare birds.
I want to emphasise today the significant concerns about the implementation of marine conservation zones and reference areas. Those are new ventures for our country and although I am not against them at all, we hear that DEFRA and Natural England want to work with existing businesses but are very quiet when it comes to talking about new business and replacement activities.
We have great champions for shipping in the Minister and in the shadow Minister, as I know from his previous service. Long may that continue, because ports are what keep this country going.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude the debate that started on 29 November, speak about some of the issues raised in that debate and respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has one of the country’s great ports in her constituency.
Ports are such a significant part of the economy of this country that it was right and proper that so many Members of this House took the debate so seriously. I understand why some colleagues are not present this afternoon, as they made their contributions on the day. The Select Committee on Transport and its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), have also taken ports particularly seriously in this Parliament and the documents and strategy under consideration today show the significance that the new coalition Government attach to ports.
The huge ports, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend and the great port of Dover—I could mention all the great ports throughout the country, as they are hugely significant and we are a great maritime nation—and the small ports are very significant to our constituencies around the country. By weight, 96% of all products brought into the country come in through our ports.
We are a great maritime nation and I am very proud, as the shipping Minister, to be responsible for dealing with the red ensign, the shipping industry and the problems of piracy on the high seas, which is one of the most significant issues that I have dealt with in the past 18 months. I have worked on that with the International Maritime Organisation, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new secretary-general of the IMO to his extremely important post. I became a good friend of the outgoing secretary-general and we will host a dinner for him here in the House of Commons. I hope the shadow Minister will be here for that—if the invitation has not yet arrived, it is in the post.
Our previous debate served to demonstrate the importance of ports not only in economic terms, but for leisure. As highlighted in a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, there is often controversy about changes to ports, such as harbour revision orders. However, we need growth to get out of the economic mire the coalition Government inherited, and for that to happen we must use the best modes of transport.
We will always need our roads, and significant investment is going into our road system—almost £3 billion in the next three years. We also need to carry more freight on rail, and we are achieving that, too. However, there is a capacity issue, particularly on the west coast main line. That is one of the reasons why High Speed 2 is so important; it will free up capacity.
We also need to think again about our ports. The ships coming into our ports are getting ever bigger, and we must work out how we can get their vast cargos around our country, as our transport networks will struggle to cope. Some goods will be carried by rail, but most will go by road. We must also use coastal shipping, however, and we should use the ports in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and the new Gateway port on the Thames as hubs to promote a renaissance in coastal shipping in this country.
Happily, that has already started, but we must remain united in Parliament and continue to promote this move. It is the environmentally friendly way of regenerating the economy and bringing jobs to port areas where previously, perhaps, many were employed but which have recently struggled economically.
When ports are altered and harbour revision orders are made, environmental issues must always be addressed. The Marine Management Organisation has a vital role to play in that. We must not, of course, just bulldoze in, but the habitats directive has been a problem in respect of developing our ports. The directive is therefore being reviewed. The findings will be reported in March, and they will be significant for the future of the ports of our country.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, has just entered the Chamber, and I welcome her. She will not have heard this, but I have already praised her Committee extensively. I probably will not have time to do so again.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I represent the small ports of Falmouth and Truro, and they have terrific potential to deliver on the agenda the Minister is articulating so well. Will he let us have the names and addresses of the people involved in the review of the UK interpretation of the EU habitats directive being undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as Members are struggling to find that information and we want to make representations to those people?
Mike Penning
I will certainly make that point to DEFRA. I have had the privilege of visiting Falmouth and listening to the issues and concerns there. It is a smallish—although not very small—port, but it is hugely significant, especially in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, and it can clearly contribute a lot. I pay tribute to the work being done there.
I will not rehearse all the points that were made in our earlier debate, but before I close this debate I want to say that this Government are taking the future of our ports, both large and small, very seriously. We have big decisions to make over the next few months and years on matters that can greatly help the growth of the economy and help us get out of the mess we inherited 18 months ago.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 25 January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 4.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Stephen Crabb.)
Thames River Crossings
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I am delighted to have so much available time to discuss future Thames crossings, but perhaps in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not use all of it.
Clearly, this is an extremely important issue for London, and for south Essex, north Kent and beyond, because the proposed crossings will add significantly to the nation’s infrastructure. The proposals generate a number of issues of particular pertinence to my constituents. I wish to raise those issues in the House today and to make some representations to the Minister. For many years there has been a need for additional capacity and more river crossings across the Thames, and, as with buses, two end up coming along at once.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to these additional crossings, and I am particularly supportive of the east London river crossing, a proposal being led by the Mayor of London and to which the Chancellor gave his backing in the autumn statement. However, perhaps of more relevance to my constituents are the proposals for a new crossing in the lower Thames, with the objective of alleviating congestion at Dartford. Achieving that objective has been long overdue, but the crossing proposals being examined are at present little more than lines on a map and I wish to put on the record some points that I would like the Minister and the Department to examine as they develop the options.
People in Thurrock are particularly worried about the impact that any new proposals will have on our road network. I am well aware that although the Department for Transport will be looking at the new crossing as part of the national road infrastructure, its impact will be local and will be felt by my constituents, so it is extremely important that the impact be fully considered. As the Member representing the constituency that sits on the north bank of the Dartford crossing, I have to say that this issue generates more correspondence in my postbag than any other, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has a similar experience. My constituents have to deal daily with the consequences of congestion generated by the Dartford crossing, and by the M25 and the A13. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in his place, and I know that he shares my frustrations with the A13 as much as anyone.
The existing Thames crossings are clearly not going to be adequate in the long term, particularly given the potential for economic growth in the locality—in east London and throughout the Thames Gateway—and given the projected increases in traffic volumes more generally. The constraints imposed by the road network in Thurrock and the volumes of traffic using the Dartford crossing are putting real economic opportunities in Thurrock at risk. Although some of the congestion generated by the Dartford crossing, which we are experiencing on a daily basis, ought to be mitigated by the proposal for a new lower Thames crossing, this rather depends on where the new crossing is sited and how it will connect with the existing road network. Given that the three options under consideration pass through Thurrock, this is an issue of very real concern and it is causing considerable disquiet among my constituents. We seek reassurance from the Minister that he will ensure not only that the new crossing will alleviate congestion at Dartford, but that it will not cause us additional problems on the road network in Thurrock.
On the case for more crossings generally, the Government have articulated the importance of appropriate transport infrastructure as a foundation for economic growth and that proposition has to be unarguable. I have no doubt that the inadequacy of current provision is holding back economic development. There are simply insufficient crossings east of Tower bridge; that is shown starkly if one looks at an aerial photograph of London. It is clear that that is holding back the capability of east London and the Thames Gateway to realise their full potential for economic growth. If we have any real ambitions for economic development to shift east, it is crucial that we put in decent road infrastructure.
Looking at current provision, one sees that the Blackwall tunnel and the Dartford crossing are at capacity and that the capacity provided by the Rotherhithe tunnel and the Woolwich ferry are inadequate to provide resilience to the road network. As a result, when either Blackwall or Dartford is closed, as happens all too frequently either because of maintenance or owing to an incident, the consequent congestion causes misery to motorists.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows more than most just how severe the congestion is at both Dartford and Thurrock, and she and I both welcome the fact that the Department for Transport is prioritising tackling the congestion at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. Does she agree that Dartford and Thurrock residents have had more than their fair share of Thames crossings and that if there is to be a further bridge over the river Thames, we should look elsewhere for its location?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do agree. That is why I am so keen to see another crossing in east London. It has always been my view that many of the journeys across the Dartford crossing take place because there is no other crossing between Blackwall and Dartford. A new crossing would alleviate some of the congestion at Dartford, because it would no longer be the only show in town for London orbital journeys. We need to look at where demand comes from. A big user category is HGV traffic from Dover and we need to look creatively at how we can divert some of that traffic away from Dartford and alleviate congestion there.
As I was saying, the congestion that is caused when one of the crossings is closed is causing misery for motorists, but more importantly it results in significant costs for businesses; they count the costs of the consequences of congestion. That is a particular concern in Thurrock, which is becoming a major logistics hub. It is interesting that this debate follows one on ports, because the growth of the port sector in Thurrock is phenomenal and hugely exciting. In addition to the new port at London Gateway, we have the port of Tilbury, which has gone through 125 years and is expanding, and the Cobelfret port at Purfleet, which has a roll-on/roll-off facility that is expanding. That is supporting a massive increase in job opportunities in the logistics sector and highlights the importance of getting Thurrock’s road network moving.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. There is consensus across the House that there are not enough crossings east of Tower bridge. Given what she has just said about the London Gateway port mentioned by the Minister in the previous debate, as well as the idea for a Thames estuary airport, which is all over the papers this morning because of Boris Johnson’s comments in The Daily Telegraph, and given that the centre of gravity in London has been moving east for the past 20 years and will continue to do so, does she think that, if we have the money, two crossings just would not cut it and that we would need four or even six?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Lady responds may I remind the shadow Minister that any interventions in an Adjournment debate should be made from the Back Benches?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am grateful for the opportunity to address that point. I have been less than compromising in my attitude towards the Thames estuary airport, but I think the hon. Gentleman's point about more crossings is that we need a much more long-term approach to our national road infrastructure. I remind him that his Government looked at this issue in 2009 but parked it because it was too difficult. When we consider road infrastructure issues, there is often a natural nimby tendency. We all want to represent our voters’ interests, but we need the courage to have the debate and think about what is really important for the long term. If we do not have that, we will be putting much-needed jobs at risk, and we cannot afford to do that right now. Generally, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that we must look at where the traffic need is likely to be in the long term.
However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on ports policy, taking into account where shipping will arrive in the future can open up opportunities to reduce road journeys. We need to look creatively at how we move things around, taking a joined-up approach. The issue of the airport is interesting because, if truth be known, that debate has been taking place, championed by its enthusiasts, without any thought as to the impact on shipping and wider infrastructure outside London.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
We heard yesterday very little support for the Thames estuary airport proposition, but one proposal has been floated, with very little detail to it, by Lord Foster, which would cost at least £50 billion. He is looking to include a bridge, a barrage and various other things. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that is an absolutely preposterous proposal?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am on record as describing that proposal as pie in the sky, and I have not seen anything to change that opinion.
Getting back to the issue of crossings rather than airports, we clearly need more crossings east of Blackwall, and I am delighted that the Minister is not going to duck the issue for a moment longer and that firm proposals will be made. I am not quite sure that I will entirely like what he has to propose, but we have already had a number of robust exchanges on this and I am sure there will be many more.
As I mentioned, the priority must be a new crossing in east London. One can see, just by driving through it, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse would confirm, that what has really been missing is a link between the north and south circulars. That will unlock opportunities in east London. The area between the ExCeL centre and London city airport is within minutes of central London and it is staggering that it has not really benefited from more development. I am therefore delighted that the Government have put their support behind the Mayor of London’s proposal for the new crossing linking Greenwich and Silvertown. I gather that the tunnel will have the capacity to carry up to 2,500 vehicles an hour—a significant increase in capacity, but not enough. As I said, I believe the crossing will divert some of the congestion from Dartford, and since the Mayor of London is determined to complete the crossing within a decade, it is obviously an extremely positive development for the capital and for road users within the M25.
I know, however, that the Minister’s main priority is the new crossing in the lower Thames. The previous Government also concluded that such a crossing was necessary. I gather that on every working day the Dartford crossing is operating at capacity, and because of those volumes, even with the removal of toll barriers and the introduction of free flow and the consequent increase in capacity that that will deliver, by 2031 the crossing will be at capacity again. Given how long it takes for this country to build major infrastructure projects, clearly we must make a decision now if we are to be ready to meet those future demands.
As I said, although I welcome the crossing, its ultimate location is of central importance to my constituents in Thurrock. Although, as far as the Department is concerned, the Dartford crossing is part of the national road infrastructure, its impact is local. It has air quality consequences for my constituents. It causes congestion, particularly when there are queues to access the crossing at junction 30/31 of the M25, and I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that improvements to that junction are extremely necessary to maximise the efficiency of the existing road network. That is also felt by the business community, given the importance of the logistics industry and the opportunities for job creation in that sector. The need to ensure that traffic moves will determine the degree to which the local economy can grow.
I shall run through some of the options, to get on record some of the concerns that my constituents have. One option is to link Gravesend and East Tilbury; I believe it is being championed by Kent county council. That option has aroused considerable opposition from my constituents. It would require the destruction of huge swathes of green belt in Thurrock to make way for a new motorway. As Thurrock already hosts the M25, the Dartford crossing and the A13, residents are extremely unhappy at the prospect of more green belt being dug up to build new roads, and the Thurrock Gazette recently collected many thousands of signatures for a petition to that effect which I presented to the House last year. I recall that when the previous Government looked at that option it had the weakest business case for alleviating congestion at Dartford.
Another option is for a crossing between Swanscombe and Tilbury. This would have the advantage of joining an existing road that has some spare capacity, but there is a serious question over whether it could cope with the capacity generated by a new crossing. The third option is for an additional crossing at Dartford. This is perhaps the one that generates the most concern, given the volume of traffic we currently struggle with. Given that the M25 is being widened to five lanes in each direction, it is clear that the traffic will bottleneck at Dartford, where the provision is only four lanes in each direction.
We desperately need the improvements that the changes at junction 30 will deliver to deal with the current situation, as the existing road infrastructure cannot support current volumes, let alone an additional crossing adjacent to the existing one. We need an assurance from the Minister that the consequences for Thurrock will be fully considered as the Government review the options. Given Thurrock’s position as a logistics hub, the road infrastructure simply must function adequately so that our traffic can get around.
There will of course be massive benefits if new infrastructure can be achieved, but I would like to put on the record three criteria that I would like the Minister to take on board when considering the options. We want assurances: first, that the new crossing will not result in the destruction of Thurrock’s green belt for the purpose of constructing new motorways; secondly, that it will not add additional traffic volumes to our already overcrowded road network; and thirdly, that it will alleviate congestion at the Dartford crossing. Clearly, the degree to which the new crossing interacts with the existing road network will determine the degree to which congestion is alleviated. Without these assurances, there will be extremely strong opposition in Thurrock to a new crossing.
There are a number of other issues, and perhaps myths, that the Minister needs to address as the debate moves forward. Many of my constituents believe that the new crossing should be further east, effectively creating a new outer circular. It is difficult to see where such a crossing could be constructed, given the width of the Thames further along the estuary and the cost implications that that would have for a new crossing, be it a tunnel or bridge, but it is important that those options are considered before they are rejected or accepted. I have also mentioned that much of the demand is generated by the volume of heavy goods vehicle traffic from Dover, so we need to be imaginative about how we can divert some of that away from the crossing, not only by having a new crossing, but perhaps by transporting more by ship.
Finally, my constituents often tell me that there would be no need for an additional crossing if the tolls were removed. They believe that the toll barriers are the principal source of congestion. I do not believe that their removal is a solution for the long term, but the Government need to make the case for why expansion is necessary so that we take everyone with us on the need to invest in this road infrastructure. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I am sure that this will not be the last time we debate the matter, but having the debate is important because, ultimately, it will lead to a better final decision on where the crossing will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a privilege to respond to this important debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has secured. She is absolutely right that we have had many robust discussions on this in the House and when I visited Thurrock, and similar discussions on the other side of the river when I visited Dartford. As she knows, I am acutely aware of the situation in Thurrock, not least because I was a parliamentary candidate for the constituency in 2001 and a fireman in that part of the world for many years. Although I probably do not know the situation quite as well as she does, I did spend my teenage years in that part of the world and so understand the issues there. Many of the concerns raised with me when I was a parliamentary candidate have been raised with me on my more recent visits to Thurrock and Dartford, which is why we desperately need to have this debate and this review. My hon. Friend—he is my friend—the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, is sitting opposite me, and he knows that I hardly ever do party political stuff, but the previous Government did duck this issue, and they know that they did.
There is a capacity issue at the crossing. We always talk about the bridge, but going north there are two tunnels, one of which is the original. I remember going through when there was only one tunnel, that is how old I am, but going north the inner tunnel is a smaller bore, which causes problems for high-sided vehicles, and that is one reason why the Government have committed themselves to looking at another crossing, either by tunnel or by bridge.
The existing tunnels and bridge were designed for a capacity of 135,000 vehicles per day, but usage has hit 180,000, and one reason why it is not even higher—businesses tell me this, as I am sure the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency tell her—is that some businesses shy away from using the bridge. They can work in the cost of the tolls, but not the cost of the delays. For many businesses and many people, however, there is no other option.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about Dover, and Dover is interesting, because it is predominantly a roll-on, roll-off port. It is not like the port of Tilbury, or like DP World’s new port—incidentally, it is about to finish the first phase of that project, and I had the privilege of being at its launch. At Dover, however, the lorries are driven on and driven off. Some are on skids, but at the end of the day the freight is on wheels, which are going to roll, and if they are going to go north from Dover there is only one way they can go.
The crossing is significant, with Thurrock to the north, and, to digress for a second, everybody talks about it being the Dartford crossing, but that is only one side. The other side, the northern side, is clearly in Thurrock, but no one talks about the Thurrock crossing very much, apart from those who live in Thurrock, and that is something I have always picked up.
The crossing is of national significance, however. It is part of our national motorway network, and, even though I fully understand that the Mayor of London’s proposals, which we support, will take on some capacity, I do not want to divert larger HGVs and through traffic off the motorways. That is what the motorways were designed for, why they are so successful and why they are the safest roads in the country—because they were designed for their current use. The issue is that they are very successful, so we are expanding them and sweating their assets.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that both sides of the motorway are being expanded, albeit without hard-shoulder running, which is what I would have liked to see. The orders were signed off long before I became a Minister, and the Audit Commission said that there was a massive overspend on the project because we were not able to use the asset as we should have—either by widening the motorway and using the hard shoulder, or by using just the hard shoulder. We did not need to do both, but we could have saved an awful lot of money and spent it more wisely elsewhere.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate about where the crossing should be, because further down the line some bright lawyer will drag me through a judicial review, stating that I have expressed a view too early on, but the business case will be significant. The infrastructure to which there is a connection, and the cost of developing it, will be hugely significant, and the effects on the environment—I am acutely aware of the green belt and the pressures on it each side of the river—will be taken into consideration.
What will also be taken into consideration is the effect on the local communities each side of the river and, particularly, on their local road network, because if we do not do so there will be no point in moving on from where we are today. The reason why we managed to secure significant investment from the Chancellor during the spending round was by, first, having a short-term look, today, at what we can do to alleviate the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents regarding pollution, in particular, and congestion. One of the biggest things on which MPs and colleagues throughout the country write to me is congestion, its environmental aspects and its knock-on effects on business .
Gareth Johnson
The Minister mentions pollution in the area around the Dartford crossing, but may I press him on noise pollution in particular? When he reviews the situation along the east Thames corridor, will he look at the surfaces on the M25 to see whether there is a way of minimising the noise pollution that emanates from those surfaces near the Dartford crossing?
Mike Penning
I was going to move on to other sorts of pollution, including light and noise. I give hon. Members an assurance that when the tarmac needs to be replaced, or the soft surface, as some people like to call it, it will be replaced with low-noise tarmac. That commitment was given by the previous Government and we have continued with it. It is fractionally more expensive, but it removes a huge blight. It is not silent, but it generates about 50% less noise than normal tarmac. The noise is an enormous amount lower than that on concrete surfaces, but the sad news is that concrete surfaces last much longer. They are a huge success, but the road noise from them is hugely significant.
As I was saying, if we get this right, initially by removing the barriers and then by realigning the motorway going south where there is the dog-leg at junction 1A, people will be able to cross the river with confidence, particularly going south—I will return to the problems going north later—without having to search around for change, throw money into a pot and worry about whether the machine has counted it properly. There is currently the smart facility to go through with a DART card, which I encourage people to use. If we can get rid of the barriers, it will significantly free up time for people going through, particularly as different vehicles currently have to pay different fees. There is a debate about how much time it will save. However, that will not alleviate the problem in the long term.
Interestingly, hauliers tell me that the better I make the Dartford crossing, the more they are likely to use it. People would also be likely to invest in the area. There is a significant ferry employer in Thurrock which owns a significant amount of land on the other side of the river in Dartford that it does not use because of the congestion on the bridge. I am not going to say that investment would immediately go up, but the indication that I have is that the congestion going north and south is inhibiting investment in that part of the world. We can alleviate the congestion, and if we do not alleviate the congestion locally, there is frankly no point in doing this. We can build into what we are doing with the removal of the barriers, thus freeing up more capacity.
As I said, the Chancellor has given us the money to look carefully at where a new crossing could be sited. We are rightly supporting the Mayor’s new crossing, which will be excellent news for east London. However, a lot of the traffic that we are considering, particularly the growth in HGV traffic on the M25 through Dartford and Thurrock, will not go that way. That crossing will alleviate the amount of traffic to some extent, but by nowhere near enough.
Members who were here for the previous debate know that I passionately believe that we need to grow ourselves out of the economic situation that we are in. It is right that I need to get as much traffic off the roads as possible, but there is no point in making our motorways wider and wider, managing them and getting them to flow all around the country if, in the most significant spot in the country, with HGVs unable to go anywhere else, there are barriers, toll booths and a northbound crossing that does not have anywhere near the capacity of the southbound one.
We will consider very carefully where the new crossing should go, and we will ensure that any effects on the local infrastructure, particularly junctions 30 and 31, are addressed in the early plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock knows, we have looked very carefully at the protracted, but in the end successful, negotiations with DP World over those junctions. I thank DP World for its investment in UK plc. Creating 36,000 jobs in that part of the world is a massively significant boost to the economy, and if we get the crossing right it will be a boost for the economy on both sides of the bridge because a lot of people living south of the river will probably come north to work.
If we can get the crossing right, it will be great for communities on both sides of the river environmentally and in terms of lifestyle, because they will be able to commute and do more things. It will be even better for UK plc, and if we can get it right I am determined to do so as early as possible. We need no more delays, and we have the money to do the early work. We will have long discussions with hon. Members about how the project is structured and how it can work, but UK plc needs a new crossing on the lower Thames and that is what it will get.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Holocaust Memorial Day 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
We come to the debate to mark Holocaust memorial day. I am delighted—I am sure that the whole House is—that so many Members have decided to take part. The first Member to be called is Gavin Barwell.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. On 27 January—the 67th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau—the UK will, for the 12th time, celebrate Holocaust memorial day. I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which has become something of an annual tradition in Parliament in recent years. I am also grateful to all Members who have attended today.
With your indulgence, Mr Hancock, I shall start with an explanation. When I originally requested this debate, I was a lowly Back Bencher. Subsequently, I was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I checked with the Backbench Business Committee whether that was a problem, and it said no. However, the Government have chosen a Minister from my Department to respond to the debate, so there is a technical issue. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and to my Secretary of State, who have both agreed that, because the subject is wholly apolitical, there is no issue with me initiating the debate. I wanted to put that on the record from the start.
As all hon. Members will know, the holocaust was the systematic state-sponsored murder on an industrial scale of approximately 6 million of Europe’s pre-war Jewish population of 9 million by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. One million of those murdered were children. Of course, there were many other victims of the Nazi regime. In addition to those killed on the battlefield or by the bombing of civilian areas, millions of prisoners of war and civilians were brought to Germany to act as slave labour, and Romani were also killed.
There has been a great deal of historical debate about whether the holocaust is unique. Genocides have occurred before and, regrettably, they have occurred since. However, it seems that the holocaust is unique in the sense that it involved a modern industrial state turning all the energies of its bureaucracy towards the extermination of a single group of people, and it is entirely right that we commemorate that and learn the appropriate lessons.
In opening the debate, my job is briefly to set out the facts of what happened. Nazi ideology was based on a pseudoscientific racism that saw Jews as a race that was in mortal combat with the Aryan race for world domination. However long their families had lived in Germany, as far as the Nazis were concerned, Jews were aliens who could never be part of the community. The persecution of Jewish people began as soon as Hitler came to power on 30 January 1933. That year, a series of laws were passed that excluded Jews from key areas of public life, the civil service, medicine and agriculture. In 1935, the Nuremberg laws were passed, making it illegal for a Jew to marry or have sex with an Aryan, and stripping Jews of German citizenship. Violence against Jewish people and against Jewish property escalated, with Kristallnacht on 9 and 10 November 1938 being the most infamous example.
At that point, the Nazis’ plan was to deport forcibly all Jews from Germany and to try to convince the Governments of the United Kingdom and France to accept deported Jews to their colonies. However, it was the outbreak of the second world war that led to the holocaust, both because it put a much larger proportion of Europe’s Jewish population at the Nazis’ mercy and because it gave cover to the ultimate fulfilment of their racist ideology.
Western Poland—annexed-occupied by Germany in September 1939—contained about 2 million Jewish people before the war. Initially, they were forcibly relocated to ghettos. Conditions were appalling: for example, 30% of Warsaw’s population was forced to live in just 2.4% of the city. The ghettos were deliberately located in cities that were also railway junctions, so that, in Heydrich’s chilling words, “future measures can be accomplished more easily”.
The invasion of Russia in 1941 escalated the atrocities even further. The invading army was followed by four SS Einsatzgruppen, which were essentially extermination squads. At his trial at Nuremberg, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D, Otto Ohlendorf, described their work:
“The Einsatz unit would enter a village or town and order the prominent Jewish citizens to call together all Jews for the purpose of ‘resettlement.’ They were requested to hand over their valuables and shortly before execution to surrender their outer clothing. They were transported to the place of execution…immediately. In this way it was attempted to keep the span of time from the moment in which the victims knew what was about to happen…until the time of their actual execution as short as possible. Then they were shot, kneeling or standing, by firing squads in a military manner and the corpses thrown into the ditch. I never permitted the shooting by individuals, but ordered that several of the men should shoot at the same time to avoid direct personal responsibility.”
It is estimated that more than 700,000 Jewish people were killed in that way.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has referred to what happened when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Is he aware that there are many people who, at the end of world war two, fled the Soviet Union and got false identities in other countries? Is it not important that we continue to make sure that those people, wherever they are and however old they are, pay for the crimes they carried out?
Gavin Barwell
That point is extremely helpful, because the end of that quote states:
“to avoid direct personal responsibility.”
One of the responses to what happened must be to ensure that everyone, wherever possible, is made to take responsibility for what they did.
On 20 January 1942, Heydrich convened a meeting to discuss
“the final solution of the Jewish question”.
At that meeting, figures were given for each country, including the United Kingdom, countries under German occupation, neutral countries and belligerents that Germany had not yet conquered. The Jewish population of Europe was to be deported to the east and either used as slave labour in concentration camps—the Germans had a phrase for that that translates as “destruction through work”—or killed in the gas chambers of new extermination camps. It is estimated that 1 million died at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 870,000 at Treblinka, 600,000 at Belzec, 360,000 at Majdanek, 320,000 at Chelmno and 250,000 at Sobibor.
I want briefly to touch on the emotional reactions of those who liberated the various camps, both the concentration camps and the extermination camps. For time reasons, I shall quote just three people. First, I shall quote America’s legendary broadcaster, Ed Murrow, who was with the US Third Army when it liberated the concentration camp of Buchenwald. He said:
“I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words”.
A. R. Horwell was a German Jew serving as a doctor in the British Army who wrote to his wife following the liberation of Bergen-Belsen about how he was deeply moved to be part of a group
“where there is no sign of discrimination, and where the Jewish padres were the most honoured guests. It made me realise it again: it was worthwhile to be in this war, it is an honour and distinction to wear this uniform...I must restrain myself, for fear to become too emotional. I can’t help it, darling; it is a great thing to be back here after all these years—after all these immense sufferings inflicted upon us and our people, to be here with the victorious army...I am very happy tonight and sad at the same time. Happy, because I have survived, one of the few to see this day, and sad, because I am one of the few—so few”.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for intervening, but I know Belsen relatively well. I want to remind everyone that it was not only people of Jewish origin who were exterminated in these camps; Gypsies and, indeed, officers of the Special Operations Executive, of which my mother was a member, were also exterminated.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. Earlier, I tried to touch on the fact that the victims of Nazi atrocity were clearly many and varied.
Dr David Tibbs was serving with 13 Para, which was also involved in the liberation of Belsen. He had a slightly different reaction:
“At Belsen, I felt a curious elation. Looking at all these terrible things, I thought, ‘Here is the justification for this war, for all the lives we have lost, for everything we’ve been through’”.
A few people in our society today argue that war never achieves anything. I myself am an opponent of one of the conflicts we are engaged in at the moment. However, those words are a reminder that, sometimes, violence does achieve something. In this case, it stopped, far too late, a tremendous atrocity.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He spoke very movingly about the history and first-hand testimony. Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a repeated holocaust denier, was given a platform to address the UN anti-racism conference in Geneva in April 2009, and that he spoke from a UN platform again on this subject in 2011?
Gavin Barwell
I regret that fact. I am a great believer in free speech, and if people such as Mr Ahmadinejad wish to reveal just how foolish they are by denying things for which the historical evidence is overwhelming, I do not have a problem with that, but I do not believe the United Nations should have given him a platform to do so.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that, as time passes and there are fewer and fewer survivors from the camps and people who liberated them, the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust—Karen Pollock and her team, who are with us today—is vital in teaching future generations exactly what happened, so that we can hope and pray that history does not repeat itself for people of any religion, colour or creed?
Gavin Barwell
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and it is to that matter that I now turn.
To me, Holocaust memorial day is an opportunity to do several things: first, to remember the victims of the holocaust. Like, I imagine, many hon. Members, I had the opportunity, thanks to the Holocaust Educational Trust, to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau with students from my constituency as part of its excellent “Lessons from Auschwitz” project. It is probably the single most memorable thing I have done as a Member of Parliament. To those MPs who have not taken that opportunity, I encourage them strongly to do so. Indeed, the very idea of Holocaust memorial day came from a former Member of this House, who visited Auschwitz-Birkenau thanks to the Holocaust Educational Trust. One thing I learned from that visit was not just to regard people as victims. We started the visit in the Polish town of Oswiecim, looking at the gap on the high street where the famous synagogue used to be and looking at a whole part of Polish and European culture that was very nearly wiped off the face of the map, to remember what was there before and to not just see people as victims.
Holocaust memorial day is an opportunity to pay tribute to the survivors. Before I joined the House, I was a councillor in Croydon and was responsible for community cohesion. We have an event in Croydon on 27 January, when we commemorate Holocaust memorial day. I will never forget listening to a Croydon resident, Janina Fischler-Martinho, who is a holocaust survivor. She spoke to an audience of several hundred young people and they sat in rapt silence listening to what she had to say. One of the challenges we face is that sadly, the number of survivors is diminishing and we need to find a way to make sure that their story continues in the future. I know that the Holocaust Educational Trust is working with the sons and daughters of survivors to consider how they can take forward their parents’ testimony. Holocaust memorial day is also an opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery of those who sheltered Jews at great personal risk and to those who liberated the camps, and to remember the victims of other instances of genocide and racial prejudice—I would like to touch on that at the end of my speech.
Why is it important to remember? In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former Secretary of State for Education, Lord Baker of Dorking, whom I admire enormously and think has done a great deal of good for education in this country, said something that, on this occasion, I disagreed with:
“I would ban the study of Nazism from the history curriculum totally. I don’t really think that it does anything to learn more about Hitler and Nazism and the Holocaust. It doesn’t really make us favourably disposed to Germany for a start, present-day Germany...I think you study your own history first...I think children should leave a British school with some idea of the timeline in their minds—how it came from Roman Britain to Elizabeth II.”
I certainly agree with him about the importance of teaching the history of our country, but to me world war two and the holocaust is a vital part of that history. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Many still share Churchill’s judgment at the time that Britain’s continued resistance in 1940, when we had no realistic prospect whatever of winning the war, was “our finest hour”.
In response to Lord Baker’s point about attitudes to modern-day Germany, it is important to learn that the holocaust happened not just because of the Nazis, but because people from many countries collaborated with them, and that no country has done more to address its historic crimes than Germany. Those are important points to make when teaching this material. Nor should the United Kingdom be too complacent. A Foreign Office official, Arminius Dew, wrote the following on 1 September 1944, during an impassioned controversy about allied policy in the face of increasing intelligence about the holocaust:
“In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Office is wasted on dealing with these wailing Jews”.
That was a British Foreign Office official, and at the time appeals for the bombing of the approaches to Auschwitz were turned down.
What happened is a reminder of what human beings are capable of doing to each other, and not just by a small number of people. As Ian Kershaw wrote:
“The road to Auschwitz was built by hate but paved with indifference.”
Parish churches and the Interior Ministry supplied birth records showing who was Jewish. The post office delivered the deportation and denaturalisation orders. Government transport officers arranged the trains for deportation to the camps. Pharmaceutical companies tested drugs on camp prisoners. Companies bid for the contracts to build the crematoria. Detailed lists of the victims were drawn up on IBM Germany’s punch card machines, producing meticulous records of genocide.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as others have, on securing the debate. I join him and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) in congratulating the Holocaust Educational Trust on its work. Tomorrow I will be at Perryfields high school judging a contest for those who wish to go on its next trip to Auschwitz.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) describes the background to hate, and I agree with the wider way in which he has drawn that. Is not one of the most shocking facts about the genocide the amount of people deeply involved at senior and officer level who were graduates of universities, and in many cases medical graduates? Does that not indicate that such prejudice is not confined to the unthinking and illiterate, but that it spreads right the way through, and is a virus that has to be fought in every generation?
Gavin Barwell
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. Many of those who would have been judged at the time as educated and cultured people were responsible for the deaths.
It has happened since and it can happen again. Many of the attitudes and much of the ideology that I described at the outset—of people being “alien”—and which underpinned what happened are still prevalent in parts of the population here in the UK. In Croydon, there was a recent incident where a lady was filmed on a tram making the most disgraceful racist remarks about black passengers on the tram. As the local MP, I commented on it and condemned it. For the next two or three weeks, I was subject to a stream of vile e-mails from people who believe that anyone who is not white cannot be British. They accept that they are British citizens, but they do not accept that they are really British. They think that they are alien and do not belong here—that is the kind of language in the numerous e-mails I received. The same attitude applies in some of the ways the Muslim community in this country has been demonised in parts of the media—that there is something alien about that faith and that Muslims cannot be British.
Those attitudes persist in parts of our society. It is important not only that we remember what happened—remember those who lost their lives and the bravery of those who survived—but that we learn that lesson and continue to confront it. We have to face the fact that as human beings, we appear to be predisposed to being hostile to those who appear different. That means that we are bound to behave in that way, but we need to confront that innate prejudice and overcome it. That, to me, is the fundamental underlying lesson of the holocaust.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful and moving case. I was intrigued to see in a television documentary some of the propaganda material from the Hitler era. What shocked me was that it did not spew out hate; the propaganda was all about archetypal families—almost a sketch of happy families. It was quite cleverly done, almost saying, “This is what we are part of and therefore this other group must be part of the other.” I find that very chilling and dangerous—that is how the roots of prejudice can grow. We are in danger of that in this country—although obviously not to the same degree—when there is an insidious type of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or whatever, and a sense that a particular group is different.
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of people want to speak and if hon. Members make interventions, could they please make them short or wait until they have a chance to speak? Otherwise, it is very unfair to other hon. Members who have indicated that they want to speak. To make an intervention and just leave, for example, is not fair to those hon. Members who might not get the opportunity to speak, so can Members please bear that in mind? I will try to be as fair as possible to everyone, but if you make interventions please ensure they are short.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady’s points speak for themselves. Taking on board what you said, Mr Hancock, I shall conclude.
It is important that we commemorate the holocaust, in memory of those who lost their lives and in order to learn the appropriate lessons for the future. If hon. Members wish personally to mark their commitment, they can sign a book of commitment on the Members’ staircase from Monday to Thursday next week between 2.30 pm and 4.30 pm. An event is being held on 23 January at 6.30 pm in the Atlee Suite.
I thank you, Mr Hancock. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and all hon. Members present for attending to show their support for this important cause.
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the House for the way he presented his comments. A lot of hon. Members want to speak, so please bear with the Chair.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
In March 1939, a 10-year-old Jewish boy from a small industrial town called Ostrava in what was then Czechoslovakia was put on a train by his mum and teenage sisters. He was the only member of his family able to leave Czechoslovakia, because of his age, and it was the last time that he saw his mum and sisters, who were eventually rounded up and imprisoned, first in a ghetto, then in Theresienstadt, before finally being murdered in Treblinka. When he arrived in the UK, he could only speak three words of English—“hot”, “cross” and “bun”—but he grew up to become the youngest grammar school head master in the country. He was honoured with an MBE for his services to education and his charitable work. He adopted four children, of whom I am the second, and this explains why, for me, this is such an important issue.
As hon. Members can imagine, I was brought up hearing about the holocaust from my parents and hearing stories about the suffering and the appalling cruelty, about which we have heard this afternoon, and the scale of the slaughter. That left me with a lifelong conviction that prejudice leads to intolerance, then to victimisation and eventually to persecution, and that everyone of us has a duty not to stand by, but to make a difference—to fight discrimination, intolerance and bigotry wherever we find it. I have seen similar convictions awoken in students from Dudley who have visited Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust and have come home and campaigned against racism on the streets of our town.
The Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” project is now in its 14th year and has taken up to 16,000 students and teachers from all over the UK to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Based on the premise that hearing is not like seeing, young people can see for themselves what happens when prejudice and racism become acceptable. As a result of funding initiated by the previous Government and continued, I am delighted to say, by the current one, students from every school will see with their own eyes the appalling cost of racism and anti-Semitism and will be able to explain that to their peers in their own words. I echo the tributes paid to the trust, and to its dedicated team, for the phenomenal work that it does not just reminding people of the horrors of the holocaust, but ensuring that these lessons are learned by every generation afresh.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing this debate and I thank him for doing so. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on agreeing to it, because this debate shows that our country’s politicians want to unite in determination to ensure that these horrendous crimes are never forgotten. It shows that we want to join in a promise that we will—all of us—in whatever way we can, work to ensure that they are never repeated.
My dad’s story teaches us that, when other countries were rounding up their Jews and herding them on to trains to the gas chamber, Britain provided a safe haven for tens of thousands of refugee children. Think of Britain in the thirties. The rest of Europe was succumbing to fascism—Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain—but, here in Britain, Mosley was rejected. Imagine 1941: France invaded, Europe overrun, America not yet in the war and just one country standing for liberty and democracy, a beacon to the rest of the world, fighting not just for our freedom, but for the world’s liberty.
Britain did not just win the war. Britain won the right of people around the world to live in freedom. Look at Britain’s response to the holocaust. It is true that our country did not do enough, of course, and that it could have done more, and sooner, but no one can deny that when other countries were rounding up their Jews Britain provided a safe haven. It was British troops, as we have heard, who liberated the concentration camps, rescuing tens of thousands of inmates from almost certain death and enabling many of those to go on and prosper under the democratic values of the UK.
When people ask me, “What does it mean to be British? Does it matter if the countries that comprise Britain go their separate ways? What’s special and unique about our country?” I say that it is because of who we are as a people and what we are as a country that British people came together and stood up to the Nazis and were prepared to lay down their lives for freedom. For me, what makes people British is not what they look like, the colour of their skin, not where their parents were born or the religion they practise. It is not a matter of their race or religion; it is how they behave, what they believe and the contribution that they are prepared to make to our society. What makes people British is their belief in the timeless British values that British people have been prepared to fight and die for: democracy, equality, freedom, fairness and tolerance. It is this that makes us the greatest country on earth.
It has been a privilege for me to meet Zigi Shipper, Ben Helfgott, Mala Tribich and Joanna Millan, who survived the concentration camps and went on to rebuild their lives and make a huge contribution to Britain, bringing up families and setting up businesses. Now, working with HET, they spend their time travelling around the country speaking to schools and teaching future generations, ensuring that these crimes are never forgotten.
We organise an event each year through my office in Dudley. It is now the borough’s Holocaust memorial day event. A survivor has spoken at these events in the past few years. I am delighted that Joanna Millan will be at Dudley college a week on Friday, so people in Dudley, including students and young people, will hear this story anew. The courage and dignity of these people, and their humbling sense of duty and commitment, means that even today they want to use their experience to make our country better and to ensure that these terrible events are never forgotten. It is a humbling experience.
I pay tribute to another British hero, a great man, who lived in Stourbridge near Dudley. Known as the British Schindler, Frank Foley was an MI6 agent at the British embassy in Berlin in the 1930s, where he worked as a passport control officer. He provided papers to let Jewish people escape, forged passports and even provided a haven for Jews in his own home at risk of being rounded up. As the BBC says,
“At great personal risk, Frank Foley’s bravery and compassion saved thousands of lives and some even believe the figure could run into tens of thousands.”
But the thing that has always struck me is that after the war he retired to Stourbridge, where he lived out his years in anonymity until he died in 1958. At Eveson road, where he lived, you will see that this great man—this hero—lived in the most typical British house in the most typical British street that you could ever imagine. He teaches us, even today, that seemingly ordinary people can find within themselves the courage to do extraordinary things and do the right thing when the easier, safer course would be just to walk away and turn their back. Frank Foley risked his life to save so many others.
For me, it is important—this debate is important—to remember the holocaust so that we remember the greatest crime ever inflicted by man against his fellow man in the bleakest chapter in the history of the 20th century; so that we pay our respects to all who suffered at the hands of the Nazis in the holocaust and in other more recent genocides, too; and so that we remind ourselves that what makes us the people we are, and Britain the country it is, is the unique response of our country to the holocaust and to the Nazis.
The one thing that should come out of today’s debate, signing the book of commitment or attending the events in our constituencies over the next few days, is the opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the great British values that make our country what it is and to pledge again to fight prejudice and hatred wherever it is found. That would be the best tribute possible to the memory of the people who were killed 60-odd years ago.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
My contribution this afternoon will be short, because many Members want to speak. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), with his personal and moving contribution about how he and his family were affected directly by the holocaust. I, too, thank the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for their assiduous campaigning year after year to ensure that we do not lose sight of what happened during the holocaust. I very much welcome the theme for this year’s campaign, Speak Up, Speak Out, which encourages us to stand up and speak against racism, discrimination and genocide, because regrettably those issues are alive and well, and remain with us, abroad and in the UK.
I draw attention to the work of the all-party group against anti-Semitism. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) would have liked to have been present today to make a contribution. I must declare an interest as the vice-chair of the group, but my role has been relatively minor compared with that of the hon. Gentleman, who has played a central role in building the group, which has challenged past Governments successfully, pushing them much harder and faster. Let me list some of its achievements. There have been three formal Government responses to its inquiries into anti-Semitism, under different Governments. There has been the establishment of a Whitehall working group on anti-Semitism, the first official anti-Semitic hate crime statistics, a funding arrangement for the security needs of Jewish faith schools, a Crown Prosecution Service review into the disparity between anti-Semitic incidents and convictions, ministerial conferences and action on internet hate crime. So the group has made it plain that, when people want to get together and successive Governments have the will to tackle such issues head on, it is possible to achieve great things.
We must maintain our vigilance, and the work of the Community Security Trust in highlighting the number of incidents reminds us regularly of that. Although the number of incidents of anti-Semitic hate crime has gone down, there is still a large number of incidents around the country. The Jewish faith is not the only faith to suffer in such a way, of course, and I very much welcome the funding recently given to MAMA, the Measuring anti-Muslim Attacks project, which is a means of reporting hate crime against the Muslim faith. The Minister is well aware of the initiative, and I hope that it will be possible for that facility to be drawn to the attention of a wide range of Muslim groups so that awareness of it can be promoted heavily within the communities that could use it. There have been interesting discussions, and I hope there will be more, with other organisations that might be able to benefit from such a reporting mechanism, including people with disabilities who clearly still suffer a degree of discrimination and targeting that is completely unacceptable.
One other area on which the Government are due to report is to do with Roma people. During the holocaust, perhaps up to half a million Roma people were killed. While they do not suffer persecution as they did then, certainly in the UK, persecution of Roma people remains in some countries in the European Union, and the UK Government should take a vigorous stand on the issue. The Government also have a responsibility to come forward with a plan on the Roma people, and I look forward to it.
We must maintain our focus on education. As other Members have said, as the survivors of the holocaust die, perhaps it loses its prominence. I suspect that many parents and filmgoers have had the opportunity to see “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas”—I have just finished reading the book to my son—which brings to the attention of a completely new generation, in an accessible way, the impact of the holocaust. That can play an important role in raising the awareness of new generations, when neither they nor their parents have had direct knowledge of the holocaust. Also, as the schools landscape is changing, with more free schools and academies, schools have an important role. There might be a conflict with the desire, which I support, to give schools more control over their own curriculum and activities, but it would be regrettable if that desire to free them up meant that the focus that there has been on the holocaust and on educating pupils on such issues were lost as part of the change.
In conclusion, it is entirely right that we should have the debate today, and the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is right to have brought it to the House’s attention. I welcome the flexibility shown to enable him to speak. The debate is clearly important and we need to have it annually so that we all remain focused on the genocide during the holocaust and can avoid future genocides.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing it. He spoke powerfully and intelligently, and I commend him on how he opened the debate. Before I progress to my remarks, I will comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). It was probably the most moving speech that I have heard in this place since I was elected. I have always had enormous respect for him, but that respect has grown today.
I do not represent a constituency with a large Jewish community, but I have always had a significant interest in the holocaust. I hesitate to use those words because the phrase, “an interest in the holocaust” might sound strange to some people. I am not perversely intrigued by what happened, but I am interested in the questions that the holocaust raises for us as a society and as individuals. How was it allowed to happen? What leads an individual to think that it is okay to torture and kill another human being on the basis of their beliefs, religion or culture? How do we prevent such violence and the huge atrocities that occurred in the holocaust from ever happening again? What would I have done in such circumstances? What would I have done if I had been a young person growing up in Poland during the second world war, knowing about or imagining some of the things that were going on in a place not far from me?
I have had that interest, and last year it led me to accept an invitation from the Holocaust Educational Trust to visit Auschwitz, as part of its Lessons from Auschwitz programme. I will reflect on some of the things that I learnt from that visit; but equally, I shall pay tribute to a man who has been the rabbi at the Catford and Bromley synagogue for the past 11 years, Dr Zev Amit, who sadly is retiring. In his work in Catford, he has done a huge amount to promote education among young people, as the HET does. Therefore, although I do not represent a constituency with a large Jewish community, those are my reasons for attending the debate today.
Last April, the hon. Member for Croydon Central and I went to Auschwitz with young people from schools in my constituency and visited two of the three concentration camps there. It is hard to know which issues to reflect on in a short speech. However, one thing that struck me when I was there was that we can read about it and watch films, but nothing can really prepare us for the enormity of the horror that took place—its scale and the human lives behind the statistics. A young woman, who is a constituent of mine, called Yasemin Mustafa from Sedgehill school was on the trip, and afterwards, she led the most amazing assembly at the school in front of about 500 or 600 pupils, where she spoke about her experience. Her feelings were similar to those that I described. She said:
“Nothing could have possibly prepared me for the distressing horror I was about to see. No matter how many books or films I watched I felt absolutely powerless as I felt the streams of tears run down my face. I couldn’t quite comprehend how it was possible for another human being to inflict such torture, pain and distress upon another.”
I cried when I visited Auschwitz as well. It was not when I saw the thousands upon thousands of bags and suitcases that those who were led to the concentration camps had taken with them. It was not when I saw the human hair that was cut off women, men and children when they entered the camps or when I stood in a bathroom and saw the pictures painted on the wall by people trying to make their disgusting quarters a little more human. It was when we stood outside the Nazi officer’s house about 10 metres from the gas chambers and the barracks that people lived in, and I asked myself, “Why didn’t someone stop him?” He was living in a house probably 3 or 5 km from people in Polish villages, and I asked myself, “What would I have done?” I cried at that point—partly because of the horror of what had happened, but also because it made me reflect on my huge responsibilities as an MP.
Two weeks before that visit, as a relatively new MP, I was asked to decide whether it was appropriate for the United Kingdom to take military action against Libya to try to prevent loss of life in Benghazi. I asked myself a very difficult question then about when one act of violence—dropping bombs on another country is an act of violence—is appropriate to prevent other acts of violence. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Croydon Central also spoke about those questions, which we, as elected representatives, ask ourselves.
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
Order. There will be 11 minutes’ injury time at the end of the debate to give hon. Members who desperately want to speak that opportunity.
Heidi Alexander
When the sitting was interrupted, I was talking about my visit to Auschwitz, which, as hon. Members will have seen, left a deep and lasting impression on me. I applaud the excellent work done by the Holocaust Educational Trust and believe strongly that it is only by engaging with and educating the next generation that we can ever have any hope of preventing genocide from happening again.
It was inspiring for me to see the response of the young people from Lewisham who accompanied us on the trip. They dealt with a difficult situation in a mature and empathetic manner. They asked themselves the difficult questions that we asked ourselves, and the way that those young people responded to the visit gives us great hope. Just like the hon. Member for Croydon Central, I would recommend all hon. Members who have not been on the visit to Auschwitz to go on it. It makes people ask themselves a huge number of questions. Once someone has cried in front of a group of people, they are very honest with people. I had the most honest conversations with a constituent that I have ever had, following my visit there—with Yasemin, the young lady I spoke to earlier, on the bus going back to Krakow airport. I also had a very honest conversation, as I remember it, with the hon. Gentleman about our experiences as new Members of Parliament.
I want briefly to pay tribute to the work of Dr Zev Amit, who for the past 11 years has been the rabbi of the Catford and Bromley synagogue, based in my constituency. I first met Dr Amit when I attended a multi-faith service a number of years ago, to mark Holocaust memorial day. Since the memorial day was established, following the representations of the former Member of Parliament for Hendon, Andrew Dismore, we in Lewisham have always had a series of events to mark it. They have been shaped enormously by the approach of Dr Amit, who is a very inclusive man who has always believed in the importance of educating young people. At the multi-faith service, we had a small piece of drama from young people from the Roman Catholic Bonus Pastor school.
When Dr Amit opens the service, he speaks very genuinely and honestly about the challenges that face society today. Yes, he talks about the holocaust, but he also talks about the genocides in Rwanda, Darfur and Srebrenica. That inclusive approach has been of huge benefit in Lewisham, and we therefore have a significant number of events to mark Holocaust memorial day. It is a personal sadness to me that Dr Amit has retired from the synagogue. He will be missed in Lewisham, but young people there will grow up more enlightened as a result of the work he has done.
If the debate serves to do anything, it should be to remind us that we must always confront and challenge racism, prejudice and discrimination whenever we see them in our society. I shall read the statement of commitment of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. The final point says:
“We condemn the evils of prejudice, discrimination and racism. We value a free, tolerant, and democratic society”.
No words can be more important to hon. Members than those. I commend to the House the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and people such as Rev. Zev Amit, and I look forward to the other contributions today.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for securing this debate. About nine years ago, I received a telephone call from a man called Alex Brummer, who is the financial editor of the Daily Mail. He asked me to go to the Richmond synagogue and to address the ceremony for the first Holocaust memorial day in the UK. I said, “No. Why? I’m not Jewish. I was born in 1949. I know I look quite old, but I’m not quite that old. I know nothing about the holocaust.” He said, “Please, will you think about it, and I’ll come back to you in a few days?”
So I thought about it, and I remembered that in 1971 or 1972, as a young officer in Berlin, I commanded the guard that stood over Rudolf Hess at Spandau, so I have a connection with perhaps one of the last Nazis. Then I remembered that when I was in Germany and my battalion was based near Belsen in 1992, I rang my mother and said, “I’ve been to Belsen. It’s disgusting, mum.” She said quietly, “I know.” I said, “What! How do you know? When I have been in Germany, I have never taken you there.” She said, “No. I was there at the end of the war.” I said, “Why were you there at the end of the war?” She said, “Remember, I was a special operations executive officer. I went there looking for my colleagues. I saw it.” I said, “Why have you never told me this?” She said, “Because, Robert, I was ashamed.” I said, “Why were you ashamed? You were 22. You had learned to parachute out of aeroplanes. You had learned to fight Germans—evil Germans. You did your very best, you fought the war, and you are ashamed?” She said, “I was ashamed because it was my generation when the holocaust happened, and it should not have done. We were collectively responsible for it.” I did not understand what she meant.
A few months later, I was sent into Bosnia by Parliament. At the end of November 1992, I watched 10,000 people in carts come past my base. I had told my sentries to start counting, but they gave up at 10,000. Those people were like us, in suits. They were lawyers, they were teachers, they were farmers—normal people. I could not believe what I was watching. I thought, “This can’t be happening.” A couple of months later I dug a mass grave, and I put 104—I think it was 104—bodies into it. They were Bosnian, Muslims in the main, but who could tell? I wept. I felt impotent. I knew what my mother had meant. I was ashamed because that had happened in our generation, within two hours’ flying time of the United Kingdom. It had happened again.
During the clean-up, I picked up a ball at the No. 7 house in Ahmici, and then I dropped it. It was not a ball; it was the head of a baby, burnt. I dropped it and then I realised what I had done. That was the last touch of a human being on that baby, who cannot have been more than six weeks old, and was burned with its parents. My wife as she is now—Claire Podbielski of the International Committee of the Red Cross—came to me and said that I had a big house and that she wanted me to put up some children, particularly one child. I said, “You must be joking. I am the commander of the British in central Bosnia, and you want me to look after a child. This is not my job.” She said, “It is, you know. What are you here to do?” I said, “I’m here to save lives.” She said, “Well, save this one. Save this little girl.”
Claire walked into the concentration camp, took the girl by the hand, walked past the commandant, telling him to get the hell out of her way—she was a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and quite powerful—and brought the child to me when I was having dinner in my house with Martin Bell, the BBC journalist. I could not believe it. She said, “I’ve brought the girl.” I said, “Well, yes, well, what can I do?” Claire turned to the soldiers beside me—they were my bodyguards—and said, “You’ll look after this little girl, won’t you?” They said, “Of course.” They took her, they bathed her, they dressed her, they put a cot between their beds, and they looked after her for three days.
At the end of that time, Claire managed to find an uncle, but the girl did not want to leave. She told us in the meantime what had happened to her. On 16 April 1993, some men came to her house at about 5 o’clock in the morning, told her mother and father to get up and get out, just as happened in Poland, Russia and in occupied Europe during the second world war. They were told to get dressed and get downstairs. When they were downstairs, she and her mother, father and brother were made to lie on the ground face down. As she described it, there was a lot of noise, and her mummy, daddy and brother did not get up.
That is the holocaust. We have representatives here who are trying to keep it alive. It is alive; it is happening all the time. I am delighted to say, hon. Members, that I have given evidence against the people who were mainly responsible for this happening, but only a very small number of the people who did it.
I am delighted to say that I have been back. I went back in October. My graveyard of 104 has grown to 170. People say, “We must remember the holocaust”, but for me it is a living thing. It is evil and a canker in our society. We have already questioned why people do these foul things. One reason we have not given is fear. People act in a brutal way because they are fearful for themselves and for their families. We must be very careful about that. To me, the holocaust continues.
Hon. Members will understand that, if I reel off examples of the holocaust since the second world war, I am sure I would miss a few. But Cambodia is certainly one, and we knew about the killing fields. We knew it was happening, but what did we do? We did nothing. Hon. Members, if we remember what has happened, perhaps we will stop it happening again. I doubt it, but let us keep up the effort.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I feel a sense of privilege, and of inadequacy, to be following such a powerful speech by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), in which he recounted his own personal experience of the kind of horror that we are debating. If, however, a sense of inadequacy were to deter Members of Parliament from making speeches, our parliamentary days would be much shorter, so I will press on none the less. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing such an important debate. It should become a regular fixture in the parliamentary calendar.
I am looking forward to going tomorrow to Sandside Lodge special school in my constituency to meet Blake Martin, who has just been on the latest round of trips to Auschwitz-Birkenau, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust. I go with a slight sense of trepidation, because this time last year I visited that school to listen to an account of the trip made by James Simpson, whom I had had the opportunity and privilege to accompany. He gave a memorable account of an experience that was clearly as deeply seared on his memory as it will always be on mine.
When I last visited the school for that purpose, I remember the overwhelming experience of looking at faces in the assembly, and realising that those children and students with learning difficulties or disabilities would have been ruthlessly exterminated by the Nazis, along with so many others. Being at that school reinforced in my mind the importance of the work undertaken by the Holocaust Educational Trust and others. Indeed, I wish to congratulate and underline my respect for the Holocaust Educational Trust. The MBE that was graciously conferred on its chief executive by Her Majesty was well deserved.
The holocaust is close to being unimaginable and involves a level of horror and dislocation that people simply cannot fully understand unless they are subjected to it. It is important that we as parliamentarians continue to help every new generation, and allow and enable them to get as close as they can to that horror. For me, and for everyone who has been there, visiting the site of Auschwitz-Birkenau was the most intense experience that I have ever had, and the few hours spent there absorbing the sense of sheer horror, hopelessness and desperation that pervades that place were transformational. We know that simply being on that site all those years later cannot get close to what the victims of the holocaust must have endured, yet the sheer power of being there conveys the importance of the work that we need to do.
The Nazis, even more than the first world war, definitively broke what had unfortunately turned out to be a naïve faith in modernity, and a belief that the constant path of progress would ensure societies that were ever better for their citizens and ever more humane. In fact, the technological progress that accelerated in the previous century made possible the sheer industrial scale of the evil and destruction of the holocaust. Of the many lessons that we take from visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau, the lesson that things will improve only if we have the determination to make them better is fundamental. We will succeed in making the holocaust unique only if we understand that we must always be vigilant and do more against the evil and horror of genocide, such as that recounted so vividly by the hon. Member for Beckenham.
Unless we have the resolve to stop it, evil will spread as it did only 70 years ago. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central powerfully said, at the highest level we must never lose our determination as a nation or—this is fundamental—our capacity to act and use force to protect common humanity, as and when it becomes necessary. There are things that we must do every day beyond that, and we must resolve to have zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and prejudice whenever and wherever it occurs, as—unfortunately and sadly—it too often does in the UK and elsewhere.
Parliament must provide support to the Holocaust Educational Trust, and others, to ensure that understanding of the holocaust remains alive once it slips out of living memory, as it is unfortunately soon set to do.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for securing this debate. We have heard emotional speeches, and I feel that the holocaust is one of those subjects I must speak about—it is a feeling inside. Seventy years on, it is perhaps difficult for us to understand the scale of the holocaust, and having been to Israel and the holocaust museum, and having seen the shoes and the clothes and possessions of the millions of Jewish people who were killed, it is almost impossible to comprehend.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is also difficult to understand the industrial scale of the holocaust. It was carried out by educated people who came together to create a genocide that had never been seen before, and that is the callousness of it all. However terrible it is to shoot people, or whatever, the actual creation of gas chambers and railways to transport people, together with all the bureaucracy to exterminate a people, is almost unbelievable.
We must also remember that out of a population of some 18 million, the Jewish people lost a third of their population; again, that is almost impossible to comprehend. There cannot be a Jewish family in the world who have not been touched by what happened during that period. The Holocaust Educational Trust is so right to remind people not just that terrible atrocities took place, but of what actually happened. We need to be reminded that these things can and did happen, and we must ensure, as far as possible, that they do not happen again.
We talk about the holocaust and the number of Jewish people who were murdered. One can sometimes understand very much the attitude of Israel when it is surrounded by neighbours who say that they do not want Israel to exist—that it should be wiped off the face of the map. The Jewish people have suffered historically. One third of their population was wiped out, so one can understand how strongly they feel. My constituency does not have a huge Jewish population, and I am not of a Jewish family myself, but as many other hon. Members have said, one great thing that we British have is a sense of fair play. What happened was absolutely not fair play, and we need to stand up and be counted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made a great speech about Bosnia and Srebrenica. I, too, have been to Srebrenica: I have been to the factory where many of the killings took place. We cannot afford to be complacent, because atrocities continue to be committed. As my hon. Friend said, that place is only two hours by plane from where we sit, but it happened, and in the 1990s. One would think that it is not possible. I met mothers and wives who had lost their sons and husbands. They believe that many of the people who carried out those atrocities are still out there, free, not having been brought to book.
Neil Parish
Yes, exactly. Again, the situation is hugely emotional. Today is one of those times when we remember what happened and we support very much the Jewish state and Jews throughout the world, who have suffered so badly. Although we congratulate ourselves on the huge improvements that have taken place, we must never take our eye off the ball, because these things could happen again. I endorse so much of what other hon. Members have said. It would be absolutely right to have a debate such as this every year to ensure that we lay down clearly on the record what Parliament feels and what Britain feels about what happened, and what we will try to do to make sure it does not happen again.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for securing the debate. He made a simple, straightforward and powerful speech, for which I commend him. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Nothing is more powerful than the statement of someone who has been there and seen it, so I really do honour that.
Many hon. Members want to speak today, so I will try to keep my remarks brief. Like a number of those in the Chamber, I was privileged a year and a half or so ago, along with Karen Pollock and the team from the Holocaust Educational Trust, to visit Auschwitz. I would like to share with those in the Chamber a couple of things about the visit. What was quite interesting and strange was that, of course, I had seen the place many times because I had seen many films and documentaries about it, so I was not surprised by things that, had I not seen it all on television before, would have overwhelmed me. I am talking about the entrance, the railway and so on. The place was absolutely horrendous, but also, in a way, familiar, because I had seen so many movies and documentaries about it over the years.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) touched in an intervention on something very important that came out of the trip. Having seen this vision so many times, I found that it was the smaller things that got under my skin and had an impact. I would like to share two of those things with hon. Members.
The person from HET who was leading the tour was telling us while we were beside the rail track that many political prisoners were also kept at Auschwitz-Birkenau. We were shown the place where they used to play football, and behind us was where the rail carriages came in down the bottom of the hill. The story came out after the war of one particular political leader who was a dissident in the eyes of the Nazis, so he was sent to Auschwitz. He was the goalkeeper. Those prisoners were kept separate from the whole extermination side of Auschwitz. I had not been aware of that, but I learnt it that day. It was a separate camp, almost, even though it was smack in the middle. They knew that there was a rail track on the other side of the hill, because they would hear the noise of the train, but they never actually saw it.
This bloke recounted after the war how one day, while he was the goalie, the ball went way over the crossbar and he ran down the hill to get it. At the bottom of the hill, of course, was the siding where the trains came in, and a train had just come in. Suddenly, he saw thousands of people being moved out of the train, and guards there—the huge, Dante’s inferno-type exercise of a train coming in. He thought, “That’s interesting,” and he picked the ball up and went back to the game. About 40 minutes later, another ball went over the crossbar and he went down the hill again, but there was nothing there—everything had gone. It was so efficient. A train would come in and be emptied. There were troops, dogs and kapos there. Everyone had been moved off. Some 45 minutes later, the train had gone. The hon. Member for Clwyd South described what got under her skin, and I remember that when I was told that story, it got under my skin. That aspect of the story I was told was so powerful that it made a real impact.
I shall describe the second thing that really struck home. So many things about the final solution, Auschwitz and the whole Nazi machine were clearly demented. I might define myself as a very minor political leader; I am a Back Bencher but someone who leads politically in my constituency of Eastbourne. I am pretty rational and logical and I was in business for years before I went into politics. What occurred to me again and again as I was being shown round by the Holocaust Educational Trust was that this was a country—Nazi Germany and the whole empire of Germany—that was fighting a war for its life, a life-and-death war, yet it was so insane about anti-Semitism, Gypsies, people who were homosexual, people who were different and the Jewish population in particular that it would even stop the troop carriers that were on the way to the eastern front so that a train with Jews from Romania could go through first. That is completely insane. I am not being trite in any way; it really got to me. I thought, for God’s sake, these people are leading something and fighting something and it is a war to the death, but they are so completely, perversely mad that they will stop a train of tanks going to the eastern front so that a train of Jewish people who are to be annihilated can go through first. That was a powerful lesson.
I asked one of the students I took from Eastbourne to write me an essay afterwards, and she sent me a 500-word essay a few weeks later. It was a powerful essay. It was fantastic to read. Although she was so young, innocent and naïve, she picked up on a point that hon. Members have mentioned: the reason why Holocaust memorial day, visits to Auschwitz and the Holocaust Educational Trust are so important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, is that they remind us of the wickedness of humanity in the slim hope that it will not happen again, or at least not on the same scale. Perhaps if we keep reminding ourselves, it will happen less and less.
I share my hon. Friend’s view that humanity’s capacity to be inhumane to others is unsurpassed throughout history. Remembering the day in Parliament, the mother of democracy, is important. The work of the Holocaust Educational Trust is vital. I pay tribute to Karen and her team. Perhaps humanity can take a small step, every year, towards thinking that such things cannot and must not happen again.
I finish with some challenging issues. Again, my hon. Friend mentioned fear. The reality is that fear makes us behave badly. Sometimes it is power, but usually it is fear. Good people behave badly when they are fearful— something I learned a long time ago. Sometimes we must stand up against fear, even though that fear might be justified, and say, “Hang on a minute. Let’s be rational. Think very carefully about what you’re doing.” That is bravery, sometimes in the face of a mass of people, or even of the media when they are on a witch hunt: standing up and saying, “Stop a minute. Think through why you’re behaving that way, and the consequences.”
That is our duty as parliamentarians, and the duty of the Holocaust Educational Trust is to remind us and newly elected parliamentarians that not only must we never forget the absolute nightmare of the final solution; we must use it to remind ourselves daily that wickedness comes in many forms, and sometimes starts very small.
[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I once introduced a ten-minute rule Bill whose Second Reading was 15 years ago last week. It was the Holocaust Denial Bill, and it ended up going to Committee, but it ran out of time just before the 1997 general election. In the subsequent Parliament, my friend Andrew Dismore, the former Member for Hendon, introduced a Bill to mark Holocaust memorial day. I pay tribute to the fact that he was successful where I was not. Perhaps it is a little easier to have a memorial day than to legislate against holocaust denial.
The reason why I introduced that Bill 15 years ago was that Germany, France, Austria and other countries that were occupied by the Nazis have strong laws—although it is a civil offence in France—against denying the holocaust, wearing Nazi uniforms, portraying Nazi regalia or flags or singing Nazi drinking songs at universities, kinds of behaviour that seem to be acceptable to at least a minority of British people.
We should not think that this debate is simply about what happens in other countries or what happened in the past, whether the crimes of the Nazis against Jews, Roma, communists, socialists, trade unionists, homosexuals and anyone else who was different; the crimes carried out, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) eloquently described, in the civil war in the former Yugoslavia; what happened in Rwanda or Cambodia; or what might happen elsewhere in Africa, as difficult internal conflicts are occurring in several African countries. We must also think about the ideology behind such events and how that ideology is expressed in the age of the internet and perpetrated and communicated globally.
We as a society must revisit the issue. We have strict laws against incitement to racial hatred, and we changed our legislation during the last Parliament to make it, as well as incitement to religious hatred, an offence. It is therefore important that we recognise that this debate has a domestic context. I add that we must learn from history, and should remember it. Anyone who, as I have, has walked the streets of Krakow—the place depicted in the film “Schindler’s List”—will have seen the factory and the streets, visited the small synagogue, which is no longer in use as such but is now a museum with photographs of Jewish families, some of whom escaped to the United States of America, and thought, “Where were those people taken?” We know where they were taken; it has been mentioned. They were exterminated, or, if they were lucky, they managed to escape.
Similarly, I went to Vilnius, now the capital of the independent state of Lithuania, in 1978. I led a cross-party British Youth Council delegation that included representatives of the Scouts, the National Association of Youth Clubs, Labour students and young Conservatives. There were six of us. We went by train from Moscow to Vilnius, through the night, and stayed in Vilnius for two days. During that entire time, not one person in the Soviet Lithuanian Communist organisation that greeted us and took us round referred to the fact that it was Vilna, the heart of the Jewish community in central eastern Europe during the first 35, 40 or 50 years of the last century. That is interesting. Under the Soviet Union, they wanted to talk about the Nazis and what the Nazis did, but they did not want to talk about what happened to the millions of Jewish people who lived in that area and were exterminated.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Part of the reason is that many of them served in the Waffen SS. That was the problem in places such as Lithuania and Latvia. Their memories are short. Sadly, when I went to both places, I saw commemorative marches by members of the Waffen SS, who were greeted with cheers in the streets. That was not 20 years ago; it was 10 years ago.
Mike Gapes
I agree. That is why, as I said in an earlier intervention, we must continue to search for those, whoever and wherever they are and whatever names or aliases they are using, who played a role in those terrible crimes. We must also confront directly those who deny and minimise the holocaust.
I am delighted that the holocaust denier and Nazi apologist David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for his crimes. He launched a legal challenge against the historian Deborah Lipstadt and lost. I am delighted that he lost, and I congratulate her on her victory. It was an important victory for truth and for the memory of those who died.
It is also important to remember in other ways those who died. The great film maker Steven Spielberg has produced an incredible archive of the Shoah that includes the personal testimonies of survivors, taken before they were no longer with us. I have had the pleasure—“pleasure” is probably not the right word; it was a privilege and a great honour—of listening to a survivor speak in a school in my constituency. At least future generations will have those testimonies on film, and we can have that dialogue and relationship with our young people. It is crucial, as hon. Members have mentioned, that all young people in this country take part and learn about these events.
I have a mixed constituency, and I am pleased that in Valentines park in Ilford next Friday we will have our annual Holocaust memorial day service in the holocaust memorial garden, which was established by Redbridge council several years ago. Young people from local schools will be there. There will be Sikhs. There will be Muslims. There will be Hindus. There will be Buddhists. There will be Christians. There will be Jews. There will be people from minority communities, including Roma children, who have taken part in the service in the past. That reflects the diversity of modern Britain, and it is an important part of learning about the past, so that the errors of the past are not repeated in the future.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) secured this debate today, and I congratulate him and the Holocaust Educational Trust on what they have done and will continue to do in future.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
As a timing reminder, I would like to call Mr Barwell at about 4.17 pm for his short winding-up speech and then call Mr Dromey and the Minister from 4.20 pm. There are six hon. Members left to speak, so they can do the maths between them from now on.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is certainly a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on having secured what I regard as an important debate, but it is also timely as tomorrow is the 70th anniversary of the Wannsee conference, where the horrific final solution to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe was co-ordinated by the Nazis. It may have been 70 years ago, but it is timely to bring that to the forefront of our minds today.
The holocaust was the most horrific act of genocide in history, and it is crucial that we never forget or let the memory of the evil that occurred fade. As holocaust survivors grow fewer and older, our thoughts must be about how we continue to educate our young people about this harrowing episode. I want to focus on education, and I praise the Holocaust Educational Trust, which works tirelessly to teach children about the holocaust. I am delighted that the Government continue to give two post-16 students from every school and college in Britain the opportunity to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau as part of the trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project.
In November 2010, I joined a group of college students from the south-east and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on a visit to Auschwitz, and memories of that visit will remain with me for ever. Several hon. Members have spoken this afternoon about the industrial scale of the genocide, but what instantly struck me, particularly on visiting Birkenau, was the industrial atmosphere. The place looked like a factory, and one felt that this was very much a business that the Nazis undertook.
As we have heard, everyone’s memories of visiting Auschwitz are different. People are struck by some of the small things, but it is always individual and personal. I remember looking at the mountains of hair from thousands of victims, the shoes and the suitcases, which were exactly as the victims had left them, but the thing that struck me—I am sure that this is personal—was the piles of spectacles with the lenses still in place. As someone who wears glasses, I can say that if someone were to take them from me, at that point I would know that there was no future for me, because I simply could not function without them.
In 2006, I was fortunate to visit Yad Vashem, the holocaust memorial in Israel. As a parent, I was particularly struck by the memorial to the children. It is a phenomenally dark place that one spirals down into with candles representing each of the victims. The names of the children who perished in the holocaust are read out. The sombre surrounds are phenomenally moving. As I said, it is dark in both respects. The memorial is dark, but you feel very dark in your heart to know that there was a regime that could consider it acceptable to slaughter 1 million innocent children. I am utterly convinced that that is one of the main reasons why we must continue to educate our children, so that they in turn can teach their children and that the horror of the holocaust is never lost and will remain in history for ever.
The holocaust has many incredible stories of suffering and survival and of families separated, and it is a real testament to the bravery of those survivors that, all these years on, some still continue to speak of the horrors that they endured. They continue to go into schools. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) mentioned, it is real privilege to be able to hear them. Individuals such as Steven Spielberg must be congratulated, because they have made it their mission to ensure that, even if only on film, they capture those personal testimonies.
I have heard representatives of the Holocaust Educational Trust say that it is one of their challenges to ensure that the stories live on. The survivors provide the most powerful testimonies, but we have the technology nowadays to be able to capture them. It is crucial that even elderly survivors still have the opportunity to speak their story, so that we can keep it for posterity. The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, has said that
“fighting the pain of ancient wounds”
the survivors have
“told their stories to schoolchildren, teaching them what freedom means and how it must be fought for in every generation.”
The holocaust is part not just of Jewish memory, but of our collective consciousness. All humanity has vital lessons to learn from the holocaust. In my constituency, there is an annual peace walk that is organised by the Southampton Council of Faiths, and different faith groups meet and walk to every place of worship in the city. That could be the Sikh temple, the synagogue or the Catholic church. As we walk, we talk and share our experiences and recognise our differences, but we also celebrate our similarities. We should continue with that important role, so that the community has the opportunity to share its collective conscience.
I am increasingly conscious, however, that anti-Semitic incidents are still reported every year in Britain. In 2005, Chief Rabbi Sacks said:
“After sixty years of saying never again, it is happening again. There can be no doubt as to the most tenacious ideology of modern times. German fascism came and went. Soviet Communism came and went. Antisemitism came and stayed.”
Again, I return to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. It helps students understand the results of prejudice and racism. It is of paramount importance in understanding contemporary society and in averting the occurrence of another Rwanda or Bosnia. It is clear that racism is born of ignorance, and the most effective antidote for that is education.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
It has been a privilege today not only to chair this sitting of Westminster Hall, but to have a chance to take part in the debate. I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, and anyone who was in the room when the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke could not fail to have been moved by his personal explanation of what his adopted father had been through and the way that it had harnessed his life and his philosophy. Today is a good example of when Parliament comes together—all parties, both sides and many different backgrounds.
I was privileged enough to go to Auschwitz 20 years ago when I was the leader of Hampshire county council. I went to the region of Krakow as the guest of the wojewoda—the governor. When we went to Auschwitz, there were just five of us; otherwise, the place was completely deserted. I will never forget the experience of standing inside the remaining gas chamber at Auschwitz and trying to come to terms with what people went through as the door to the gas chamber closed. I then went to the other part of the camp—the old camp—and stood where the firing squad had operated. There was a wall, where literally thousands of people had been executed by gunfire.
Those sorts of things stay in the memory, but for me the most moving thing was to see the pigtail that had been scalped from a child and left on the pile of hair. It was still plaited but was now as grey as my hair. We cannot imagine what that child went through in having her hair cut off and thrown on a pile and then going to her death. Of all the memories that come from visiting a place such as Auschwitz, for me that was the most telling moment.
The other place that I went to, some years later, was Dachau. Dachau is a different camp to Auschwitz. Nevertheless, it is extremely moving to walk around it. The thing that struck me, first of all, was how close people lived to that camp. Dachau is close to the outskirts of Munich, which was the cornerstone of Nazi philosophy; Nazism was born and bred in that city. As I say, the Dachau camp was built very close to the outskirts of Munich and there were houses right up against the camp. Those houses were not built after the war; they were undoubtedly built in the style of pre-war German construction. One wonders what people who lived around the camp must have thought about what was being done inside, in their name.
A few years ago, I visited Babi Yar in Ukraine, which is just outside Kiev, where 100,000 people were shot in three weeks. I stood on the edge of that pit—and remember that it was not Germans who were shooting those people but Ukrainians who were shooting Ukrainian Jews on behalf of the Germans.
We must remember, and we must continue the struggle of trying to get people not to forget, because if we forget, the stories and tales of Bosnia and elsewhere will unfortunately again become a reality. Bosnia was 20 years ago. It already starts to fade—does it not?—in the memory of people, and we have to keep it alive. We must ensure that people remember the enormous price that other human beings have paid because somebody had it in their head that they were not fit to live; we must remember the evilness and the wickedness of that. Such evil should never go unpunished and it should never go unremembered.
The lesson that we have to learn is clear, is it not? It is that those of us who believe that good should prevail over evil must continue to educate people. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was right that this issue is about education and, as she said, about people being prepared to walk the streets of Southampton together—from church to synagogue to mosque to Sikh temple—to show that there is a common bond of goodness that prevails over evil.
I met a young man from Hampshire who was 19 when he joined the Army, and he was present at the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp. He was a constituent of mine, and when I first met him he told me how horrendous that experience was for him. He had fought through the war and had never seen anyone who had been killed, until he walked through the gates of Belsen. That experience ruined his whole life; he never recovered from it. His wife told me that hardly a day went by when he did not have some memory of the nightmare of walking through Belsen concentration camp.
That young man’s story taught me a lot about the way that other people can act with such violence and such evilness, and with such scant excuse as believing that they were better than everyone else. If this Parliament stands for anything, it stands for equality—the belief that all of us have the right to live in any way we like, following any religion we like—and I hope that that is long the case.
I have never had the privilege of going to Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust—I am delighted that so many of my colleagues have—but I felt that I had to visit it and the memory of that visit has stayed with me ever since. I am delighted to be part of this debate today.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
This has been a highly emotional debate. Sometimes, I suppose emotions are the right things to express. I can remember being taught a saying, which I think is Jewish: “Things that come from the heart speak to the heart.” On this particular subject, that is certainly the case.
First, I obviously congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing this debate. If he ever finds politics boring, I am sure he will find a really good career as a history teacher. In fact, teaching is where I want to start, having been a history teacher myself for 27 years. At the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s, I was involved in the debate about whether teaching the holocaust could fit into the national curriculum. When we make laws in this place, and make demands of Government to make laws, we should remember that somebody lower down has got to carry out those instructions. In the history profession at that time, there was a serious debate about teaching the holocaust. It was due to be taught as a section in the history curriculum, to what I used to call third years—year nine students now—who were 13 or 14.
There were serious concerns among history teachers then about that issue: whether children of that age were capable of understanding the holocaust, and whether the history profession was capable of dealing with the consequent emotional effects when anybody gets near this topic. At the time, I was a strong supporter of teaching the holocaust. I have an anecdote from one of the first classes I taught on the subject. Teachers had to be aware of the emotions that were expressed—a lot of emotion has been expressed by Members in this debate today. I can remember two 14-year-old girls—two Afro-Caribbean girls—who came up to me at the end of the class in tears, and it was not because of my usual poor teaching at the time. They said to me, “Sir, we never knew this happened. We never knew this happened.”
That is why I, like other right hon. and hon. Members, will hopefully talk to the Government and say, “Whatever alterations there are in the national curriculum, the teaching of the holocaust should remain a fundamental part of it, and children of that age, if they are well taught, can understand it.” However, as I said, many children—like the two girls I mentioned—do not know that the holocaust happened.
I was passionate to ensure that the holocaust was part of the national curriculum, because for 17 years I was a councillor in Springfield ward in Hackney, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) knows well, and more than 50% of the people in that ward were what I would describe as ultra-orthodox Jews—I do not know the exact term, but they were visibly Jewish members of the Stamford Hill community. I learned so much as a result of that experience. I had left Manchester at the age of 18 to come to London. I do not think that, in my 18 years growing up in Manchester, I ever knowingly met a Jewish person; I did not do so until I moved to Hackney. That just did not happen in Manchester then. So, to be confronted by the Stamford Hill community was something else, and then to stand as a Conservative candidate in Hackney was also something else. I spent years as deputy leader of the Conservative group, and the leader of the group, Joe Lobenstein, was from that Jewish community. He is still alive, God love him. We also had a chief whip; as people can imagine, there were only three of us serving as Conservative councillors in Hackney, but we knew how to spread the offices around. In fact, I think the Leader of the House, in the days when he was a Minister, may have met Joe.
As I said, Joe was from that Jewish community and he had many stories. He was six years old at the time of Kristallnacht and then came to this country as a refugee. He said that one of his earliest memories was going with his father to a swimming pool in Germany and his father suddenly saying, “We’re not allowed there today.” Then there was Kristallnacht, and his family came to Hackney. To this day, Joe has huge pride in this country, for the kind of life it gave him and the other members of his community. At the last count, he had, I think, 64 grandchildren and he has made a hugely successful life for himself. Funnily enough, he always says that he still counts in German. German is always in his mind and he counts in it, even though he speaks English.
I have to say that Joe first stood as a Liberal councillor, but then he saw the light and became a Conservative councillor. He has never received any real recognition for the fact that he was a member of this visibly Jewish community, and was the first person from it ever to stand for public office. It was a community whose members, as people can imagine, moved gradually into Hackney and Stamford Hill; they were refugees both before the war and after it. Joe told stories of Shabbos, or Saturdays, in the 1950s when people used to walk down the street and smash the car windows of Jewish people, knowing that, because they were strictly religious, they could not pick up a telephone to report it or do anything else. People need only to step now into Stamford Hill or Bury South to see that anti-Semitism is still alive.
Joe taught me so much. When I was a councillor, we had one of the first applications for mosque planning permission, and Joe’s view was that we should support it, because everyone of faith has a right to worship in their place of worship. We supported the first gurdwara application, near Finsbury Park, and Joe was instrumental in, and is still part of, a joint Muslim-Jewish council, which meets whenever problems from the middle east might impact on youngsters in Hackney. What Joe taught me about the impacts was reflected to some extent in my teaching, and I add to the plaudits for Karen and her team at the Holocaust Educational Trust.
I had taught about the holocaust, and I had electors. I remember when I was canvassing, knocking on doors, as we all do—as a politician I am after the vote, obviously—and for the first time someone suddenly put their hand out and I saw the tattoo there. I could tell Members all kinds of things that that made me feel. The first Auschwitz survivors I met were in Tower Court, Springfield. They were a couple who, as children, had lost their whole families but had managed to get to England. I can always remember one of them saying to me, “Eric, I think I’m an illegal immigrant.” This man had survived the war, lost his family, got married—funnily enough, to another survivor—brought up a family and grandchildren, and was living in a council block in Hackney. I asked him, “Why are you an illegal immigrant after 50 or 60 years?” and he replied, “Because after the war, Britain said it needed bricklayers, and I was trained as a jeweller but put my hand up and said I was a bricklayer, so perhaps I’m still illegal.” I assured him that he was not.
What I am saying is that I did not want to go to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), I had seen and read all the stuff and had taught history. I was frightened that perhaps the visit would lower the emotional impact, and I was worried about seeing the museum. In the end, I think it was Karen’s nagging, which she is extremely good at, as we all know, that convinced me to go, and I had the honour of going with the Chairman of this debate. What hit me more than anything else was the sheer size of Birkenau.
I now find myself as the Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Fleetwood, where there is a minuscule Jewish population. I would like to put on the record my thanks to a previous Labour Member of Parliament, who is still alive and in Lancaster, Stanley Hoenig, and a lady called Liz Meet, who even in that minuscule population have kept the pressure on for a Holocaust memorial day ceremony, which I will be pleased to attend yet again this year, next Thursday. Having taught the subject, represented people of the Jewish faith, been in Srebrenica and seen the other massacres, what I will say in conclusion is the phrase we see on war memorials: lest we forget.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing this debate. He is an excellent advocate for his constituents, and deserves credit for securing this debate to mark Holocaust memorial day.
I pay tribute to the fantastic Holocaust Educational Trust, and particularly want to mention Karen Pollock’s well-deserved new year honour—the MBE. The trust does such important work in ensuring that we never forget the horrifying events of nearly 70 years ago. Thanks to the trust, I was able to visit Auschwitz with schoolchildren from my constituency. It was a truly unforgettable and extremely moving visit, and is seared into my memory. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), I thought I knew a thing or two about the holocaust as an amateur historian, but it is necessary to go there and see the industrial scale of the place.
I want to mention just two or three things that stuck in my memory from the visit—many speakers have already shared a lot of the points I was going to make. The Germans were always clinical and their records impeccable, and in Auschwitz I, they had recorded the very early inmates in black and white photographs. Auschwitz was started after the invasion of Poland in 1939, with Polish prisoners of war being kept there. They literally had “prisoner No. 1”, “prisoner No. 2”, and so on. The photographs were in the corridors, and what struck me was the type of people the Nazis imprisoned there. They would have a photograph of the prisoner, with his date of birth, the date of incarceration and the date of death. They then had the prisoners’ occupations, which included teacher, student, engineer, doctor, lawyer and business man. You name it, it was there. They were very ordinary people, with the types of occupations that many of our constituents have.
Another thing that struck me was the length of time the prisoners spent in Auschwitz I. They would get arrested and incarcerated in, say, April, and by October or November they would be dead. They were worked to death on about 750 calories a day. They would be woken at five o’clock in the morning with some ersatz coffee, work a 15-hour day and then have watery soup and a piece of bread in the evening. That was their food for the day, so it is not surprising that they died from exhaustion, overwork and beatings. I will always remember the faces of those people, very young people in some cases. They would last six months—and then were finished; and the Nazis recorded the whole thing.
What struck me at Auschwitz II—Birkenau—was the industrial scale the Germans were able to put together, in particular the ramp. When someone stands on the ramp, it seems innocuous, but they then see the photographs that a Nazi officer took to record a particular train load of, I think, Hungarian Jews, coming in. It was clearly a hot, sunny, midsummer’s day in 1945. Men, women and children—families—were brought off the train, on which they must have spent days, and the old and infirm, and those with young children, were taken to the left, and those whom the Nazis thought could work were moved to the right. That was photographed. It was when I was standing there, looking at that black and white photograph, that it hit me that we were witnessing how the events had happened. The photographs were found by chance.
The other thing that really moved me was when we went over to the gas chambers. The Nazis tried, but failed, to cover their tracks. They attempted to destroy the gas chambers, but they are still clear for all to see. What struck me was that leaves were falling on the steps that men, women and children had had to go down. The steps were still there for all to see, and millions of innocent men, women and children had gone down them, never to return.
What is so effective about the Holocaust Educational Trust’s visits is that schoolchildren go along and then return to their schools and share their experiences with their classmates in assemblies. I have experienced that in my constituency, as have many Members. As time goes on, it is essential that we work harder than ever to ensure that people remember the holocaust; we cannot allow it to become a remote and distant memory for future generations. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history risk repeating them. Evil men know that. Adolf Hitler knew it. When he was trying to convince the SS—not that it needed much convincing—he always referred to the Armenian genocide, which took place between 1915 and 1923, during the Turkish Ottoman Empire. It involved 2 million Armenians—1 million were murdered and the other 1 million were displaced. The circumstances were very similar to the genocide of the Jews. What Hitler was saying was, “Who remembers that genocide?” It had happened only 20 years previously and the world had moved on and forgotten about it. The point Hitler was making was that they could murder 8 million people on the continent of Europe and that in years to come, it would be forgotten and nobody would remember the European Jews.
We all know that education is essential to fighting hatred. However, simply teaching children that racism is bad will only get us so far. Teaching young people about real events from recent history, such as the holocaust, is so much more effective and underlines the importance of the work of Holocaust Educational Trust. When one looks at the record of other nations that are not as assiduous on holocaust education, one sees that anti-Semitism is far more prevalent.
It is also important to remember that this unique event in history, in which millions of people were murdered by the state on an industrial scale because of their racial origin, occurred in what was one of the most modern and, arguably, civilized nations in the world. Germany under the Weimar Republic just over a decade earlier was generally considered to be one of the most liberal and enlightened countries. Laurence Rees’s series, “Nazis: A Warning from History”, is very good on that, and I recommend that Members watch it. It is important that holocaust education continues and that we remain vigilant against future genocides.
Sadly, anti-Semitism still lingers to this day, which serves as a further reminder of the importance of holocaust education. During the first half of 2009, there were 628 reported anti-Semitic incidents—a record high. Fashion designer John Galliano utterly disgraced himself last year with a drunken rant expressing disgusting anti-Semitic views and boasting about his love for Hitler. I am most worried, however, about the continued reports of anti-Semitism on our university campuses. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is not in his place at present, has mentioned that the London School of Economics is investigating allegations that an anti-Semitic attack occurred after a Jewish student raised objections to a Nazi-themed drinking game on a university ski trip. A recent Union of Jewish Students survey highlighted that 20% of Jewish students have experienced, and a further 32% witnessed, anti-Semitism in the past academic year. Those depressing findings show how much more needs to be done, and should motivate universities and Government to take responsibility.
I applaud my colleagues who have taken part in this debate. It is always encouraging when Members from all parties can come together, and there are few more important subjects than this one. I also pay tribute to our forebears who fought in the second world war. One of my relatives was killed serving in the Royal Air Force, dropping Special Operations Executive agents into occupied France, a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to earlier. I am also a proud British individual from Cheshire, and my hon. Friend served in the Cheshire Regiment, which goes to show that it continues to serve us well in foreign fields.
Finally, I want to mention Nicholas Winton. He was a special individual who helped 10,000 Jewish children escape from Czechoslovakia in 1939, just before the second world war started. There is a bronze plaque to the Kindertransport in the House of Commons, and whenever I do the “Graham Evans tour of the House”, I never fail to take my visitors to see the plaque and tell them the story of Nicholas Winton, the humble young man who did so much to save 10,000 Jewish children who came to this country. On 1 September 1939, he had a trainload of 250 children ready to travel through Germany, into France and over to the United Kingdom, but, as those historians present will know, 1 September was when Germany invaded Poland and that train did not leave Prague station. Those 250 children disappeared, never to be seen again, and records show that, unfortunately, their parents died in the holocaust. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham for the moving account that he gave earlier. The children saved by Nicholas Winton gave him a gold ring, inscribed on which was an old Jewish proverb: “Save one life, save the world.”
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow so many emotional speeches. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for his perseverance in ensuring that we could have this debate and for securing it from the Backbench Business Committee.
My problem with the holocaust is thinking about 6 million people being systematically murdered. It is easy to picture one person being murdered—we can see a photo of them, talk to their friends or read about them—but one cannot even envisage or contemplate 6 million people lying in a row or filling a hall. It is unimaginable.
I am privileged to represent the people of Harrow East, where we have, if not the biggest, one of the biggest Jewish communities in the whole country. I have had the privilege of meeting refugees of Kindertransport and people who came here before the war or who escaped the atrocities of the concentration camps. All of their stories are deeply emotional. I have had the privilege of going to schools where they have spoken and have talked with them about their feelings about the holocaust.
One of the things about the holocaust and what the Germans and the Nazis did to the people of many countries across Europe is that they attempted not just to wipe out the whole of the Jewish population, but to dehumanise them in the first place. They took away their humanity and their emotions, and the thing that I find really hard to contemplate is how it was allowed to happen and how people could tamely go into concentration camps and gas chambers and be wiped out. I also find it hard to contemplate how people across the world, if they knew what was going on, did not take the affirmative action required to prevent many unnecessary deaths.
I, like others, commend the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. One of the things that I feel very badly about is that, when I was at school, we were never taught about the holocaust. It was not spoken about. It was never part of our history lessons or of anything that we knew about. Fortunately I grew up among Jewish children and families, so we heard about it, but it was never really spoken about, which is deeply distressing.
I had the ordeal—privilege is not the word—of visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau last year with the Holocaust Educational Trust and students from my constituency. I was struck by several things. None of those young people were Jewish. There were Hindus, Muslims and Christians, but no Jewish children. I think that that was good, because it meant that it was not just Jewish people learning about the holocaust, but everyone from every religion. The way in which the trip is built up is remarkable. When we visited the village of Oswiecim and went to the green, which is surrounded by trees, we queried what terrible things could have happened there. Then, however, we realised that it used to be the site of the biggest synagogue in Europe. It was wiped off the face of the earth, together with the Jewish population of that town, which now has no Jewish people.
From our visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, several things that other hon. Members have mentioned—the hair, the shoes and other things—come to mind, as well as particular parts of the death camps and concentration camps. As people go round, the education and group leaders show what happened and explain it all. It came together for me when we were in Birkenau and the leader of our group said, “You must remember: the people who did this were not mad. They were evil, they were systematic, but do not allow the belief to exist that they were mad.” We must always remember that, because it is the key issue.
When we look at the maps of where people were transported from to get to Auschwitz-Birkenau, we can see how many were involved. This was not a few mad individuals; this was a systematic approach by large numbers of people who were evil. They were evil because they directly participated in it, or they were evil because they did nothing to prevent it. We have to remember the whole process of what happened.
As we strolled across what could be a park anywhere in the world to contemplate what evils were done in that pleasant area, I pictured, as we looked at the railway tracks, what it must have been like for people who had been transported for many days from different parts of Europe to arrive there, having been told that they were going to a work camp and that they would be given reasonable amounts of food, that they would be treated properly and that it would be a better life for them. How must they have felt, when the doors opened on those railway carriages and they stepped out on to the platform, to see the camp? One can then start to envisage the full horror of what befell them, as they were separated and marched off to death or, in some cases, to work.
Of course, some of the people who perpetrated these evil deeds have paid the price, but by no means all have. We must always pursue those people, whoever they are, wherever they are, so that they suffer the consequences of their actions. However, we also need to get to grips with the reality of why this happened. How could it possibly have come to pass? We have to remember the economic circumstances in Germany that led to the rise of the Nazis. That is not an excuse, but it is a reason why they were allowed to perpetrate their evils.
I declare a bit of an interest in this regard, because my wife’s family were German Jews who came to this country at the beginning of the last century and, historically, my mother’s family were French Jews who came to this country at the start of the last century. We should remember that anti-Semitism in this country was rife right up until the second world war, and that many of the families who chose to come here forsook their religions, as did mine, and changed their names for fear of the anti-Semitism and discrimination that took place at that time. We still have to confront that because, even today, Jewish children going to and from schools have to be escorted and have security outside the schools. Jewish graves are desecrated and synagogues are damaged. We must always remember that every single hate crime is a crime against this country and against humanity.
I commend this debate for the raw emotion there has been and for the solid examples that have been quoted of what we must do. We must never forget that the holocaust took place, and we must never allow people to forget the rationale and the reasons people make the excuses. I commend the work that is being done by the Holocaust Educational Trust and Karen Pollock and her team. I trust that we can educate our young people, so that never again will that systematic approach ever be allowed. I can accept that, unfortunately, there are evil people in the world who will commit atrocities almost on a systematic basis, but we must never allow such systematic approaches to death ever to happen again.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I am very sorry that I was not here at the start of the debate; I was on other parliamentary business. I am extremely grateful to be called and given the opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing this incredibly important debate.
I, too, had what I was going to say was the pleasure—but, of course, it was not a pleasure—to visit Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust. If anything, the day made it harder for me to understand what had actually happened. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, it is not only the scale—how could so many people have been murdered? It was so hard to understand the stories. How could human beings be so inhumane to other human beings? It is not just the murder of people, but the torture that some people faced when they transgressed the rules, the living conditions that they were in, and the whole experience that human beings made other human beings go through.
Like other hon. Members, a number of particular things got to me. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and I were on the same trip. I also saw the photographs that showed healthy young men and women—and people of all ages—and then the dates of their death just a few weeks after they had got there. They were worked, starved and frozen to death.
The latrines was another area that got to me. The notion that people would be trooped in, told when to sit on the latrine, then told when to get off the latrine and be marched out again, to be followed by hundreds of other people, really affected me, as did the attempts by the guards to completely remove the dignity of the people who were being held in those camps. There was also the reality that, of course, some prisoners did lose their humanity and treat people in inhumane ways. One of the things I find very difficult to imagine is the absolutely unbelievable number of people who were cramped into the huts. The weakest were at the bottom and would be covered with faeces, vomit and blood from people above them, because of the situation that people were in. My final realisation was that some people did retain their humanity. There were people who did support other prisoners in there and manage to live as human beings in the most inhumane conditions it is possible to imagine.
I pay huge tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust for enabling us and so many young people to experience that day and see what happened in the camp. However, the most important element of the trust’s work is not the act of remembrance, although, of course, that is vital; it is the work of challenging attitudes now. As other hon. Members have reminded us, the holocaust did not start in world war two; it was not the first and nor has it been the last. We have been reminded of Bosnia and Cambodia and, of course, there have been many other genocides during the past century. Even today, as we speak, murder continues. The only way that we can ever tackle that is to deal with the fear and the hatred. For me, that starts with discrimination in the playground. Irrespective of whether that is due to race, appearance, disability or any of the other things children bully other children about, it is still about division and saying, “Other people are lesser than me and I have a right to treat them in that way.”
Such things continue to happen on our streets. We have recently been reminded of the dreadful murder of Stephen Lawrence, and there are racist murders every week. Discrimination continues in attitudes in every-day life, and in divided societies where hatred is allowed to flourish. People will blame immigrants for the fact that they do not have a job or a house, or for the trouble on their streets, and will say that asylum seekers are to blame, not acknowledging that they are actually refugees. The young people I met on the trip to Auschwitz were not only looking back, but looking to the future. They were inspired to tackle prejudice and discrimination, to educate other young people about what happened and to ensure that it does not continue to happen. That is what they are doing after their trip.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) finished his amazing remarks by expressing his fear that we will not stop future genocide. We may not, but if we do not take action—if we as politicians do not lead to challenge attitudes, and to be opinion formers, not just opinion followers—clearly we never will. We have to do all we can to tackle prejudice and discrimination. We have to make it clear that we will not tolerate them, and that our society, in which we are leaders, will not tolerate them. Like those young people who visited Auschwitz, we must be inspired to do all we can to educate and to tackle divided societies. I hope that the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust will long continue. Its work is truly valued, but we too must play our part as politicians in the House of Commons.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whose dogged persistence has ensured that the debate has taken place. He has done a great service to the House and to democracy and decency. I also pay tribute to all hon. Members, from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) onwards, who have made some remarkable contributions to a remarkable debate.
I shall say something about my own experience. I was born the proud son of Irish parents who came to this country to better themselves in “County” Kilburn. When I was still at primary school, we moved to Dollis Hill where there was a significant Jewish community. The family next door were the Futtermans, and I always remember ma Futterman and my mother leaning over the fence. Over would come the matzos at Passover. I would go in every Friday night and turn on the lights. Four doors up were the Cohens, and I used to play football with them. I went to numerous bar mitzvahs, and it was at a bar mitzvah that I first discovered that Jewish people living in my street were from families—three of them—who had lost people in the holocaust, and I could not believe it.
I remember, as a young trade union activist, working with a very fine man called Paul Graham, a Polish Jew with a heavy accent. I was sitting down with him one night in his house and asked him, “Paul, why are you called Paul Graham?” He looked at the ground and could not speak for some time. It soon became clear to me that the demons of what he had experienced before he fled Poland had scarred him to that day. What he had done was to seek anonymity by changing his name, and he was not alone.
There is no question but that the holocaust was the greatest crime in human history—utter barbarism in the 20th century perpetrated by the country of Beethoven, Schiller and Goethe. Industrial slaughter, barbarism on a grand scale, was planned by people who were not mad, but profoundly evil. What the victims suffered is unimaginable. There have been so many powerful contributions; for example, from the hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who were absolutely right. From Kristallnacht onwards, what must it have been like for proud people to be attacked in the streets where they had been born and brought up and in the ghettos that they were then forced to live in with no defence? There was no question of protection by the rule of law. What must it have been like? I remember thinking about that when my kids were very young. Imagine standing in a queue with our children, waiting to go into a gas chamber. What would we say to them?
Millions suffered that terrible fate, but it was not just the Jews—there were others as well. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was right to point out the huge number of Gypsies and gay people who died. Today, the House unites to say, “Never ever again.” The message to the perpetrators must be, “No hiding place.” The message to collaborators must be, “You should be ashamed of yourself.” Yes, there were honourable exceptions—the Maquis in France and the Danish bishops—but too many turned a blind eye.
Sadly, the holocaust is not history. There have been a number of very powerful contributions, particularly from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He reminds us that, despite the universal declaration of human rights in 1948 and the formation of the United Nations, we had Rwanda, Bosnia—Bosnia, in our time and on our continent—and Cambodia. I visited Cambodia just after Christmas. The father and brother of the first person I met had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. I went to the detention centre where tens of thousands had been taken and interrogated. First, they were photographed. Like the Nazis, the victims were impeccably catalogued with a photograph and a number across their chest before they were interrogated. With the exception of a handful of them, they were slaughtered either in the old school or taken out to the killing fields. One of the legends of the Khmer Rouge was:
“To spare you is no profit, to destroy you, no loss.”
The hon. Member for Beckenham is right—the world knew what was happening.
I think that progress has been made. We have the International Criminal Court calling to account the mighty, and rightly so, confronting them with the consequences of their actions. I hope that those yet to go before the court never sleep easy. International action was taken against Libya under UN resolution 1973 and rightly supported by all parties in the House. We have learnt painful lessons from history that we must never, ever again stand by and permit genocide or mass slaughter.
The theme of Holocaust memorial day is to speak up and speak out. I pay tribute to Karen Pollock and to the trust for the remarkable work it does. They are absolutely right—there is a sacred duty for each generation to learn the painful lessons of the holocaust. The hon. Members who have spoken—the hon. Members for Beckenham and for Croydon Central, in particular—are absolutely right, because to this day there is still an evil canker, to use the words that were used earlier, in our society. There is once again the shameful rise of anti-Semitism. There is, sadly, also Islamophobia. Racism still scars too many of our communities, seen at its most obscene in the killing of Stephen Lawrence. Gay people are to this day attacked and sometimes murdered. It is absolutely right that we speak out and accept that we all have a duty to give leadership, because the tone that we set is crucial to the harmony of our communities. Today, we also say that it is absolutely right to reject any notion of revisionism and any attempt to explain away or minimise the obscenity of what happened in the holocaust.
In conclusion, today we have seen the House at its best, speaking with a remarkable unity as, during the war, our country came together. The extraordinary Winston Churchill, whose poetic speeches inspired the nation, and—dare I say it?— people such as Ernie Bevin, who was the first general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers Union and Minister of Labour and then Foreign Secretary after the war, were united in utter determination to defeat barbarism. As one hon. Member said earlier, lest we forget: the message from both sides of the House is that we will never, ever forget.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Mr Offord has been here for three hours, but unfortunately his name was omitted from the list of speakers, so I call him now, although it is unorthodox, because this is an exceptional debate and we have time.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Dorries, for allowing me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is a bit peculiar that the previous occupant of the Chair decided to speak himself and leave me off the list.
I will change my remarks in light of the debate. Not only do I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing this debate, but I thank him because some cynical people would say, “Why didn’t someone with a large Jewish population in their constituency request this debate?” However, success to me is not just introducing a Holocaust Memorial Day Bill or simply securing a debate; for me, an MP with many Jewish constituents, success is seeing so many hon. Members from constituencies without Jewish constituents or any kind of Jewish heritage here today. For that I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central, for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I thank them all.
This debate reinforces for me that Holocaust memorial day is not just for people who are Jewish; it is for everybody who has concern, in whatever form, about the holocaust. In my constituency, we commemorate Holocaust memorial day with contributions from the Bosnian community and from Cambodians and Rwandans. Of course, it is only natural that we have contributions from many of my former council colleagues, whose family, friends and relatives were in the holocaust and who have relatives who, luckily, escaped from it. Councillor Maureen Braun, a friend of mine, and Councillor Richard Weider have regaled us with some of the events that happened to their relatives in a former life.
With regard to the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project, I have visited Auschwitz twice, the first time with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. I was pleased to see him there, because I am not aware that he has a significant Jewish population in his constituency. I also went last year with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and another hon. Member who is not able to be here. My two visits were different. On the first occasion, I valued the experience for the same reason that the hon. Member for Lewisham East stated, and I learnt a great deal about the historical acts that occurred there. The second visit was important because I was able to gauge the reactions of some young people from my constituency who attended. On visiting the first camp, we were all in our own world with headphones on and everyone was fairly quiet, until we came to the hair, which was mentioned earlier, and the glasses. For one young man in particular, witnessing the pile of glasses personified the holocaust. That was a powerful, moving experience.
The second part of the visit, in the second camp, is an equally quiet event. It is peculiar because there are no birds singing. An occasional dog barks at the far end of the camp, but we hear nothing, as though nature knows some kind of horrific atrocity occurred there. I thought at the time that it was the long, exhausting day that made me feel so emotionally tired, but it was actually the realisation of what occurred in that country—in that part of the world—that makes us all so emotionally drained.
One discovery that I made on the trip was Elie Wiesel’s book, “Night”. It is appropriate that I am reading it at this time of year on the lead-up to Holocaust memorial day. Elie makes some rather good observations, which are useful and could also be applied to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. He writes:
“To forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time.”
The work of the HET is so valuable because it reminds us all of what occurred in that part of our terrible history and that we must prevent it from ever happening again.
I conclude by saying something that has been said before. I congratulate Karen Pollock on her well-deserved MBE, which is a recognition not only of her work, but of that of all her team and everyone at the Holocaust Educational Trust, which is keeping alive the recognition of what happened in those terrible years to many Jewish people, many of the Roma community, many artists, homosexuals and different ethnic groups. For that I am particularly grateful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Dorries. I thank hon. Members from all parties for their contributions to this debate, which have been, by turns, sober, chilling, passionate and personal and sometimes deeply moving. That illustrates the fact that we Members of Parliament are human beings with real emotions and some of us have real experiences that we can bring to bear on a subject of deep importance, not just for this Parliament or this country, but for our world.
This occasion is not just an event in itself; it is about laying foundations for the future in a world where, despite some pessimism expressed by one or two hon. Members, we have constantly to work and hope that we can learn from this and provide our children and grandchildren with a better world for the future. I am confident that hon. Members will join me in ensuring that the message from the House today is not just to condemn the atrocities of the past, but to learn and make sure that we learn well for the future.
There were powerful contributions from 17 hon. Members during this debate. I do not think I can match any of them, but I can match them at least in one respect by congratulating, on behalf of the whole House, both Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which has expanded its work year by year with great effect. Hon. Members have spoken about the events that they attend in their constituencies. This year events are being arranged nationally. We can all take pride in the focus that the trust, in a leadership role, has brought to that work.
I am pleased to report that, without any hesitation at all, this Government have been ready and keen to follow the investment of the previous Government, and to follow their example in responding to the challenge that the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust set for us and for young people. The annual national commemoration and the local community activities that Karen and her team have fostered have ensured that people think once again about the repercussions of the holocaust on our society.
The key point that has come across in many contributions is that this is an inclusive event, remembering not just 6 million Jewish victims of the holocaust, but the millions of other victims of the Nazis and other genocides. Of course, the Jewish community is painfully aware of the lessons. The challenge is to make sure that other communities understand those lessons and learn from them as well.
The introduction to this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) was sober, chilling and a great credit to him and to those who rightly decided that, despite the strict word of protocol, it was right for him to be the person who led this debate. He mentioned that the holocaust was not simply a Jewish disaster. It is not simply about one community but the persecution, harassment and abuse of any minority community. He rightly drew attention to the problems faced by black and minority ethnic communities, including Gypsies, and to Islamophobia and the problems increasingly suffered by the Muslim community in this country.
In the same vein, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the work being set up by MAMA, in order to provide a resource for the Muslim community parallel to the work done by the CST for the Jewish community. The MAMA project will be launched fully later this year, and I was talking earlier today with the team who are delivering the project on behalf of the Government.
The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) gave a searing personal testimony to the experience of his own family. What he said about the values underpinning what we like to think of as our traditional sense of Britishness was a master class, which I hope will come to the attention of Members throughout the House.
I had not heard of the previous experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), but he spoke with brutal frankness about the circumstances he found in Bosnia during his service there in command of British troops. I had the opportunity some time after my election to the House to go on a short, all-party visit to Bosnia after the accord had been signed, with a view to the development of political institutions in Bosnia. As we were taken in secure vehicles through towns and villages, what stood out was that every third or fourth house going down a street was burnt out, while the others were fine. I asked why that was, because it did not match one’s picture of people being driven out of their homes. It was a case, however, of neighbour turning against neighbour. Whether a family was Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian, once things flared up it was neighbour against neighbour, and that brought me up short.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and a number of Members contributing today asked why someone did not stop them. Why did somebody not stop them? Surely, if we can learn anything at all from Holocaust memorial day, it is that it is not always “them”; it is sometimes us who have to be stopped. What I saw driving through the villages in Bosnia was that it could be neighbours or lifelong friends who, because people were suddenly segregated in their thinking and their cultures, felt that the right solution was to burn their neighbours out of their homes. Given that connection with the individual circumstances of families and communities, that detachment and alienation surely open the Pandora’s box described so graphically by many people in the debate.
I do not want to trespass on the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central will want for winding up the debate, but I must state that our responsibility as a House is to remember those who were persecuted and murdered. Our challenge is to make the experience in the words of the victims and of the survivors a meaningful part of our future.
I have been provided with information that is certainly new to me, and this Olympic year is an opportunity to celebrate two Jewish athletes who competed in the Olympics after surviving the holocaust: Ben Helfgott, a British weightlifter, and Alfred Nakache, a French swimmer and water polo player. Ben was the only member of his family to have survived Buchenwald, and he moved to England after the second world war. He captained the British weightlifting team in Melbourne in 1956 and in Rome in 1960. That is a triumphant example of someone not only surviving and becoming a British citizen, but growing, developing and delivering for the country that he had learnt to love. Nakache, the French 100-metre freestyle champion, was in his country’s squad in Berlin in 1936; and, 12 years later, after Auschwitz, where his wife and daughter perished, he took part in the London Olympics of 1948. Such stories are a mixture of the very ordinary and the hugely exceptional.
We as a Government are working hard to promote the United Kingdom’s Holocaust memorial day. We give a sizeable grant to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and support the Holocaust Educational Trust—I gently chide a few Members who might have been a little confused about the difference between the two trusts in their contributions. Both trusts do hugely outstanding work to raise awareness of the holocaust among young people and the wider community. I thank not only Karen, who has had a lot of mentions, but also Cathy Ashley, chair of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and her team for their work.
Last year, 72% of local authority areas held a Holocaust memorial day event, which was a big step forward, although I know that the trust will not be satisfied until 100% of areas mark the memorial day with events. That is the task it has set itself to achieve by 2015, which would be exceptional. Surely Members of Parliament can play a key part in ensuring that that target is achieved not only in 2015 but in 2014—why not? I also hope that Members will pick up this year’s theme, Speak Up, Speak Out. Perhaps we should be speaking up and ensuring that our local authorities at least are commemorating, commending or taking account of memorial day.
The Government have committed £2.1 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation to fund ongoing restoration works. I visited, as other Members have done, and it was a deeply moving experience. It is essential that we keep the site for future generations to see. The Government will also continue to support the work of the UK’s first envoy for post-holocaust issues. Some powerful words have been said in the debate by many people about the need to be on guard against future events. We had a sober warning of such events, in particular on the African continent. The Government are also supporting the Anne Frank Trust, to educate young people to challenge prejudice and discrimination, and the work of the Jewish museum.
Several references were made to other groups threatened in our society. The most challenging problem in this country in dealing with racism, alienation and discrimination relates to our Gypsy and Traveller community. It is a challenge to all of us as constituency MPs and to the House, and on a day such as this, commemorating events such as this, I hope it is one we will treat with deep seriousness.
Gavin Barwell
With the leave of the House, I will reply just briefly. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made both the points that I wanted to make, but I will briefly repeat them. I thank you, Ms Dorries, for the way you have chaired the second half of our proceedings, and in particular for allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) to speak, which, if I may say so, was the second triumph today of common sense over rules.
Today’s debate showed Parliament at its best. I congratulate every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken, but if others will forgive me, I will single out five hon. Members who reflected on particular personal experiences, which I thought lent a special force to their speeches. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about his family experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke about his time in Bosnia, and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) spoke about visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau, on the same visit that I went on, as she said. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) reminded me about Councillor Joe Lobenstein, whom I had the privilege of meeting several times. The story of his 64 grandchildren was wonderful. The Nazis tried to kill him and his family off—and here he is 70 years down the line, with all those descendants, who would not be here if the Nazis had been allowed to have their way. Finally, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington referred to a trade unionist who changed his name because of the pain of the experiences he had been through.
What probably unites us all is that we do not want to live in a country where people cannot be honest about who they are—their faith, sexuality or background. Members on both sides of the House can unite around that, and the debate showed the House off very well. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind us of that period of British history of which we are all so proud, and of the fact that the Government then were a national Government. Churchill steals much of the limelight, but that Government brought together Atlee, Greenwood, Morrison and Bevin from the Labour party and Sinclair from the Liberals. All political parties can share in the achievement of the Government during the war.
The message we have sent out today is that we will not let the memory of what happened during the holocaust fade. We will go on confronting the evil of racism, because to do otherwise would be to betray the memory of the lives ripped away by the Nazi regime. Six million people: ask yourself, could there have been another Einstein or Kissinger among those 6 million? Whatever they would have gone on to be, 6 million individual lives were brought to an end because of the evil of racism, and that is what we are united in confronting. I thank all Members for attending the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces Pay Review Body - Reappointments
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Ms Mary Carter and Mr John Steele as members of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second three-year term; and the Very Reverend Dr Graham Forbes as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second two-year term. The reappointments, which commence in March 2012, have been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ guidance on appointments to public bodies.
Feed-in Tariffs
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
On 31 October 2011, the Government published a consultation on feed-in tariffs (FITs) for solar photovoltaics (PV). This was in response to a substantial increase in deployment of PV, prompted by falling prices, with levels at nearly double the original projections for the first two years of the scheme. The consultation set out proposals for responding to these developments, which were putting unsustainable pressure on the budget available for FITs.
The consultation sought views on whether to reduce the generation tariffs available for new solar PV installations to a more financially sustainable level. Among other things, it proposed applying the new generation tariffs from 1 April 2012 to all new solar PV installations with an eligibility date on or after an earlier “reference date”, which we proposed should be 12 December 2011. This reference date proposal has since been challenged by judicial review and the Government have sought an appeal of the decision of the High Court. We are now waiting for a judgment from the Court of Appeal and we cannot be sure of the date on which this will be issued.
We continue to stand by our original proposal. However, I know that the uncertainty while we await the Court’s decision is difficult for the industry. A retention of the 43p tariff could also create substantial risks to the FITs budget if our appeal is unsuccessful. For these reasons, we believe it is prudent to bring forward our decision on one aspect of the consultation: the proposals for new solar PV tariffs.
We are therefore laying before Parliament today some draft licence modifications which, subject to the parliamentary process set out in the Energy Act 2008, makes provision for a reduced tariff rate (from 1 April 2012 onwards) for new PV installations with an eligibility date on or after 3 March 2012.
If the Court finds in favour of the Government’s appeal, we intend to stand by all our consultation proposals, including an earlier (December) reference date, subject to the parliamentary procedure and consideration of consultation responses. It is very important that we reserve this as an option because these 43p payments will take a disproportionate share of the budget available for small scale low-carbon technologies. We want instead to maximise the number of installations that are possible within the available budget rather than use available subsidy to pay a higher tariff to a smaller number of installations.
The consultation closed on 23 December 2011 and over 2,000 consultation responses were received which we have been analysing carefully. We are intending to announce the outcome of the consultation by 9 February 2012, in time for any resulting legislative changes to come into effect from 1 April 2012. Our aim is that this announcement will be accompanied by a set of reform proposals for the next phase of the comprehensive review of the FITs scheme, which will be the subject of a further consultation.
The new generation tariffs set out in the draft licence modifications being laid today are set out in the table below and would apply for all installations with an eligibility date on or after 3 March 2012. Further information on the Government’s response to this aspect of the consultation, together with a summary of the relevant consultation responses, is also being published today on the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s website and will be available from: www.decc.gov.uk/FITs
(DNC) | (p/kWh) | 1 April 2012 (p/kWh) |
|---|---|---|
≤4kW (new build) | 37.8 | 21.0 |
≤4kW (retrofit) | 43.3 | 21.0 |
>4-10kW | 37.8 | 16.8 |
>10-50kW | 32.9 | 15.2 |
>50-100kW | 19 | 12.9 |
>100-150kW | 19 | 12.9 |
>150-250kW | 15 | 12.9 |
>250kW-5MW | 8.5 | 8.5 |
stand alone | 8.5 | 8.5 |
Bovine TB
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
In December I announced that the Government would allow controlled culling of badgers, carried out by groups of farmers and landowners, as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control to tackle TB in cattle. The policy would be piloted in two areas to test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting.
I also announced that to select the pilot areas, I was inviting the farming industry to come forward with a shortlist of areas from which DEFRA would prioritise two to submit full applications for licences to control badgers.
I can now confirm that I have asked groups in two carefully selected areas, West Gloucestershire and West Somerset, to submit applications to Natural England.
Natural England will assess the applications against the strict licensing criteria and decide whether or not to grant licences. If either of the two areas fail to meet the licensing requirements, another area from the industry’s shortlist will be invited to apply.
I understand that residents in these areas may have views on the proposal to cull badgers and, as part of its assessment, Natural England will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the applications.
However, those undertaking licensed activity, and those living and working within the application area, must be protected. Therefore, we do not propose to make available any further information at this stage about the exact location of the pilot areas.
We expect Natural England’s decision on whether or not to grant licences to these two areas to be made in the spring.
An independent panel of experts will oversee the monitoring and evaluation of the pilot areas and report back to Government.
Following conclusion of the first annual six-week cull in the pilot areas, from what we observe and what we learn, and taking into account the evaluation by the independent panel of experts, we will then take a decision on whether further licences should be granted.
Professor Christopher Wathes has been appointed chair of the independent panel of experts. Professor Wathes is a professor of animal welfare at the Royal Veterinary College and the current chair of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. Other members of the panel will be appointed shortly.
I know that there is great strength of feeling on badger culling, but I also know that we need to take action now before the situation deteriorates even further. We need to tackle all transmission routes of TB using all the available tools.
ATOL Reform and the Civil Aviation Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Government consulted on proposals to reform the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) scheme between 23 June and 15 September 2011. The consultation included proposals that would require new primary legislation to help bring greater clarity and coherence to holiday protection.
Following the consultation and after careful consideration of the responses, I am pleased to announce that the Civil Aviation Bill introduced today includes a clause that would widen the Secretary of State’s powers so that holidays sold by airlines or arranged on an “agent for the consumer” basis could be included in the ATOL scheme in the future. The Government’s intention is that such a step would only be taken following full consultation with stakeholders including an impact assessment.
The Government intend to make a further statement on the full range of proposals for ATOL reform, shortly.
House of Lords
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the estimated costs of implementing the Health and Social Care Bill when it was originally introduced to the House of Commons one year ago, and whether they have changed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, in January 2011, we estimated the costs of implementing the Health and Social Care Bill at £1.4 billion. When we published the revised impact assessment in September, we estimated the costs of implementing the Bill to be between £1.2 billion and £1.3 billion. This will reduce administrative costs across the system by one-third by the end of this Parliament, saving £1.5 billion per year from 2014-15 onwards.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Many people in the medical world believe that the cost is mounting and that the cost which the Minister cites is not accurate. It is safe to say that this upheaval is costly both in money and in the risk to patient care. As well as the cost, at a time when the NHS has to find £20 billion of efficiencies, today the nurses and midwives have asked for the Bill to be dropped, arguing that their concerns have not been answered. Can the Minister give the nation and the NHS a first birthday present by listening to what is said and advising his right honourable friends Mr Lansley and the Prime Minister that it is time to pull back—
Baroness Thornton
I am asking a question; I am in the middle of asking it. You may not care about the NHS but, on these Benches, we do. When the medical professions and nurses say that the Government should think again, it would be wise for the Government to do so. My question is whether the noble Earl will ask his colleagues to do so, and whether we can then move together, with consensus, as my right honourable friend Andy Burnham has now twice asked the Secretary of State to do.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness is asking me to deliver a certain message to my right honourable friend. I am not quite sure what that message was, but if it is to do with the Health and Social Care Bill, I have to say that we need that Bill. We believe that reform of the NHS is essential if it is to be sustainable in the future. Every penny saved from this reform will be reinvested in front-line patient care. The previous Government had, as we do, an ambition to save £20 billion—the so-called Nicholson challenge—over the next three or four years. This reorganisation will enable us to contribute to that total. The modernisation will also move the NHS to a much more patient-centred system where good providers are rewarded for high-quality services. We are spending money on redundancy now to gain in the future.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the report in this morning’s Guardian that the NHS regulator is proposing that a hospital should be credit-rated is correct? If it is correct, why are the Government pursuing this commercialisation of our hospitals? They are not supermarkets; they are places of care.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have not seen that report, but clearly there is concern, following Southern Cross, as to whether difficulties such as those should be predictable in some way. I am sure that a lot of thought is being devoted to trying to avert such crises in the future. I will look at that report and write to the noble Lord with any comments.
Baroness Greengross
The Bill is called the Health and Social Care Bill. If the recommendations of the Dilnot commission for social care are implemented speedily with cross-party support there will be a huge saving to the NHS, where many frail and vulnerable people are inappropriately treated because the impending crisis in social care has not been addressed. Does the noble Earl agree that that is the case?
Earl Howe
I strongly agree. The noble Baroness will know that running right the way through the Bill are duties around the integration of services between health and social care and indeed between different aspects of healthcare. By giving clinicians greater autonomy to decide what good care looks like for their patients in an area, I am confident that we will see fewer unplanned admissions to hospital, which cost a great deal of money, and much better preventive care for patients delivered by healthcare and social care professionals.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that this upsurge in criticism of his proposed reforms in the health service has coincided with an upsurge in the demands for more pay by some of the people who are making the criticisms? Perhaps if they were a little more modest in their demands, there might be a little more money for patients.
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a good point. Of course we wish to see professionals properly rewarded, but it behoves everyone in the public services to bear in mind the difficult economic circumstances in which we currently live. Many public servants, I am pleased to say, are responding to that call.
Lord Tomlinson
Is the Minister aware that his message about the imperatives of health service reform does not appear to have reached the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives, based on statements that they made yesterday? Does he share the view of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, who has stated that these are not disputes about the health service but politically motivated strikes?
Earl Howe
I do think that the objections that the Royal College of Nursing has raised have very little to do with the Health and Social Care Bill. They are much more about what may or may not be happening in certain hospital trusts, which are matters that, in general, the Bill does not affect.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I think it is the turn of my noble friend.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, health reforms rarely come at low cost. Can the Minister tell the House how much the previous Government’s health reforms cost between 1997 and 2010?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right to remind the House of the repeated reforms of the health service made under the previous Administration. I do not have a figure for how much they cumulatively cost the taxpayer, but it was clearly a great deal and I recall that one of the reforms took place over the course of the summer without any reporting to Parliament at all. The contrast between those reforms and this one is marked. We are doing this to get better care for patients. The previous Government were really only doing it to rearrange the deckchairs.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
Does the noble Earl agree that, contrary to my noble friend’s comments, there is a real regret in the health service that our excellence awards—as you know my trust in Chase Farm has received one—have been done away with by the Government with the CQC. I do not know what the Guardian article said and I do not know what it means by “credit”, but getting credit for good services and proper care is something that everyone in the health service would welcome. The focus for us in the health service is indeed to join social care and healthcare. Can any emphasis that can be given by the noble Earl or the Department of Health come as quickly as possible please?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness was absolutely right in what she said in the last part of her question. I apologise to the House if I misunderstood the previous question about credit ratings, which I took to mean something to do with finance rather than gold stars, which I think the noble Baroness was talking about. I will try to clarify that in a letter.
Violence against Women
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the outcome of the cross-Whitehall consultation commissioned by the Home Secretary on the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence will be made available to the House.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the cross-Whitehall consultation identified a number of issues requiring further consideration before a final decision can be made on whether to sign the convention. As part of this further consideration, the Home Office launched a public consultation on 12 December last year on whether to create a new criminal offence of forced marriage. The consultation ends on 30 March.
Baroness Prosser
I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the importance that the Government give to tackling violence against women and their view that it is essential that the UK takes a strong lead on the issue internationally, can he advise the House of the timetable for signing the convention, which would both indicate their commitment to this issue and give a lead to other Council of Europe member states—18 of which have now signed up to the convention?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot take the noble Baroness much further than saying that the consultation on forced marriage will end on 30 March. We will obviously have to respond after that and consider—as the Prime Minister made quite clear last year—whether forced marriage should become a criminal offence in itself. However, we also have to look at other issues, particularly whether extra-territorial jurisdiction should be extended. There are very real problems in that area. The simple fact is that we can only sign up to the convention as a whole—we cannot sign up to it in part. Until we can get decisions on all parts of it, we will not be in a position to sign up. However, I make it quite clear to the noble Baroness that we broadly support the intention behind the convention.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, we currently have the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers in the Council of Europe, and this issue affects and concerns noble Peers across all sides of the House and is widespread in this and other countries. Would it not be a wonderful opportunity, despite the reservations that my noble friend has rightly announced, to get on with this and get our signature on the paper before we leave the chair of that excellent organisation?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we would like to make progress on this, but the concerns, particularly in relation to extra-territorial jurisdiction, are very real indeed. My noble friend will be aware that, at the moment, we believe that extra-territorial jurisdiction should apply only to very serious crimes such as murder or torture. To sign up to this, we would have to change the law to make it cover such matters as common assault or harassment. We do not think that that is necessarily the right way to go about these things. However, colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will certainly look at these issues.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, major events such as the Olympics tend to attract a lot of visitors to this country, particularly from groups involved in things such as trafficking, which, as we all know, involves violence against women. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will get the report out as soon as possible to the vast majority of those who are interested in this subject, not least because we have been looking at this subject of violence against women for very many days under the Welfare Reform Bill and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I would not want to foreshorten the consultation, which ends, as I said, on the 30 March, but obviously we want to respond as quickly as possible after that. As for trafficking, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have recently brought in some amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill that help us to comply with the convention on those matters, and I believe we will be very broadly compliant with that convention. However, that goes slightly wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, do the Government have any intention of accepting the advice of ACPO and, indeed, of his noble friend Lady Trumpington on tackling violence against women working in the sex industry, who are afraid of reporting assaults on them because if they make those reports they are likely to be charged under the laws relating to prostitution. Is it not time that the law on prostitution was changed along the lines adopted in New Zealand and as ACPO suggests?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is taking the issue way beyond the Question on the Order Paper, which relates to the Council of Europe’s convention. Obviously we will consider those points, but those are matters for domestic law and not matters relating to compliance with this convention, which relates to combating violence against women.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I welcome the consultation being across Whitehall, because many agencies are involved in the many issues. How are we to reconcile the localist approach of police and crime commissioners and candidates with an eye to election with the need to ensure that police budgets contain an adequate line for what is essentially not a very populist issue? In other words, how do we make it a populist issue?
Lord Henley
My Lords, again my noble friend is going way beyond the Question on the Order Paper in bringing in the subject of police commissioners. We are talking about whether we can comply with this Council of Europe convention—compliance that involves changing the law in a number of areas. That is what we are consulting on at the moment, but we are also looking at other issues, particularly extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Lord Tomlinson
Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister is going to visit the Council of Europe next week and that his right honourable friend the Attorney-General will visit in April? I do not expect anything from the Prime Minister next week, but the period of consultation will be finished by the time the Attorney-General comes. Would it not be a good opportunity to build some bridges with other countries if the Attorney-General were in a position to make a positive statement on this issue at the April plenary session?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I have already indicated our broad support for what is going on, but it involves some quite serious changes to domestic legislation in this country and, I must stress, also in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the devolved Administrations, so we would need their agreement as well. It is not that easy suddenly to say that we will extend extra-territorial jurisdiction to all the issues to which I referred earlier, such as assault, when we have had the tradition of reserving them only for more serious offences. These are matters that we will obviously want to look at very seriously within government.
EU: Sow Stalls Ban
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have about the likelihood of other European Union member states complying with the forthcoming European Union ban on sow stalls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the European Commission has sought data on how member states are progressing with complying with the sow stall ban, which comes into force on 1 January 2013. To date, the Commission has not released this information.
Lord Lexden
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Can he confirm that our farmers have invested very substantially to remove sow stalls here? Bearing in mind the current difficulties over another important farming issue, how confident is he that there will be full compliance with the ban on sow stalls throughout the EU by 1 January 2013?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In this country, as noble Lords will know, sow stalls have been banned since 1999, so my noble friend is right in saying that there has been considerable investment. In the light of recent experience, he would not expect me to be fully confident that other states will be compliant. We can be confident in our own position, as I have said, because we are not prepared to compromise on the welfare of sows, which is why we moved away from sow stalls early. We will not tolerate livestock regimes that compromise animal welfare and we will work hard in Brussels to ensure full compliance across Europe by the deadline.
Baroness Trumpington
Is there already a ban on calf stalls? If not, is one included in the ban on sow stalls?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is a totally separate issue. The sow stalls directive is an individual directive focused on sow care and welfare.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, this country can be proud of being ahead of the game on banning sow stalls, as we have heard. As a regular customer of Pampered Pigs of Tolpuddle, I know that happy pigs are tasty pigs. But the current problems with eggs, as we have heard, demand a more robust position on enforcement of EU directives. Will the Government give notice now, with almost a year’s notice, that they will take legal action against other countries’ non-compliance as soon as this directive comes into effect so that the Commission can get its ducks and sows into a row?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As I mentioned before, we have already sought information on this matter. We are knocking at the door, and the Commission has already learnt lessons from the cage ban on laying hens. We have sought early information that it is asking all member states how close they are to compliance. To date, we do not have that information, but we are determined to press on this issue. We are hoping to have on the agenda of the February Agriculture Council a discussion topic on this item.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
The “happy pigs are tasty pigs” message is a very forceful one but UK government procurement policy over the past decade since the sow stall method was changed here has not really been got over, either in government procurement or by UK supermarkets to their customers. What do this Government intend to do about procurement policy on UK pork and bacon?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As my noble friend will know, the framework of public procurement is complex and it is not easy to lay down criteria that are not covered by directives. However, following the sow stall ban, it will be possible to ensure that that is the case. At the Oxford farming conference recently it was said that 70 per cent of pig meat imported into this country would be illegal if produced here under our regime.
Earl Cathcart
I hope the Government’s response to the pig directive is more robust than their response to the egg directive. As an egg producer, I am appalled that the Government’s answer to the import of eggs produced in illegal battery cages is not to send the lorry back to the country of origin, not to fine the importer or impound their vehicle, not to destroy the illegal eggs, but to send the eggs for processing into food for sale in the United Kingdom. Why do the Government not see what a devastating effect this will have on the UK’s legal egg industry, which, frankly, is stunned by their feeble response? When we joined the Common Market in 1973, we were promised a level playing field. After nearly 40 years, is it not about time we got one—or might pigs fly?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have to say I share my noble friend’s frustration if not his anger. The Government have investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK ban on imports of eggs and egg products produced in conventional cages in other member states, but I have to inform my noble friend that, given that there are significant legal and financial implications in enforcing such a ban, coupled with practical difficulties in enforcing it, this is not a realistic option.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are we not entirely capable of deciding our own standards about this sort of thing? Does this Question therefore not remind us of the hopeless fraud of subsidiarity, which indeed it has been since inception? Are the Government aware that under the EU treaties, although individuals and companies can be made to pay Brussels fines by the courts in the countries in which they live or operate, there is no way that a country can be made to pay a fine? Why do we not just emulate the French and ignore this and all similar mischief?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can assure the noble Lord that the Commission is equally disappointed by the response of some member states on the egg-laying issue, which is why I am perhaps more confident that there will be a grip on the sow stall issue. It has already sent pre-infraction letters to non-compliant countries.
Pakistan
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Pakistan and other interested parties regarding the current political situation in Pakistan.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, when I visited Pakistan last week, I called on Prime Minister Gilani and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, and I had discussions with President Zardari, Chief Minister for the Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, the governor of Sindh and Imran Khan. We are following the situation of Pakistan closely. We want it to enjoy free and fair elections and we believe that it is important to avoid escalating tensions. A strong and stable constitutional democracy is in the interests of Pakistan and we encourage all involved to act in a way that respects the constitution and helps to ensure stability.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I thank the Minister for the very interventionist stand that the Government are taking. I would not expect her to agree with the proposition that, while normal states have a military, in Pakistan’s case it is the military that has a state. However, would she nevertheless agree that when there is a highly interventionist and politically motivated supreme court, a military that challenges the civilian Government over the dismissal of the Defence Secretary and a military and intelligence service that supports rival candidates in an election, the position in terms of democracy in Pakistan is very dangerous? Can the Minister tell the House whether the UK Government, as a friend of Pakistan, are considering a Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group to intervene to bring about a break in the impasse that currently holds?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, Pakistan faces challenging political times but that is not new. All parties in Pakistan recognise that this is a huge opportunity for Pakistan, for once, to have a full-term democratically elected Government pass power to another democratically elected Government. From all the discussions that we have had with all parties in Pakistan, they all recognise how high the stakes are. The noble Baroness will be aware of a Friends of Pakistan group, and it may well be that these are matters that can be discussed there.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I particularly welcome the way in which the Minister reached out during her visit to Pakistan to people from minorities, especially religious minorities. Has she noted that this month is the first anniversary of the assassination of Salman Taseer, the former governor of the Punjab, who was murdered along with Shahbaz Bhatti, the former Minister for Minorities in Pakistan? Can she tell the House whether, during her discussions, she considered how British aid is being used in Pakistan? Is it being used to create and promote the sort of values espoused by Members of your Lordships’ House and the British Government, or is any of that money being siphoned into causes and groups that promote the kind of sectarian violence that led to the deaths of Shahbaz Bhatti and the governor of the Punjab?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the assassinations of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were tragic for both Pakistan and the rest of the world. They were a personal tragedy for me because of my personal relationship with Shahbaz Bhatti. However, as I promised him, I visited Karachi when I was in Pakistan, and specifically visited a convent school for girls and met the Archbishop of Karachi. The school is an excellent example of service to education and to interfaith relations. It is run by an Irish nun who has been in Pakistan for 58 years. I was delighted to hear from the Archbishop that the Christian community in Karachi is doing well, despite its challenges.
Our main commitment to aid in Pakistan is through the education programme. We are committed to 4 million more children being educated as a result of DfID’s commitment in Pakistan. I am sure that all in your Lordships’ House would agree that the best way to open minds and to deal with the challenges of extremism is through better educated young people.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, in the midst of the current political difficulties in Pakistan, will the Minister take the opportunity to reaffirm that the stability of Pakistan, and its friendship with this country, remain key political objectives of the Government, not only because it is a member of the Commonwealth and a sovereign state with nuclear weapons, but because of its important role in the whole of that region?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, since Britain is an ex-colonial power in Pakistan, the level of respect for Pakistan and our relationship with it always surprise and please me. There is a historical and cultural link. Pakistan’s biggest diaspora lives in Britain and Britain’s biggest diaspora is of Pakistani origin. There are 1.4 million journeys between the two countries each year. In all discussions with all interlocutors in Pakistan, we are consistently told that Britain’s relationship with Pakistan is respected and deeply supported. In those circumstances, we have a responsibility to use that relationship for a stable and prosperous Pakistan, which we recognise will lead to a more stable and prosperous Britain.
Lord Hussain
My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to reduce the tension between the United States and Pakistan that has grown and is born out of the incident at the Pakistan army check-posts a few months ago, which resulted in the loss of 24 Pakistani army personnel?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the Government have expressed their deepest condolences to the families of the 26 young men who were killed in that incident. However, we also recognise that, despite our special relationship with Pakistan and our special relationship and friendship with the US, it is for the US and Pakistan to resolve their relationship.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I welcome the focus on education because that is clearly so important within Pakistan, but is this money and support for education going down through government routes or is it going out separately to educational institutions? When I was the Security Minister, I was somewhat appalled that money seemed to get diverted and that the amount of money that actually got to the schools and to where it was required became very small compared with what was injected at the top.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the commitment is to educate 4 million children. It is a very specific commitment. It is not to give an amount of money but to ensure that 4 million additional children are put into education as well as providing training for a specific number of teachers and a specific amount of resources for schools. That money is channelled through the Government, predominantly on a provincial basis, but it is also channelled through NGOs—about 40 per cent of it passes through the provincial Governments and about 60 per cent passes outside.
Queen’s Diamond Jubilee
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, this year, 2012, marks the happy occasion of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons and I are today able to announce that an early celebration of this extraordinary anniversary will be the attendance of the two Houses on Her Majesty in Westminster Hall for the presentation of humble Addresses on the morning of Tuesday 20 March. I will move the necessary Motion for an Address a few days earlier on a date to be arranged through the usual channels. The ceremonial arrangements will be organised by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in the usual way. I hope that the House joins me in looking forward to an important and happy event.
Business of the House
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord Storey set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.
Housing
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
That this House takes note of Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I am very grateful for the privilege of leading this debate and thank all noble Lords who have agreed to participate in it. I look forward to an interesting debate on a key issue for the coalition Government and the country’s economy. I declare my interest as chair of First Wessex Housing Group and Housing 21, two housing associations.
My motives for initiating this debate are threefold. First, I believe that housing needs to be higher on our national agenda as it defines our national life and so many issues—the economy, health and social well-being and energy conservation—impinge on it. In fact, it underpins everything in society. Secondly, housing is critical to the national economy. It is a driver of growth, jobs and social mobility. Its multiplier impact is not surpassed in any other sector. The deputy director-general of the CBI said this morning:
“The only way to resolve unemployment in the short term is to pull out all the stops to get the economy moving and business growing”.
Housing has to play a fundamental role in that.
Thirdly, there is a huge demand for more housing to be met, and we are not meeting it. More than 4 million people are on social waiting lists, and 100,000 homes were built last year while demand is growing at the rate of 232,000 new households each year. In fact, we face a critical situation in housing. As I have said, we built only just over 100,000 homes in 2010 and building since the credit crisis has been at the lowest level for many generations. The number of construction jobs has reduced by 150,000, and in the wider economy the number of housing-related job losses will be much more. As I have said, 4.5 million people are on social housing waiting lists. Over the past 30 years we have sold off more than 2 million of our social housing stock. There remains a huge need and demand for affordable housing.
The Government were right to review the housing strategy, and their document has encouraging themes, but it is arguable that it is a bit like a box of liquorice allsorts—there are some very tasty items but it is not yet a totally satisfying meal. The questions are: how far are we prepared to go and will we be able to respond quickly enough? I accept, however, that the Government see themselves at this stage as laying the foundations.
I should like to emphasise a number of encouraging themes from the document. The first requirement is that we have got to rebuild confidence in the housing market. That is not easy when house prices are still uncertain and unemployment is growing. There is huge variability across the country. Here in London and the south-east, we are relatively unscathed compared with the rest of the country. As to the measures that the Government are introducing, I welcome the new-build indemnity scheme to deal with buyers frozen out of the housing market by the need for large deposits. That is an important measure. Other funds are important—the £500 million Growing Places Fund for infrastructure, to unlock housing and economic growth; and the £400 million Get Britain Building investment fund to support building firms that need development funding but have been deprived by the banks. I also welcome the £150 million for the Empty Homes fund to bring vacant properties back into affordable housing.
Probably most important in terms of driving an increase in housing is the freeing up of public sector land to deliver up to 100,000 new homes, with its “build now, pay later” proposition. I welcome the advisory group set up under Tony Pidgley, for whom I have huge respect, but I wish that the group was a task force committed to driving the building of housing on that land.
I also recognise and welcome the commitment to the private rented sector and the recognition that it has a major role to play in future housing. The growth in this sector is remarkable: 16 per cent of households are now privately rented—an extraordinary growth of 30 per cent since 2005, representing 3.4 million households. The problem with the private rented sector is that it is a polarised marketplace. Sadly, it is still associated with Rachmanism, but there have been huge improvements. The document shows that, in surveys, satisfaction in the private sector in many categories outperforms social housing—85 per cent are satisfied with their accommodation, compared with 81 per cent of social tenants. Seventy per cent are satisfied with their repairs, compared with 69 per cent of social tenants. The private rented sector also has a better ongoing record on energy efficiency than owner-occupied properties. I also welcome the important tax changes to encourage private rented investment and the examination of barriers to investment in this sector that are laid out in the paper.
The third theme that I welcome is on social housing. I am pleased that there is now a firm commitment to providing 170,000 new affordable homes over the next four years. Together with a commitment to replace rent-to-buy properties, this Government could well achieve the first net increase in social housing stock of any Government for 30 years. Some of us have been nervous about the new basis of this funding, but I have to accept that this tranche of investment has worked and has eased pressure on government debt. The problem is that this does not actually meet the demand. The key question is how we can expand the building of more affordable housing.
I also welcome in the document the ongoing commitment to improve community designs through a variety of initiatives—the commitment to review building regulations for the improvement of energy efficiency and carbon emission standards for new buildings, the commitment to zero-carbon homes by 2016, and the launch of the Green Deal this autumn to revolutionise the energy efficiency of existing housing stock.
I emphasise one final theme which is very important. I am pleased that the Government recognise the paramount need in a recession to protect the homeless and vulnerable. Recession always impacts on the most vulnerable, and I welcome the special funding for national night schemes and the ministerial group to look at the wider implications of homelessness. Vulnerable people need particular attention in a recession when unemployment is growing, and we have to ensure that the broadest backs take the greatest pain.
We can note the foundations of the housing strategy, but how do we achieve a radical change going forward to ensure that the foundations lead to construction of more housing on a significant scale? First, the Government must have real ambition and drive. It is 60 years since Harold Macmillan was appointed as Housing Minister in October 1951. No one has repeated the mark he made in that position. We had nine Housing Ministers in the previous Labour Administrations. Sadly, neither party in the coalition had a conference resolution to build 300,000 homes a year. Nor do we have the public funding that Macmillan had available. Nor do we believe that housing can be achieved simply by top-down directives. However, there remain many loose ends that require constant drive: bullying the banks and lenders, getting the public sector to provide vacant land and encouraging, incentivising and cajoling local communities and providers to extend the capacity to build. Above all, we need new funding vehicles to meet the need for more affordable homes. We want our ministerial team to have the ambition and drive of Macmillan's team of Marples, Sir Percy Mills and Dame Evelyn Sharp.
Private funding will remain the key to success. We will have to regulate the mortgage market better, so that it does not end up in an unsustainable speculative boom once the economy recovers, but low interest rates now mean that funding housing could be cheap. Housing associations have significant surpluses this year because of lower than expected interest rates. One percentage point off mortgage rates puts £10 billion back into consumers’ pockets. There is a potential revolution in housing association sector funding under way. Banks and building societies are seeking to obtain greater liquidity and are moving away from the sector. Pension funds and other funds want to lend to us direct. Last week, pension funds were investing in 30-year, index-linked government gilts with a negative real yield. Surely it should not be beyond us to develop vehicles which could provide 1 to 2 per cent real yields to fund social housing. That could benefit both housing associations and local councils. Housing seeks pension funds, which do not have the liquidity pressures of the banks but want long-term secure income. The Government also need to look at the significant level of government social grant which sits on housing association balance sheets as a liability. If part of it could be converted to equity, it could leverage rich significant funds for affordable housing.
Housing strategy must be based on a mixed housing approach involving owner-occupied, private rented and social housing. Some of our old, deprived estates remain a national disgrace. They are often hidden away by the apartheid design style of past generations. Those estates will be transformed only if partnerships are formed to transform them. I have been personally involved in the Rowner estate in Gosport for 17 years. It took the vision of a social entrepreneur to see that it could be transformed by breaking it up, selling part of it and using the proceeds to rebuild social housing, to effect a real social transformation in people's lives by providing a mix of social, owner-occupied and private rented accommodation through a partnership of Taylor Woodrow, a housing association and Gosport Council. It is no good councils telling housing associations that they can build houses more cheaply. In my view, they can do it more effectively if all sectors work together in these problem communities. The last thing the housing sector needs is to rebuild the old silos of the traditional sectors.
There are two other areas that I should like to mention briefly. The first is that planning for retirement is as important in relation to housing as it is to people. We need a closer interest in this future demand. The objective should be to cope with the underoccupation of property and reduce future care costs while enabling people to live independently for longer, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will have more to say on this. It is recognised but it needs much greater recognition and attention.
The second area is the Green Challenge. I do not believe that we will tackle fuel poverty unless housing is transformed. The economics of better insulation and energy-efficiency need tackling in order to reduce costs. There are huge benefits to be had in tackling older stock, and the Green Deal is a classic means by which to involve the private sector in funding it. A gradual upgrading of new build and decent home standards, covering insulation, should follow.
Many of us are concerned about the state of the economy, and therefore housing has become the focus of our attention as a regeneration force. It will not be revived by a traditional rivalry between owner-occupation and public housing. The objective should be a balanced approach involving the public sector and the private and voluntary sectors, with a choice of different housing in mixed communities. Private funding will have to leverage what limited public funds there are.
There is an action plan in the Laying the Foundations document and I suggest that it is ruthlessly followed. We should hector, probe and argue so that it is delivered and expanded. It took Macmillan three years exactly to transform housing in this country in the 1950s. The coalition has the same timeframe in which to double housing construction and make a real impression on housing provision, which will revive the British economy as well. It should be its central mission to do this.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, this is a very important subject and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for leading the debate today at this crucial moment when decisions are about to be made that will affect the lives of millions of people in the UK. He covered the subject and the report widely, and I shall not try to repeat his comments, although I endorse them.
Together with health and welfare, housing is crucial in our individual lives and in creating and maintaining a fair and just society. In this excellent report, many of the desirable options are set out clearly, but not all. I intend to draw attention to some of the significant omissions that I believe the Government should add to their considerations.
My interest is on record in the Register of Lords’ Interests. As a small-scale landlord, I have had residential property for over 40 years, and I have been able to do what I see one in two people in the UK would wish to do, according to the report—that is, build my own home. In my local government days and as a member of the Greater London Council, I was responsible for almost one-quarter of the council stock, including in the Barking and Dagenham area, which features in this report. I was on the boards of the Woolwich Building Society and a housing association, and I was a vice-president of the National House-Building Council for seven years. However, none of that is current; it is all in the past, so I am giving your Lordships a view of what I saw then and how I see things now.
Two days ago, the Minister answered my Question in the House about leaseholders and the problems they experience with managing agents. One aspect not covered yet of considerable concern—and those with an interest have come back to me about it since—is the lack of transparency and the possible practice of managing agents receiving commission, which they are not disclosing and about which they often refuse to answer questions, for services they are providing, such as insurance and works.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, in his supplementary question raised the subject of an ombudsman scheme to protect leaseholders. At present, this is voluntary but I think that it should be obligatory for managing agents to belong to such schemes. There are almost 2 million leaseholders, and this lack of transparency impacts on everybody from social housing associations to those in premier leasehold properties. The right of tenants to have their deposits protected, whether held by a landlord or an agent, has been of great benefit to tenants.
The concept of commonhold was introduced in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. I took part in those debates from the point of view of my direct experience of the equivalent strata title in New South Wales. Sadly, commonhold has gone nowhere and very small numbers of such developments have been built. I feel very strongly about the idea of commonhold and it is time to look further at this form of tenure which works so well. Freeholders here do not like it because it means that they lose the right to sell and resell leases over many years. It is definitely in the interests of flat owners and it is much more effective than any available right to manage.
There is no mention in this report of looking further at these issues or of encouraging developers to opt for commonhold in new blocks under construction. The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations has told me that many members would be interested in converting their properties to commonhold but that the barriers are too great for existing blocks as 100 per cent of the residents must support the change. Therefore, conversion to commonhold is too difficult. The 100 per cent proviso is why there is commonhold in only a very small number of newly built blocks. It has not been given a real opportunity to test the system. Obtaining even a simple majority may be difficult, especially in blocks where some people are resident only for limited periods, such as a year.
However, it would be desirable for the Government to conduct consultation on this issue, as I am convinced that it would be a preferable system to the present leasehold management system. Commonhold is a system whereby all the leaseholders in a block are members of the body corporate which owns and controls the block. They are able to select managing agents or arrange for matters to be handled by some other person, but they are the body corporate. Paragraph 2 of the Executive Summary to the report says that,
“we need to get the housing market—and in particular new house building—moving again”.
Paragraph 29 of Chapter 2 quotes 133,000 stalled units. Here is an opportunity for the Government to provide an incentive for the construction of enough commonhold properties to be able to see clearly the effectiveness or otherwise of this form of tenure.
I am pleased to see that Tony Pidgely is to lead an advisory group as, although I do not know him personally, I know that he is not only a hugely successful property developer but also an imaginative innovator with great experience. Paragraph 44 of Chapter 2 says:
“We are keen to see innovative approaches and a wide range”,
of new experiences.
I have made a real mess of my papers, for which I apologise. At paragraph 46, there is talk of where infrastructure exists and does not exist. Again, I raise a point which I raised on the Localism Bill, that for areas which are supposedly green belt but have small patches of infill and where all the infrastructure already exists, I think that the documents and the advice sent out by the department should make it clear that there is a possibility of using those small patches.
I want to talk about the mortgage market because I strongly support the idea of people buying their own homes. In the past few weeks, I have been involved in helping a young person to try to buy their flat. The flat was formerly a social housing flat. It is on about the 15th floor of a block. I went with the person to Barclays, which apparently is willing to offer mortgages to most people, subject to their circumstances. The young person was going to buy the property, let it for two years and then, when they had finished their studies, move to where they were going to work and live in the flat. There was no problem about the fact that the flat was let to someone on housing benefit. The young person would buy it in that way; the housing benefit was enough, although there is no way of knowing whether that will remain the case with the coming changes to housing benefit. The young person was urged to check carefully the present circumstances under which the person on housing benefit was renting the flat.
What stunned me was when Barclays said that it lends on only a small number of high-rise properties. I asked what was regarded as high-rise and was told: everything above seven floors. In London, seven floors is not high-rise; one has only to look out of the front door here to see tower blocks everywhere. Barclays further said that its restrictions applied particularly to former local authority properties. That made it a double problem for this young person to buy a flat which was within their means and which would have given them a home to live in when the time came.
Barclays is out of date; I do not think that high-rise is something that people worry about. I know people on the staff here who live on about the 20th floor. They say that they have to get used to a small amount of movement in the building because the structure has to have a degree of flexibility. They say that you get used to it very quickly and that people are very happy in these places. To condemn former social housing because it was built by local authorities is very wrong. In my day, local authorities were still building to Parker Morris standards, which were way above any standards that could be afforded by private developers. Far from being below standard, they were almost above standard. There is something very wrong if people now say that these blocks, particularly if they are social housing, are not acceptable for mortgages. Unless people can get mortgages, how will we increase home ownership, which should be our aim?
Another thing that is not mentioned in the document is rent-to-buy schemes, of which I am very much in favour. I think that at one time that type of scheme existed in Ireland. When my uncle, who was a housing Minister—a Labour housing Minister, I may say—in New South Wales, introduced social housing, it was all done on the basis of rent to buy. People drew lots to be the first half-dozen tenants in the first houses. The policy was that every penny of rent that you paid counted for something. Why cannot the Government, in encouraging people to buy their own homes, now develop a rent-to-buy scheme? If you go to Boots or Sainsbury’s, they give you points for every penny you spend. Would it not be a good idea for people to build up a tiny equity in a property that at present they can afford only to rent but which in due course they would like to buy?
I strongly support Home Swap Direct. It existed when I was on the GLC. However, it has become almost impossible for people to move from social housing in one area to a home of similar type in another. Home Swap Direct will do much to improve that.
I will comment further on the housing benefit issue. I was very disturbed to be told that many new landlords who were letting a property—I reported this when we were dealing with the Localism Bill—would not take tenants who were receiving housing benefit. The reason they gave was the possible changes in housing benefit and in people's personal circumstances, and the fact that they, the landlord, would have to meet the cost of getting repossession of the property if payment was not made or the property was not kept up to standard. There are problems here.
There is another problem with building; I have done a little bit of building over the years, and I know that the moment you develop a huge scheme, there is a shortage of builders. Whenever we have wanted to build, people who were highly skilled in their particular field become like gold dust. They train others on site—I remember a time when they were trying to train bricklayers in six weeks, because they needed them so desperately. The tragedy is that we are losing so many people who have these building skills; they migrate to places overseas, such as my homeland, because of the opportunities there. They are desperately short of engineers, even in western Australia, just as we are short of engineers here. There are major problems that have to be faced.
The issue of squatters is very important, particularly as so much squatting has been highly organised. One person who views an empty property makes a point of unlatching a window so that others can come back and say that they did not need to break in because the window was open. That really is a fraud, to say the least. A couple who were expecting a child could not get back into their own home because squatters had moved in while they had gone on a brief holiday. These are sad cases and some action has to be taken. However, first we need to produce more homes; we cannot solve anything unless we do that. This housing report gives us a great deal to think about.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on securing this debate and on the care and breadth of his presentation, although I should point out that he was perhaps slightly overenthusiastic about this document. Nevertheless, he described the size and immense difficulty of the housing crisis in all forms of tenure, and pretty much all parts of the country.
I declare an interest as I am chair of the campaign Housing Voice, which is looking at ways of increasing the flow of affordable housing. We are conducting an inquiry, and had our very first public session just before Christmas in the noble Lord’s own part of the country, and mine too these days—the south-west. This session in Exeter spelt out some of the difficulties in the south-west.
As noble Lords will know, the south-west has some special features in relation to housing: it has the highest ratio of house prices to average income, with a significant number of seasonal tourist homes, second homes, empty homes and retirement homes. However, in essence, the problems are the same in that the cost of housing in that area, as in large parts of London, is out of the reach of even relatively well paid first-time buyers. Social housing is under stress, and rents are going up in the private rented sector, which puts it out of the reach of a lot of people. Although some more property is coming on to the market and some improvement has been made in the quality of private rented-sector housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, there is also, at the margin, some very difficult property coming on to the market in which people are forced to live. It is also very difficult to get a mortgage, of course, even if the arithmetic works out.
Unlike previous housing crises, which have usually been confined to one or other of those tenures, we now have dysfunction and crisis in all forms of tenure. The difficulties in one form have a knock-on effect on the others. We have a perfect storm in the housing market, so it is important that we take a holistic approach and debate this subject outside the traditional silos of housing policy and expertise, and look at the totality.
I was therefore extremely pleased when I heard, round about October, that the Government were going to come forward with a new strategy that puts all aspects of housing together in a new document. I was glad to hear that and I am pleased that they have attempted it, but having now read about 88 pages of the document I have to ask the Minister whether it is in one document because it does not face the size of the crisis with which we are confronted.
There are a lot of little policies, some of which I approve and some of which I have doubts, but they do not add up to anything like tackling the central problem, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has said and as has been repeated many times, that the rate of new household formation is running at twice the rate of housing dwellings of any sort coming on to the market. What is the aggregate of all the policies in this document? Even if they were all to work, they would come well short of meeting that rate over the period of a Parliament.
The reality is that the Government started out by going backwards. I am the first to admit that they did not have a great inheritance on this front. Indeed, during the period of the previous Administration, in government and outside, I was quite critical of their failure to come to grips with the size of the problem. Nevertheless, the new Government’s first act was to make matters significantly worse by cutting social housing provision by nearly two-thirds, but they have made up for that with affordable housing in general. Although they have made up for some of it, they have not made up for the cut in the initial stages of the public spending review.
Therefore, we need to take a step back from this, to go beyond what is in the document before us today and to look at a new and more ambitious approach. Regrettably, the Government’s approach has been piecemeal. Not only are the schemes relatively small in this document—although some of them might help a few families—but the legislation that has just gone through Parliament compounds the problem by dealing with this in a piecemeal way.
The Welfare Reform Bill, which is still before this House, deals with social housing. We have probably reached the point where we should ask ourselves whether the main subsidy for housing should be in the housing benefit budget or whether we should, as we used to until about 20 years ago, invest more in the provision of housing on the capital and supply side than on the demand side. The Welfare Reform Bill is solely concerned with bringing housing benefit and other housing subsidies into the universal credit system.
That may be desirable in the long term, but in the short term it is leading the Government down a lot of blind alleys. It is an attempt to exclude certain people from social housing. It is an admirable aim to attempt to move people within social housing to more appropriate accommodation, but in doing so it will move people, to their detriment, out of areas where the cost of social housing is too high to be met under the new benefit cap into other areas. It will attempt to move others out of what is called “underoccupancy” into smaller accommodation, but in many parts of the country that is not available for such people, who are often in old age or infirm. On the face of it, it should be more appropriate, but in many parts of the country, including large parts of central London, smaller accommodation will not be available for them to move into. In any case, all those moves simply move the problem around. They move it out of social housing into the private-rented system or from one part of social housing into another. In some cases, they move it into homelessness. That does not in aggregate solve the problem.
In a different part of the legislative timetable, the Localism Bill, which has now gone through, includes two parts on housing. There are provisions to ensure that more housing is available and that the planning system is modified. I am afraid that in many areas, including many small towns and rural areas, those two will negate each other. There are provisions under the housing Bill to allow local authorities rather than any more regional or central determination of housing targets to decide what housing will be built.
Over and above that, even if the local authority, the district council or whoever has approved the new development, it could theoretically at least be overridden by other provisions for localism in local referenda. I hesitate to use the word “NIMBY”, because their arguments are sometimes quite good and I have some sympathy with those in rural areas who do not want to see parts of agricultural land taken over by housing, but the net effect will be that if we allow objections to all forms of housing in areas that are currently not scheduled for housing, or where no housing is being built, we will not meet the problems of rural areas and small towns in the next, let alone the current, generation of housing.
I have recently seen a study of Devon and Cornwall that shows that local people will not approve of additional housing where they currently live unless it can be shown that it will benefit local people and their families. The problem with most developments is that those people will not occupy those houses because, in the vast majority of new developments that are proposed under the planning system, they will either be sold on the open market—in which case they will be beyond the reach of the sons and daughters of those who already live there—or be social housing, where the local authority priority systems may well bring people in from elsewhere.
In most, but not all, cases, sensible propositions for increasing the housing supply in our rural and small-town areas are going to be made more difficult by the provisions under the Localism Bill and the planning guidance. I accept that the regional targets did not work to great effect, but replacing them with highly localised responsibility will not work either.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, spelt out some of the difficulties in a region at the other end of the price and income scales: London. Some of the changes under the Welfare Reform Bill and the Localism Bill will even drive out relatively low or medium-income families from areas within two or three miles of this place, where there has been a positive and healthy mix of tenure, housing types and families in the past. Next to the good and well utilised provision of social housing and other forms of affordable housing, a few streets away from where the only first-time buyers are Russian oligarchs, we see that that mix has worked. If we drive out from those areas the kind of people who are living in what was initially, and in many cases still is, social housing, the totality of the community suffers.
These examples could be multiplied in almost all areas of the country. The legislation that the Government have put before us in bits and pieces to address this does not amount to a strategy. Indeed, it is difficult to devise a strategy. I have some sympathy with the Government in this respect. Are we at the end of the period when the growth of home ownership is the natural conclusion of all housing policy? It has actually gone backwards over the past few years, but increasing home ownership, and seeing housing as a bit of a hierarchy, is still in every political party’s ambitions. This is not the case in many other countries.
There are other forms of tenure. The noble Baroness referred back to commonhold, which was in the first Bill that I was responsible for, which fell at the 2001 general election. It was a useful idea, but it has not taken off. There may be other forms of commonhold, or movement from rent to ownership, that we should address. The clear division between owner-occupation, private rented-sector and social housing needs to be readdressed. There need to be new ideas about the legal structure and the landlord/tenant relationship, and about how to promote investment.
The noble Baroness and her colleagues have a big problem before them that is frankly not addressed in the White Paper that was issued before Christmas. The noble Lord referred to Harold Macmillan and Dame Evelyn Sharp. Where are they today? I hope that the Minister can reassure me but, on the evidence so far, I fear that they are not actually in DCLG just now.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss housing given to us today by my noble friend. I must declare one or two interests: I am a vice-president of the fuel poverty group National Energy Action, vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council and president of the Micropower Council.
I often reflect on why an interest in decent homes has dominated my political career. It is probably due to a couple of early experiences in my life. First, I spent my teenage years moving from one rented property to another, barely staying in any of them for as much as 12 months. Secondly, in my early 20s, I lived in the most wonderful newly built flat in Stockholm, Sweden, that was very well appointed and properly designed. It was insulated to a level where my fuel bills were a whole lot cheaper than they had been in my box in England before I arrived, despite the fact that one winter I experienced temperatures of minus 27 degrees centigrade outside.
On my return, I lived in the city of Southampton. In large chunks of the area I was living in there were a lot of properties in disrepair and a lot of empty properties. Some of that was because in those days we had a stop-start on whether there was to be a by-pass around that particular area. That is where my first political campaigning came in, as we tried to do something about the empty properties and to improve run-down housing in my area—so much so that I can still remember the name of the first house that we succeeded in getting done: it was 23 Langhorn Road, Swaythling, Southampton. I think it is still there as a rented property.
Over the years, I have served as a city councillor in Southampton on the housing committee and I have been a spokesperson on housing for the Liberal Democrats across both Houses of Parliament. Over that time, I have seen all sorts of policies come and go. Recently, one—right-to-buy—has come and gone and may come back again in some way. What has saddened me over the years is, first, the inability of Governments to have comprehensive housing strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has explained how difficult that is, and he has been through it in government and is looking at it from outside government now. Those strategies must actually connect across the sectors. The second thing that has saddened me is the inability of Governments to track the changes and trends and to develop policies and actions for the long term rather than the short term. They are always trying to fix the latest crisis.
If I look at some of the problems—and previous speakers have talked about them already ready this morning—many of them are the same problems that were there when I started in this area. We have vast quantities of older housing stock that is in disrepair. We have vast numbers of properties standing empty and we do not have enough affordable homes across all the sectors. That leads to homelessness, which goes up and down, as well as to repossessions and other factors that go up and down. We also have large numbers of homes that are incredibly difficult to keep warm, and many of the most vulnerable in our society are living in those homes and living in fuel poverty.
What is even more disconcerting is that we failed to address many of these problems even over the years when our economy was growing quite strongly. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this, but I have to say that I was particularly disappointed that, when the Labour Government were in power, they had huge receipts from stamp duty as the price of houses went up but very little of that money was actually ploughed back into trying to do something about the problems that we face today.
I welcome the fact that the coalition has put forward this housing strategy. It is a difficult subject to cover and this strategy is only the beginning of what people would like to do. I strongly concur with my noble friend Lord Stoneham in his opening remarks about the challenges and where the strategy stands. However, as others have said, strategies are not enough; the challenge is to make them effective in practice. One of the things I welcome is that there is an action plan, with some timetables, in the back of the strategy, on which I will ask some questions as I go on. I hope that when the Minister winds up she will be able to reassure us that there will be plenty of mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate the progress we are making, so that we do not end up with schemes that are announced to great fanfare but actually run into the sand and do not go anywhere. We have all seen that happen.
Given my opening remarks, it is not surprising that I want to concentrate on two particular policy areas: empty homes, and the energy efficiency of homes and those in disrepair. First, the figures for empty homes have not changed much in recent years, although they have gone up and down a bit. We have possibly up to 1 million long-term empty homes across the United Kingdom. Many of them are privately owned but there are large numbers of empty homes owned by the Government and local authorities. It is probably fair to say that we have made better progress with bringing local authority and government-owned homes back into use than we have managed in the private sector.
The part of the strategy devoted to empty homes is particularly strong. Over the years, I have been involved on and off with the Empty Homes Agency, which is particularly glowing in its words about this part of the report:
“In previous government housing strategies it has been hard to see any mention of the potential of empty homes to meet housing supply. This strategy however devotes one of it’s seven chapters exclusively to the issue, and has for the first time directed specific funding at getting empty homes into use. Whatever you might think of the government’s approach ( and we think more could still be done) it is clear that at a time when less public money is being invested in housing, more is being invested in empty homes. There is no escaping the conclusion that the government thinks this is a viable and cost effective source of housing, and has put their money where their mouth is. For that they should be congratulated”.
As someone who has been in this area for a number of years, I am very pleased.
The Government are proposing a new £100 million empty homes grants programme, which will pay out towards the capital costs of getting homes into use. Although the grants cannot be used on housing association and local authority homes, as I said, the private sector is the area that we have found most difficult. As part of this, there is also a community grants scheme, whereby community groups, charities and housing co-operatives will be able to apply for funding. I know that the Government are trying to make the bureaucracy of dealing with these issues as simple as possible. We were told to expect the community grants programme before the end of the year but it has not opened yet. Can the Minister give us an update on where we are on that? In addition, there is a new grant fund of £50 million, funded separately and aimed at areas where there has been housing market renewal collapse. The story of how those things have been dealt with has not been a happy one.
There is also something called the new homes bonus, which was not originally intended for empty homes but the Government have seen the sense of including empty homes in this. Councils will be rewarded for increasing housing supply, and if new homes are brought back into use, they will get a bonus, whether they dealt with it or not. Looking at the various figures, it could be up to £10,000 per property in some areas. The Government have looked at empty dwelling management orders—something the last Government brought in—and they have looked at some of the experience and changed those a little. I do not know whether they have any other plans on that, but maybe the Minister can talk to us about it.
The other thing that the Government are doing, which is quite contentious and has been over the years, is to consult on changes to council tax exemptions and discounts to see how we might influence people with empty properties. It is a bit of a tricky one, because if you do not give them a discount at all people will not come and tell you that their properties are empty and it is rather harder to collect the figures. I am also disappointed that over the years, although we have changed it, councils have been unable to use any money that they have made out of changes to the rules. The Government are consulting on that, so I wonder whether the Minister has a timetable for that and how well it is going.
As I say, the Government are putting a lot of work into providing guidance and help to local authorities to help to take up these proposals. Will the Minister tell us what else they are thinking about? Over the years there was a scheme called “Flats over shops”, which tried in town centres to bring back empty properties over shops. I wonder whether they are looking seriously at this again. Also, what about redundant offices, and so on? That was not part of the programme. Could the Minister tell me whether the Government are considering that further?
Secondly, I want to move on to disrepair and energy efficiency in homes. I am a bit disappointed that there is not more on that area in the strategy. I recognise that sustainability and energy efficiency are being tackled in some other areas, but there is a lot of consultation on sustainability in new build, whereas a large proportion of our housing stock was built before the First World War and we have been very slow to bring it up to a decent standard. Over that time, even our new houses are still doing catch-up when we look at the standard of housing that we see in our neighbours in northern Europe and Scandinavia, particularly with energy efficiency.
Progress was made during the years of the last Labour Government, but people who want to spend money to make their homes better and more energy efficient still find it quite difficult to know where to go and what grants they can get. It is a challenge to us even now in government as to how you can help policies to be joined up and do not have too many little bits of things happening all over the place. So I hope that the coalition can do better with this.
There are very ambitious plans for the Green Deal, although it will be a serious challenge to make it work, for reasons that I have just explained. In that respect, I am pleased that the Government recognised the role of local authorities in helping to co-ordinate a joined-up approach to improvements. Over the years, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, I helped to steer a Bill through that was about energy efficiency in homes. That was at the end of the Major Government. Unfortunately, Labour let it wither on the vine a bit and when our Government came in I am afraid that they thought they wanted to get rid of it as well. I am very pleased that, as the Energy Bill was going through Parliament, they realised that there was something there that would be of use, although it has now been repealed. I believe that those measures will enable more joined-up thinking locally among all the people who will be involved in the Green Deal.
One other area that I am pleased the Government have committed to, although we will see how it works out, is that of properties that are not in very good condition—the really poor end of the private rented sector. We had big discussions about this when the Green Deal was going through, and I am very pleased that the Government have committed themselves to ensuring that some of the very worst properties that are rated F and G will not be allowed to be left out in future years. However, if we are really to help with the refurbishment and improvement, we need to look at the question of VAT. New build is zero-rated, whereas refurbishment and repair is taxed at 20 per cent, except for some defined categories where the rate is reduced to 5 per cent. But it is so complicated that many people do not know where they can get the reductions, and when they try to get them it is even more complicated—many little builders still do not understand it. I know that a response on VAT is probably not in the Minister’s winding-up notes today, but I hope that she can take the matter back to her government colleagues and make the point that this is an important issue that affects how we see the housing market develop and how we are going to deal with disrepair.
In conclusion, I think that we have made a good start, but it depends on what happens in future and whether we monitor it properly and react at the right time.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my various housing interests as set out in the register. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for initiating this debate and would underline the powerful case that he has made that the nation is facing a daunting under-supply of the homes we need and that these acute shortages are creating a great deal of human misery.
Although I am currently locked in battle with the Government on their plans for radical reductions in housing support for poorer tenants, in the Welfare Reform Bill, I am pleased to congratulate the Government on the direction that they are taking with many of the measures set out in the new housing strategy, Laying the Foundations. I am going to argue that these sensible measures can, and should, now be taken further and faster forward.
I know that the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, who has a special commitment to tackling homelessness, understands that new home building, with all its knock-on benefits for pulling the wider economy out of the doldrums, should be given greater priority. I believe that the Government have got that message and that most of their policies are pointing in the right direction, but they now need to be bolder.
On the planning side, I am sure that the National Planning Policy Framework can be rephrased to make it more acceptable to those fearful about inappropriate development. But broadly the NPPF takes us in a positive and sensible direction and is commendable in highlighting the need for speed and simplicity in the planning process. I also welcome engagement of local people in sorting out where new homes should go through neighbourhood plans, which should prove to be complementary and not oppositional to the council's own local plan.
Alongside the reformed community infrastructure levy and a new Growing Places Fund, with other measures in the Localism Bill, I welcome the Government's New Homes Bonus, which received the seal of approval from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. This will reward those local authorities that show leadership in saying “yes” to the development of additional homes despite local opposition. With housebuilding running at half the rate needed to keep pace with household formation, this nudge is badly needed to encourage councils to support the building of homes, not least for those in rural areas. To quote from Charles Moore writing in the Spectator last autumn:
“Only in Britain—actually only in England—do people believe they are doing country life a good turn by refusing to build houses for the next generation to inhabit. It is a more powerful attack on rural culture and the rural poor than was the Highland Clearances”.
But while encouragement for the development of new homes is very necessary, it is not sufficient to make serious inroads into this country's ever-growing backlog of the homes we need.
A key problem, of course, is that housing is dependent on borrowing—borrowing by first-time buyers, borrowing by housebuilders, borrowing by housing associations, borrowing by local authorities, and, indeed, borrowing by central government itself. Yet this is absolutely not the right time for borrowing. Internationally, an excess of borrowing in the housing market contributed significantly, from the sub-prime mortgages in the US to excessive over-building in Ireland, Spain and elsewhere, to the ongoing financial crisis. In the UK we are spared the blight of millions of unsold and unsaleable homes, since our housing boom, because we have had such difficulty in delivering enough homes, has mostly comprised paying more and more for existing property. However, avoiding a glut of surplus homes has come at a price. Our acute housing shortages mean high house prices and high rents—and therefore high housing benefit costs—and leave hundreds of thousands in overpriced properties and overcrowded and substandard conditions or actually homeless.
All these problems come back to the abject scarcity of decent affordable housing that is the UK’s unique national problem. How can we step up housebuilding when borrowing is now so difficult? I propose five measures. First, the Government’s new housing strategy announces a new build indemnity scheme, which has already received some plaudits—help for buyers who cannot find the huge deposits now required, provided that they are purchasing new, not second-hand, homes. This should encourage the housebuilders to develop more of the extensive land banks that some now hold. I note that the big builders are now making healthy profits—I see, for example, that the largest, Persimmon, has just reported a 50 per cent uplift in profits—but housebuilders will build only if they are quite sure they can sell at a decent profit.
The Government’s help for buyers, along with their build-now-pay-later sales of publicly owned sites and their revival of Labour’s Kickstart programme for stalled developments, now called Get Britain Building, should give builders confidence not to hold back but to get on with the job of constructing new housing. However, I recommend that help with deposits for first-time buyers be extended those to purchasing existing properties, not just new ones. Many of those who are trying to sell—often in a chain of sales that needs to be unlocked—will be buyers of new homes too.
My special interest is in seeing more high quality retirement apartments built, since those moving into such homes will usually be releasing much needed family homes, often with gardens, for the next generation. New retirement apartments do not generate the same opposition as new family housing. They take up less land and do not lead to much of an increase in traffic. Assistance with the deposit arrangements—guarantees are pretty cheap—for those buying existing family homes from older owners could help to get the market moving and address the needs of new buyers while simultaneously assisting the older homeowner to downsize to somewhere more manageable and, indeed, release equity for other purposes.
My second recommendation to get new homes built for those unable to buy or only to afford shared ownership is that a greater stimulus be given to the housing associations. They have had their levels of grant cut by nearly two-thirds, and if they replace the missing grant with additional loans then they have to charge much higher rents, which can force working tenants on to housing benefit with consequent work disincentives, and they will run out of borrowing capacity in approximately two years and their programmes, already too modest, will dry up. An investment in grants to housing associations can be multiplied by their extra borrowing, giving the Government a hearty bang for their buck. The National Housing Federation reckons that another £l billion could mean housing associations raising £8 billion, delivering 66,000 more homes while creating 400,000 jobs, saving hundreds of millions in benefits and boosting tax revenue. Go for it.
Thirdly, I recommend that local authorities be allowed to borrow more against their assets, in the spirit of greater localism. The current reforms to the housing revenue account towards a self-financing regime for councils are very welcome but need to go further. Within the confines of prudential borrowing rules, more housing investment could be unleashed. Many councils have small parcels of land they are keen to develop; for example, for attractive bungalows that entice underoccupying older people out of larger council homes. In other cases, local authorities can work imaginatively in providing land as well as finance in partnership with housing associations, alongside using their hugely important Section 106 planning powers to secure private sector deals for affordable homes.
Fourthly, during the passage of the Localism Bill, the Government, while rejecting my amendment to allow councils to retain 100 per cent of right-to-buy sales proceeds, agreed to a concession that I proposed to allow 100 per cent of the proceeds of sales of vacant council homes to be recycled to new building or regeneration. I recommend that advantage is taken of this important change in the Treasury rules. In my view, sales of vacant properties represent a preferable way of creating a mixed community of owners and tenants on council estates, to the alternative of the Government’s plans for enhancing the old right to buy. Selling selected vacant properties means no discounts, which are windfall gifts to those already satisfactorily housed, so it allows larger sums to be reused for new housing and, indeed, makes it possible to achieve a one-for-one replacement of any homes sold, which seems unlikely where large discounts are doled out. Such sales introduce new home buyers on to council or housing association estates, often with young children who then go to the local school, and achieve a mix of incomes that can avoid these estates being stigmatised as only for the poorest.
Fifthly, I ask the Government to accelerate their consideration of cost-neutral amendments to the arrangements for so-called real estate investment trusts. So far these REITs have failed to materialise in the residential property sector, yet they could draw in substantial investment for housing from pension and other funds and other financial institutions, as in other countries.
These are difficult times for an area of the economy that utterly depends on borrowing, at a time when borrowing is very much out of fashion. Yet I suggest that there are measures that build on the Government’s new housing strategy and could get housebuilding going again—if not yet to make an impact on the horrendous backlog, at least to prevent the gap between supply and demand widening still further. I look forward to hearing the reactions of the Minister, who has herself proved to be a sympathetic and helpful Housing Minister in this House.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Stoneham, not only on securing this important debate but on his powerful and overarching introduction.
I am a little sad that one of the contributions that we would have had during the past 10 years of debate would have been from the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on the small but important sector of park homes; but time passes. A lot of people live in them and a lot are still purchasing them; if you drive down any motorway, you will see a number of them on lorries. It is an expanding sector that, in spite of the lack of the noble Lord reminding us of it and asking questions about it today, the Government need to keep their eye on.
Before I pass to the topic that I want to address, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that we will have the opportunity to debate the issue of squatting in the forthcoming Clause 130 of the legal aid Bill. I am sure that she will be aware of the briefing that went around from the Law Association saying that the law as it stands is quite adequate, and the issue is actually its enforcement. Before we leap to yet more legislation, which Governments often see as a panacea for everything, we should make proper use of the law that there is. As I say, we will have a chance to debate that when we get to that clause.
Today I want to talk about the issue of self-build homes. I am glad to say that when the Government came in, one of the first meetings that Grant Shapps had as Housing Minister was with the National Self Build Association, which has been going since about 2009, although self-build as a form of housing has obviously been going for much longer than that. Grant Shapps was very positive and keen to help the association to promote its growth. They met again in January 2011, when he announced that he was setting up a government self-build industry working group with the association to look at what could be done to boost the level of self-build in the UK. I am glad that the Government recognise the importance of the sector.
It is very good that the Government have the National Self Build Association to work with. This will not be a plea for funding but, to date, the association has not received even the smallest pump-priming grant. Its members are all volunteers. An extremely small grant to help with such things as the portal that it is creating for self-builders—I am talking about just a few thousand pounds—would be incredibly helpful.
I want to talk about why we should think about this sector in particular. What does it bring to the communities where self-build happens? To answer that, it is helpful to look at some of the examples that have already happened. I got involved in this sector when I was still a councillor in Somerset and I learnt a lot from the self-builders who came forward for planning permission in a small village called South Petherton. It had a site that was very difficult to develop. It was on a hillside, not that accessible and surrounded by other housing. The private sector was not interested in developing it but the self-builders were interested because it was a very affordable plot. They developed it using a Walter Segal method, which adapts itself very well to steep and difficult-to-develop hillsides. Since then I have seen many other West Country examples. Ashley Vale in Bristol is very much an example of an inner-city scheme, while there is a small-town scheme in Stroud. We are not talking about a small-scale thing. Self-build can lead to 20,000 homes a year, so it is a major part of the housing sector.
I want to concentrate on community self-help schemes, rather than the sort of thing your Lordships may occasionally see on “Grand Designs”—a quite wealthy person building a state-of-the-art palace. That is easy to do if you have all that money. However, I am interested in the community schemes for people with very limited funds and, very often, for young people who have some skills but not all those they need. The sort of model that is productive is one in which a group comes together—perhaps 20 different individuals or households with skills that vary across plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers and people who have no skills to date but develop them. Such schemes take an awful lot of time in the planning—perhaps as long as five or eight years—because they have to find a site, which is the hardest bit and something that I shall come back to in a minute. They also have to go through planning permission. It is my hope that the Localism Act will enable and promote this very strong form of community self-help in housing. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that local people often put up objections to any housing being built. I certainly agree with him on that, but if it is the sons and daughters of the community who will build their own homes, it has a much more than even fighting chance of getting community support in the first place.
Self-building is also a very economical way of gaining your own home. The plot of land will be the most expensive aspect, but after that it just depends on how much time the self-builders put in and whether they have to buy in any help. The costs can be driven down. Many people on the site I visited do their self-building in the evenings between April and October and at weekends all the year round. Working in that way, they have managed to complete their homes in 18 months to two years.
You certainly have to be tenacious to be a self-builder and not get downhearted. When one family or individual drops out of a scheme for one reason or another, it obviously puts an extra strain on it. That is something that has to be carefully built into the agreement and is part of what takes up the fairly long lead-in time.
Such homes are often much better designed, too, because people design them themselves so they suit people’s very distinctive needs. They are almost always much greener; I have not seen a case where they are not. Their carbon footprint is one of their joys. People often turn to self-build for environmental and ecological reasons as well as economic ones. They make every effort to ensure that their home has a very small carbon footprint.
One of the other organisations with which I have been involved over the years is the Ecos Trust, formerly Ecos Homes, again in Somerset. The wife of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has also played a leading role with it. It has created a number of demonstration models to show all the different environmental benefits that you can get—not only energy efficiency in the building of the homes but all the different materials that can be used. It runs workshops so that people can learn different methods of working and see different models that have been developed.
Self-build is a very exciting sector with many possibilities. One of the issues that has come across to me very strongly from having visited the same sort of thing in France—this addresses rural housing—is the ease with which local French mayors, especially in rural areas, consider this a viable form of housing. They will purchase for their community a small or middle-sized field on the edge of their village and put in the infrastructure so that it comes with gas, electricity, water and sewerage provision. The plots are then sold to individuals. I am sure a number of your Lordships will have seen the advertisement “lotissement”, showing that plots are for sale. For the young of that village, and those from elsewhere should they want to move to that village, it is a very affordable form of housing.
This is something that I hope the Housing Minister will pursue with all vigour and some imagination. Two things would make all the difference. One is definitely land availability. My suggestion to the Minister today is that when large sites are being considered for housing, perhaps for 100 houses, some of that—perhaps 20 per cent—could be set aside for self-build. It is something on which there should at least be much more consultation. Where there is a great demand for it and a community that will take it up, it would be a very affordable way for the younger generation, in particular, to develop housing.
There are also other sites that we do not often consider, such as ex-Army sites. They often have a lot of infrastructure. You can imagine a whole self-build eco-town on an ex-Army site, which would be quite a “swords into ploughshares” experience and one that would be very exciting.
As well as land availability, the other issue is the value of self-build in upskilling people. It allows people to work on NVQs and exchange skills while they are self-building. Their local college often gets involved, which is an extremely helpful development, too. It not only upskills the younger generation but provides them with an affordable home. I hope that some positive messages are about to come from the Government on further help for this sector.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Stoneham for initiating this important debate. I declare my interests as a member of Newcastle City Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
It is now widely recognised and understood that the housing bubble has been at the heart of Britain’s economic crisis. We know that we must not return to the days of continuously rising house prices. That means that we have to build more homes for people to live in, address the issue of empty homes where too many of them exist and ensure that land with existing planning permissions actually gets built on. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s housing strategy, Laying the Foundations. It delivers a mortgage indemnity scheme to help around 100,000 buyers who are unable to enter the market to do so with 5 per cent deposits on new homes. That will reduce the pressure on the rented sector where we have rising demand and, in several parts of the country, rising rent levels. That policy will help. I welcome the new £400 million budget for the Get Britain Building strategy to help get construction going where it currently cannot do so because of a lack of development finance. That will help. I also welcome plans to reward councils that bring empty homes back into use with the £150 million which is available to councils and housing associations. That, too, will help.
The problem is that buyers are not buying and lenders are not lending, so builders are not building. There were just 115,000 new build completions in 2010-11, when, as we have heard, the number of households is rising at twice that level and is forecast to do so for the next 20 years. These things are difficult to predict, but even if this projection is too high it is still evident that the rate of new building is much too slow. Therefore, we need to break through the barriers which stand in the way of building, particularly the building of affordable homes both for rent and for first-time buyers.
Consider the following: the value of British homes is some £4.3 trillion. It has risen 6 per cent in the past five years but it has gone up 20 per cent in London and the south-east. However, owner-occupation is in decline with a 250 per cent increase in renting in the past 10 years. The south-east now accounts for 26 per cent of housing stock but 36 per cent of value. One of the Government’s stated aims, which I warmly welcome, is their intention to rebalance the UK economy away from overdependence on the south-east and on financial services. However, a key element of this will be to increase housebuilding rates in the north and the Midlands.
However, we cannot escape the inevitable conclusion that constrained public subsidy is likely to be not just a short-term blip but something that is here to stay for the foreseeable future. We still desperately need to generate new affordable homes. However, if we probe a bit deeper, there are examples out there that provide a model of what the future may look like. Increasingly, those within the sector are looking to enter into longer-term partnerships and use public land in an innovative manner. There are examples of pioneering joint ventures between private sector developers, local authorities and affordable housing providers such as Home Group in the north-east of England. Working with Galliford Try and Gateshead Council, Home Group’s Evolution Gateshead project is, at £250 million, one of the largest regeneration projects outside London. Home Group, with Galliford Try, is providing equity and debt, Gateshead is providing public land, and with all sides sharing the risks and the rewards it will allow a whole package of 19 sites to be developed and the creation of around 2,400 much needed new homes.
There is a real danger that long-term regeneration is slipping down the priority list in favour of asset disposals to maintain an authority’s operational budget. We can understand the pressure that local authorities find themselves under yet, through these joint venture models, local authorities can have the vision to deliver long-term regeneration without having to sell off the family silver.
Then there is stock rationalisation. With constrained levels of affordable housing finance, it is not merely a case of achieving the maximum level of development possible from this round of funding. More fundamentally, it is about how housing providers adapt to a future with little or no grant. In looking at this subject over the past few days, I came across a statistic from the Savills affordable housing division. Its research shows that if you were able to alter the stock profile across England by just 5 per cent, you would be able to build an additional 50,000 units on the back of the savings. That involves a transfer of just 125,000 units out of a total stock of more than 2.2 million. That is exactly what innovative housing providers such as Home Group are now actively engaged with. Over a six-year period it plans to dispose of almost 6,000 units and exit in favour of other providers in 71 local authorities. In doing so, it believes that it can concentrate activity in more focused geographical areas, driving up service standards in those areas and generating £150 million of receipts to reinvest in the creation of additional affordable homes. Already, Home Group has disposed of nearly 2,000 units to other housing associations, which may access new ways of financing from new providers. It has reinvested the proceeds to improve the service to its current and potential customers.
Housebuilding makes a crucial contribution to our economy and is particularly crucial for jobs since it accounts for more than 3 per cent of GDP. For every new home built, two jobs are created for one year. Yet over the past four years the workforce in construction has reduced from 2.35 million to 2.1 million today. That is a 10 per cent decline, which is four times higher than the overall workforce reduction.
I have no doubt that housing growth is a prerequisite of economic growth. Housing growth requires barriers to be dismantled, which is what the Government are doing. They have allocated £500 million to the Growing Places Fund and are freeing up public sector land on the “build now, pay later” principle for builders. There is also the build your own home scheme and, as I mentioned earlier, the Get Britain Building investment fund. Crucially, local councils will have greater freedoms in their management of social housing and will play a key role in bringing empty homes back into occupancy, with the £150 million fund to turn empty homes into affordable homes to which I referred.
I wish to mention two overriding principles in the way that I think about housing. First, we should not see a house or a flat as a unit but as a home. In all our thinking about housing—for example, around issues to do with spare rooms—we should keep to an overall principle that if someone is to move from a property which may be perceived by others to be too big, the principle of volunteering to do so should be paramount. Any compulsion should be eliminated from our thinking. I believe that people think of their house or flat as their home. That home will have many memories. When I was leader of Newcastle City Council, one of the things that we tried to do was to get back to building bungalows. If you build bungalows with a little bit of space at the front and back and perhaps a small garden, but on both sides, people are more willing to move from a three-bedroom council dwelling to something that they perceive to be good for them than to be downsized into a block of flats which they do not really want to live in. Bungalow building has been on the back burner for around two decades, but they are now being built and opened in my city and elsewhere. That is extremely helpful.
Homelessness is the second overriding issue that I want briefly to talk about. It has started to increase again. Last year, in 2010-11, just over 100,000 people approached their local authority as homeless. The number of households accepted as being owed the main homelessness duty increased by one-sixth. In addition, there has been an 8 per cent growth in rough sleeping in London during the past year. At the same time, overcrowding has also been rising—reversing a previous, fairly long-term, decline.
Finally, we have heard about housing policy being a challenge. Indeed it is. One can adopt the view of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I interpreted as saying that the glass is half empty. I interpreted the noble Lord, Lord Best, as saying that the glass is half full. I have to say that I subscribe to the latter view because the Government have addressed an issue that for the past four years had not been properly addressed as a consequence of the credit crunch. It has been a major source of concern for many of us since the credit crunch began as we have seen housing waiting lists rise, young people unable to buy and not enough housing units being built. Laying the Foundations has established a clear way forward and a clear set of public investment priorities. I hope and am confident that the Government will keep those priorities under review and be prepared to adjust them if necessary, but we now have a set of investment policies that can be followed to solve some of the underlying housing problems that our country faces.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I join all other Members of your Lordships' House who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on initiating this debate and on introducing it so fully and admirably. This is the second debate on housing—one was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, some months ago—which is an indication of the importance of this subject, so it is good that the House has had an opportunity to debate it.
A century ago, your Lordships' House was described as “Mr Balfour’s poodle”. I do not know whether Mr Pickles has a poodle, but in the shape of the Housing Minister, Mr Grant Shapps, he certainly has a Jack Russell who is very lively and busy. Mr Shapps announced, shortly after being appointed, that it was,
“easy for a housing minister to catch your eye with a headline, but much harder to deliver more homes”.
He spoke whereof he knew, because there have been 127 announcements on housing since Mr Shapp’s appointment—an average of about six a month. However, in the new-start figures for 2010-11, there was a reduction of 7 per cent. All this has of course been accompanied by, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Whitty, a 60 per cent cut in the provision for affordable homes. There will be more announcements to come, but most of the action plan to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred consists of announcements, consultations and reports, rather than any actual building to take place.
The document we are debating is interesting but there are other documents that I also commend to the House, particularly to the noble Baroness the Minister— notably a series from the IPPR dealing with a whole range of housing issues. One of them looks particularly at the demand question. It calculates that the need for new homes will be in the region of 206,000 to 280,000 per annum over the next 15 years. The report also points out that in the past two decades the average has been only 160,000. It emphasises that social housing is already under enormous pressure and that waiting lists now run at between 6 per cent and 12 per cent across housing authorities. The difficulty is compounded by a halving of the capital budget, with the obvious consequences of supply being squeezed. The target of building 150,000 affordable new homes a year, assuming it was going to be met, will simply not bridge the gap—especially in the social rented sector.
The report we are debating has some interesting ideas, but there are some gaps. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to one—what are we actually building? What standards are we building to? There was much to be said for Parker Morris standards in the social sector but also more generally. We do not see those standards being applied now. Members of your Lordships' House will recall that last year surveys demonstrated that the size of new-build properties was smaller in this country than occurs anywhere else in Europe. That is also a matter for concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, referred to how the needs of the elderly should be reflected. There is a passing mention of that issue in the report, but it needs amplifying and needs to look beyond just the role of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Extra care housing is an initiative that has begun to prove its worth in a number of authorities. It needs to bring together the interests of adult services and the health service in looking at the kind of provision that will allow people to stay in the same place but with a range of different facilities available to them. That is worth developing.
Another singular omission in the report that has an indirect impact on the supply side is the question of student housing. In many places—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I are well aware that this certainly applies to Newcastle, but it will also apply elsewhere—student housing tends to crowd out family accommodation. Just as we would seek to encourage and facilitate elderly people to vacate houses that are too big for them and move to smaller accommodation, it would be desirable to find a way of housing students in accommodation that would otherwise become available to families.
Another interesting IPPR report that I strongly commend to the Minister, who may not have come across it, deals with the extensive criticism of the development industry. The report states:
“The long-term record of UK housebuilders’ levels of output tells a story of consistent underdelivery … The value of land has risen faster than that of almost any other commodity over recent decades, so the development industry has come to prioritise trading land over building homes”.
The industry has,
“bought up large land banks at high prices during the boom”,
but is not sufficiently building. The report continues, stating that the,
“new Housing Strategy does not demand the reform that is needed. Instead, it offers the major housebuilders public land, money and guarantees without articulating a serious quid pro quo”.
These matters are certainly worth exploring, although I would not necessarily jump to any conclusions.
We also have to bear in mind the actions that the Government have taken in addition to their thoughts about what should happen in future. Their first announcement was effectively to scrap the regional spatial strategies, against which there had been a substantial outcry—particularly in the south-east counties, which perhaps had no wish to accommodate people moving out from overdeveloped London. The result of that was that 220,000 planned homes will no longer be built and, far from delighting the development industry, the Government were immediately taken to court by a number of developers who found that their plans and agreements with local authorities were not able to go ahead.
However, there are many other matters. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, cuts have been made in grants to registered social landlords. I happened to be in conversation with the chair of a very active housing association that is bringing together three or four associations into one. He was saying that its programme has been substantially reduced as a result of the grant cut. The association was simply not going to be able to build anything like the number of houses that it had wanted and planned to build.
The right to buy has been reintroduced for reasons that escape me. The substantial discount has been described in this debate as a free gift to people who are already adequately housed and makes no economic sense. Your Lordships will recall that during the passage of the Localism Bill, an amendment supported by this side of the House, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to allow 100 per cent of right-to-buy receipts to be reinvested in housing was rejected by the Government and their supporters in this Chamber. Those are serious matters.
There is also the impact of housing benefit and other changes which are likely to generate increased housing demand. In response, we have the new homes bonus, which the noble Lord, Lord Best, implicitly described as an example of nudge theory. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the noble Lord, but on the matter of the new homes bonus I profoundly disagree with him. I am sure that that will not cause him to lose any sleep, but there are serious aspects to this. The new homes bonus involves some government money—money taken from the departmental budget for some years—and other funding which does not come out of the general pot but is a reallocation of money within local government. It is deducted from the formula grant. It is doubtful whether the scheme will achieve its objectives. The Select Committee in the House of Commons stated that it was,
“a bold experiment; but not one which, on the evidence … we can have any confidence will be successful”—
rather short of a warm endorsement of the policy.
In addition to the question about whether the nudge will work—one must be sceptical about that—there is a huge distribution issue. The process will divert resources from the north to the south. It is interesting that the speakers in this debate have been roughly equally divided between those of us who come from the north and those of us who live in the south. The north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside will lose £104 million, while the south-east, the south-west and the east of England will gain £280 million. Tandridge in Surrey gains £20 a head; Knowsley in Merseyside loses £25 a head, Newcastle loses £5 million and Gateshead loses £4 million. That is money effectively deducted from the grant that those authorities would have received. All that to achieve the princely total of 14,000 new homes.
The scepticism that I refer to is shared not merely by Labour politicians or even the Select Committee but by the national Home Builders Federation. We have this purported remedy at a time when waiting lists are soaring and rents spiralling in the private and public sector. Shelter reports that rents are now unaffordable for working families—working families—in 55 per cent of local authorities.
The Government’s record on other aspects has also been lamentable. The decent homes programme was savagely cut. In my view, the Labour Government did not do enough to secure new building, but they did an enormous amount to improve the condition of existing stock. Those programmes have effectively been uprooted. I have wearied the House in the past with references to Newcastle, so I shall confine my observations to Gateshead today, just across the River Tyne from us. Gateshead has had a significant cut—in fact, it was cut off completely. It lost several million pounds from the decent homes programme and had a 15-year programme for housing renewal halted halfway through, with significant consequences for the local economy and housing needs of that area.
Another policy that the Government have introduced, on which we will see the extent to which it proves deleterious, is flexible tenancies—something which the Conservatives, at least, had pledged in their manifesto not to introduce. They said that they would not interfere with tenure.
The condition of the private rented sector is a matter of concern. There are significant problems in dealing with repair, some of which were touched on in passing in the debate on housing matters under the legal aid Bill last night. Instead of strengthening councils’ powers in relation to empty dwelling managing orders, the Government have made it more difficult. Properties have to be vacant for a longer period and to constitute a nuisance—hardly a term that is readily interpreted—before any action can be taken. We need stronger powers to promote licensing schemes and to intervene to take over the management of poorly managed properties. They are not the majority, but they are present in significant numbers, not just in core urban areas but throughout the country. There is very little in the document about the condition of the private rented sector.
Some interesting observations have been made today about how new forms of financing and new forms of building—self-build and community build—may take place. They should certainly be developed, but we continue to have a significant imbalance between the sectors and geographically. Incidentally, while we are thinking about geography, the growing places fund, which has been referred to, underlines the inequity of the present system. The growing places programme is supposed to provide infrastructure for new housing development and the like. It was striking that Northumberland, Durham and Tyne & Wear received exactly the same funding under that scheme as the Oxford City region and Berkshire—not areas, one might have thought, of pressing social housing need and with a significantly smaller population than that major part of the north-east. The issue of equity is completely omitted from the document.
The foundations may have been laid, but I must conclude that they are fairly shaky. I hope that the Government will listen to the evidence, consider the issues of fairness and respond more constructively to the real needs of the many people who are in poor housing, who are desperate to move into better accommodation and who want communities that are mixed—as several noble Lords have commented—but in which the quality of housing, especially new housing, is better than has been provided, certainly in the private sector, for many years. We must move away from a fixation with owner occupation and look to a multiplicity of forms of tenure which will suit people at different stages in their lives.
I again congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the debate. I have no doubt that we shall be returning to the issues in the months and years ahead.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for initiating this debate and for getting time for it. I also thank those who have contributed to it, because, as usual in debates such as this, within the limited number of speakers, it has brought out those who have a true interest in and experience of housing and housing strategy. I am grateful for the support we have received, by and large—the response of the opposition spokesman was a bit churlish, but there were touches here and there where he might just agree with us. On the whole, the strategy has been accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has enormous experience of housing associations and the area of housing. We do not underestimate the contribution that such organisations make to housing delivery, or the importance of the affordable housing sector. I immediately agree that housing must be on the top of the Government's agenda. The provision of the strategy demonstrates that it is. I liked the description of my honourable friend Grant Shapps as being akin to a Jack Russell terrier; I think that he will feel complimented by that. He is certainly able to snap away and get things done, and he has inspired and introduced the strategy which has now been launched by the Deputy Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
We have covered a lot of ground in this debate and I shall try to go through at least some of the issues that have been raised. The strategy is fully funded through a combination of existing budgets and the Autumn Statement, and it will provide more than £1 billion to help with all the initiatives that have been put forward.
We have debated today, as we have in the past, the need for housing of all types in this country. We know that there is significant underbuild and that we need more housing. I think that the figures quoted have been correct: in 2010, 103,000 new buildings were completed, and the expectation and requirement is that more than 200,000 a year should be built. The housing market and housing construction industry also create jobs, so we are well aware that, where the impetus for housebuilding is lacking, we lose the talents and craftsmanship that the housing industry produces and the economy is not stimulated as it should be. It is vital that we stimulate housing, not only for economic growth but for the social reasons which have been mentioned today. People of all ages need good housing, and it is our desire to ensure that as much as possible is produced.
Every million pounds-worth of new housing supports 12 additional jobs. That is quite a figure and an important one. The housing strategy sets out immediate action to get the housing market moving. The expectation with the action plan is that things will be moved along. I refer here not just to consultation, although if there is no consultation on some of the issues involved, people will say that they have not been consulted and that they do not know what is going to happen. However, consultation does not have to go on for months; it can be relatively swift for the right people, and decisions can then be taken very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, raised a number of really important points which others picked up. As he said, the Government are laying the foundation for the renewal of housing structures in this country. It is fair to say—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made this point—that it is not starting from a standpoint of great heritage, but there are reasons for that: the economy has not been very helpful for a number of years. The previous Government had laid some of the foundation but they could not resolve all the housing issues due to the economy and the ensuing difficulties. However, with regard to the economy and the development and financing of housing, all sorts of aspects can be picked up, many of which are in the strategy. For example, the new homes bonus—I am sorry that the noble Lord put his foot on that—encourages further development. With every home created, a sum of money is capitalised and made available from council tax to ensure that further building is carried out. It is the stimulation of other building that is important. Other areas that stimulate building are very well laid out in the housing strategy.
I was quite surprised at how little attention was given to the mortgage aspect and the Government’s guarantee to underwrite 95 per cent of mortgages for first-time buyers.
A point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about self-build and people being encouraged to build. The strategy refers to this not as self-build but as community build, and policies are laid out for helping people to build homes themselves or to set up with other people in order to build. Available public land—which, again, was not touched on very much—is now being identified across government. It will be made available for community housing or self-build housing, and it will also be available for development on a “build now, pay later” basis, which means that housing development will become possible with payment for the land being made subsequently. All this eases the possibility of making housing available to as many people as possible.
The right to buy, which the noble Lord opposite rather sniffed at, went completely out of favour under the previous Government because the discount was reduced so substantially that it did not make it worth while. It is now proposed to increase the discount, and discussions are currently taking place about a percentage of the amount taken from the deposits being available for new homes. The expectation is that for every house sold, a new house or property will be built or made available. That is one way of dealing with the issue.
We are also helping by providing £420 million for the Get Britain Building investment fund because we know that not enough new homes are being built. We estimate that approximately 133,000 housing units with planning permission are available to be built. If we can get the building investment going, we can ensure that those properties are built. We also know that under Section 106 there are already indications of where housing can be built—affordable as well as private housing. Again, this is blocked under current conditions and we need to get it released.
I need to change what I said about the new build indemnity scheme, otherwise everyone will get the facts wrong, as I did. The Government are not underwriting 95 per cent of mortgages for first-time buyers; they are offering low deposit mortgages of up to 95 per cent loan-to-value for new build. I apologise that I got that entirely wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, raised the question of levering in finance for housing associations and bonds. We know that between 2008 and 2010 £2.8 billion-worth of public bonds were issued by social housing providers. Also, the new affordable homes programme is predicated on providers levering in more investment from the private finance markets. The affordable rent programme enables providers to borrow more against the higher income streams.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, returned to a few of the aspects that she raised a couple of days ago. She referred, in particular, to commonhold and rent to buy. Commonhold has always been very difficult, as I think we all realise. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, took the relevant legislation through the House, it was recognised that there were going to be difficulties with it. I think that the noble Baroness is correct in saying that there had to be a 100 per cent buy-in, particularly in blocks of flats, and that that was almost impossible to achieve.
The Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the commonhold policies now, does not intend to do anything more about this at the moment, but it is recognised that it is a possible way for people to get their own homes without the problems of management and freehold.
The rent-to-buy situation, raised by the noble Baroness, was a programme funded by the previous Administration. The funding for affordable housing is available under the affordable rent programme. That funding would support innovative programmes similar to the rent-to-buy programme—that is a form of rent programme. We are aware that similar approaches have been taken by registered social landlords. The criminalisation of squatting, which she raised, is also being consulted on at the moment by the Ministry of Justice.
Quite a lot of speakers referred to empty homes. I think we all agree that empty homes are not only undesirable but are a complete waste of resources. We have quite a detailed policy within the strategy for dealing with empty homes and there is a substantial sum of money to support bringing such homes back into use. The £100 million in the empty homes fund has been pursued in the housing strategy. We are also looking at the council tax discount and whether that should be stopped for empty homes. That is being consulted on at the moment, along with the flexibility for councils to do that and to ensure that councils take up the opportunity of dealing with empty homes. Of course, the new homes bonus will also be available for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned park homes. We are very aware of the problems with park homes. Some are very well managed but some are not. We are committed to providing a better deal for park home residents by improving their rights. That is being consulted on at the moment. My honourable friend Grant Shapps is very concerned about these issues and is looking to see what can be done to enforce the rights of owners to, for example, challenge unreasonable service charges more easily.
I think I touched on self-build, which is custom building in the housing strategy. We think that is important and the availability of land is coming forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, supported the mortgage scheme and drew attention to the release of public land. He referred to the Home Group, which is a very good innovative scheme. The more that we can bring the private or voluntary sector into the provision of housing the better.
There was also concern about older people and a vague suggestion that they might be forced out of their houses, if they are overhoused, and be downsized into smaller properties. There is no intention of that. We have never said that anyone will be forced to do anything. If they voluntarily want to downsize, they will be supported to do so. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that it would be good to have housing, such as bungalows, available but that needs land and development. I do not think anyone believes that people should be forced into leaving their homes at any time if they do not want to.
This is a very wide-ranging strategy. The Government are determined to ensure that it is started and seen through. On all the policies that are put forward there is a financial commitment. There is an expectation of innovative investment to help it through. It is a very determined start and I think this is one of the first opportunities that we have had to see a comprehensive view of what is needed in housing in this country. It will boost the provision of housing, it will boost the housing market and it will try to provide housing for all those who need it, including the numbers on waiting lists, the homeless and everyone else who needs a decent home to live in. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and all noble Lords who have taken part.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this debate. It has been very valuable in raising this issue and giving it a higher profile. I would like to say a few words in response to the individual speakers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for emphasising the importance of rent to buy and I shall certainly look at her comments on commonhold leases.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was very brave to admit the inheritance which the Government have received as being far from perfect. I thought that his argument that we need a holistic approach to resolving the crisis was important. He raised the dangers of hierarchy in housing and the need for new ideas to overcome the current divisions that exist between private ownership, rented and social housing.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Maddock. I think her emphasis on the importance of the policy on empty homes and on energy efficiency are two key issues going forward in the housing sector and her emphasis on the need to address energy efficiency in the existing housing stock. I accept that her proposals on VAT will need longer examination.
My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I have a strong interest in retirement housing. He reminded us that the key issue in our sector is that of borrowing. I thought that his five-point plan to get the housing sector moving was very constructive and useful. I thank him for his remarks.
My noble friend Lady Miller emphasised the self-build sector and the vigour that can be applied by local people particularly in rural areas to such projects. I was particularly amused and convinced by her commitment to turning arms into ploughshares.
My noble friend Lord Shipley gave a northern dimension to the debate, emphasising the need to contribute to the economy and reaffirming our commitment to challenge the situation of the homeless.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the significant issue of equity between north and south and the importance of fairness. I thought he was just a little negative in terms of coming forward with how we might fund what he would like to achieve and what we would all like to achieve. I appreciated his commitment to multiplicity of tenure.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her very detailed reply and commitment to pursuing the development of the foundation strategy. Housing should be a focus for the coalition. It is important to job recovery and meets a very important social need. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us, the key is the issue of borrowing and I hope that the ministerial team will take up the challenge of finding and fighting for new vehicles for funding which will enable us to build more affordable housing in this country.
Finally, I hope that the Jack Russell of a housing Minister and the coalition will continue to aspire to the ambition and example of that old bulldog, Harold Macmillan.
Cities
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Storey
That this House takes note of the case for developing the growth of the United Kingdom’s major cities.
Lord Storey
My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to lead on this debate as a former leader of a major city and as someone who has spent all his political career in that major city. Cities, as we know, deliver growth and are places that will drive the future economic performance and productivity of the UK. We must remember that four in five people in the UK live in an urban area and that 62 per cent of jobs are located in them. People are drawn to cities for their cultural vibrancy and the economic opportunities that they offer. Cities drive innovation and have a brand and a status that attract investment to their local and wider areas. For businesses to compete nationally and globally, they need the assets provided by cities: intellectual capital, private sector agglomeration, connectivity and investment in public services. Let us remember that strong and prosperous cities in their regions contribute to their rural surroundings, making them equally prosperous.
The great cities of the UK have seen a renaissance over the past decade or so—particularly the great northern cities, which previously seemed to be in a cycle of decline, with high unemployment, population loss, social deprivation, a lack of investment, confidence and civic pride and, of course, with high levels of crime. My own city of Liverpool is one of the great cities of the world; indeed, it was once regarded as the second city of the then British Empire. The 1970s and 1980s saw a huge decline in the fortune of that city, with massive job losses. Almost every week, a company closed down: Tate & Lyle, Dunlop, Triumph motors—the list went on. It is hard to believe this, but in parts of the city unemployment was running at 28 per cent. This lack of jobs impacted on the social fabric of the city and a militant council came to power. The council regarded the Government and the private sector as the enemy. Liverpudlians felt as though the stuffing had been knocked out of them and that no one cared about them, other than for them to be the butt end of jokes.
Then Liverpool and these other great cities picked themselves up and are now becoming the engines of growth not just for their subregion but for the UK as a whole. Indeed, eight of England's core cities—Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield—and their subregions alone produce 27 per cent of England's wealth. These eight core cities contain 25 per cent of our entire population, and the cities themselves have a higher than average share of employment and growth, highlighting their key economic role. They have a broad sectoral employment base and are home to large, graduate-hungry business and professional services sectors.
How has this come about? How have they turned themselves around? First, their reinvention has been based on sound political leadership and the realisation that councils do not actually create jobs but do create the confidence and conditions for businesses to prosper and to create that wealth, thereby creating employment. They also realised that all stakeholders, including government, have an important part to play. By working together to understand the things that will turn their cities around, they have literally had the single-minded determination to pursue those goals.
However, what of the future? How can cities continue to grow in economic importance and play a bigger part in the economic well-being of the whole country? Many of these cities are hugely dependent on the public sector. They need to move on from being so heavily reliant solely on public sector jobs; they need to develop their business and manufacturing capacity and to ensure that a skilled workforce is available. The companies, businesses and firms that are success stories, both big and small, need to be nurtured and developed further.
After the so-called Toxteth riots in Liverpool in 1981 the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, dispatched a certain Michael Heseltine to Liverpool and he became the Minister for Merseyside. I am sure his perception of the city and its people changed. He realised the potential and he not only became a champion for Liverpool, which had been written off by many, but by working with stakeholders formulated and introduced the policies that started to turn the city around. Interestingly, the now noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, by working with Sir Terry Leahy—a Liverpool lad done well and a former chief executive of Tesco—and involving local stakeholders, has produced a new report, or blueprint, on Liverpool and its subregion, and how it can further develop.
We need that approach of an individual plan for each of our city regions so that we can build on their strengths, think imaginatively, do what needs to be done and then, as I said, have the determination both at local and government level to carry it through. The same reforming zeal that has radically changed our public services should be unleashed to be pro-business, aspirational and transformational in our cities. Successive Governments have told cities how they can develop and what they should do, and if they do not do it the resources will not be released: a universal top-down, one-size-fits-all policy. Often, those programmes have no recognition of the individual city’s circumstances and needs. The altar of urban regeneration is littered with dozens of government programmes and schemes that had absolutely no real local ownership, no local buy-in and that councils went along with quite frankly because there was no alternative—they would lose their money and lose out.
The Deputy Prime Minister is right when he says that we need our cities to become economic, social and cultural magnets—places where people aspire to live. He is absolutely and equally right to give them powers to help that growth. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced the first wave of cities to be given these extra powers. There is a suggestion that a second wave is being considered and I hope that the Minister will indicate whether this is the case. I also place on record my thanks and appreciation to my noble friend Lord Shipley for his work on this matter and for the way in which he has secured real progress.
Those core cities of England, which, as I have said, have a third of the UK’s population, generate 27 per cent of England’s wealth—more than London—and are home to half the country's leading universities. They also contain 28 per cent of all highly skilled workers. Yet compared with London, they receive considerably less in finance, resources and subsidies, so what needs to be done to release further the potential of our cities? First, there is investment and funding. There is compelling evidence, particularly from Europe, that cities with more decentralised public finance are more competitive. In the UK, central government’s share of public spend is high by international comparisons—it is 72 per cent, compared with 19 per cent in Germany and 35 per cent in France—and limits local control over the levers of growth, so the recent policies announced by the Government on this matter are most welcome.
Secondly, there is devolution. We must allow our cities greater control over the policy areas that can drive growth and skills, housing, transport, planning et cetera. Thirdly, of course, there is good city governance. Democratic legitimacy, when combined with private sector and voluntary leadership and strong governance structures, provides a powerful engine for growth in cities and should be recognised more clearly in the relationship between national and local government. There is more democratic legitimacy to the notion of a city leader being elected by the people than by a party caucus. However, city mayors must be part of strong, democratic and open structures, and will be worthwhile only if they have more decentralised power and responsibilities.
For every successful city that faces up to the challenges of the 21st century there will be those that fall behind. Cities need to be places that people want to live in, and must provide decent housing and good transportation links. The coalition announcement on high-speed rail links was hugely important. In my own area, the Government can be credited with agreeing the second crossing over the Mersey, which looked as though it might drag on for years.
Investing in cities would mean a significant opportunity to increase jobs and growth. The transformational effects would be profound for the local and national economies. Independent forecasts for our core cities predict that, by 2022, the additional economic output by GVA will be an extra £29 billion, there will be 747,000 additional jobs, and 170,000 people will be brought out of economic inactivity. Finally, the net fiscal contribution to the Exchequer will be £20.5 billion. The figures show how important it is to get the policies right for our major cities. I am sure that the policies the coalition Government are pursuing in relation to our major cities will create a real renaissance for urban areas, which will benefit the whole of the UK.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to the debate this afternoon, having had the privilege for a number of years of being the leader of a major northern city. I compliment my noble friend Lord Storey on instigating the debate.
Economic analysis shows the dramatic variation in the performance of the UK's cities. Each city has its own economic story. Economic statistics demonstrate that each city's economic performance is complex and nuanced. Once we layer in the city's history and culture on top of the different economic indicators, the picture becomes even more complex. To be effective, economic policy has to respond to local economic complexity. Some parts of government recognise this important point and have moved in this direction. The creation of local enterprise partnerships and city deals are important milestones, but have we moved far enough towards local decision-making to allow the effective targeting of economic policy?
The need for flexibility to develop locally tailored solutions was recognised in an amendment to the Localism Act supported by many in this House. It gave councils the right to ask for powers to be devolved so that they could pursue policies for economic development. The city deals project that the Government are pursuing with cities offers a way to devolve funding pots and give councils and local enterprise partnerships a greater role in skills and investment policy. It is a real opportunity to unlock local growth and increase local accountability. The challenge will be to make sure that city deals offer genuine decentralisation without bureaucracy and red tape, and are available to all local authorities that can make their case. Having been the leader of the fourth-largest metropolitan district in the country, I was somewhat surprised that we were excluded from the special list of eight.
Councils understand and have identified opportunities for local growth, and are working with partners to find investment for infrastructure to unlock ambitious schemes. For example, Kettering has planning permission for 5,000 houses and support for huge investment on renewable energy that will create jobs to stimulate green-growth development. However, it needs funding for road improvements to unlock £2 billion of investment. The Government's focus must be on removing barriers to local decision-making and on how investment is targeted locally. They must champion area-based approaches that enable partners to join up assets and investment locally.
Power should continue to be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level to help local councils tackle their local economic challenges and help them deliver better value-for-money services. In particular, there is a compelling case for further decentralisation of skills and transport services to support economic growth. Many of our major cities and towns underperform on key economic indicators compared to their European equivalents. Part of the reason is the quality of local transport systems that make cities attractive places in which to invest and enable people to get to jobs. I know from experience of my own rural board the problems of young people who cannot access jobs because there is no public transport. We facilitated a wheels-to-work scheme with the voluntary sector that helped many young people access the job market.
UK transport infrastructure problems are estimated to cost every business nearly £20,000 on average each year. Nearly 40 per cent of jobseekers say transport is the key barrier to getting a job. I agree with the Local Government Association, which has long argued that greater local control over decisions about transport investment would improve integrated decision-making to achieve the full economic benefits of public transport investment. London, Merseyside and Scotland demonstrate that local decision-making can lead to improved usage of public transport and higher satisfaction levels, with knock-on effects for the economy.
There is more to town and city centres than shopping, and we should encourage this. City centres can transform into almost anything. They are central and well connected public spaces, and innovative use of them can attract and engage people, creating valuable retail demand in the process. My own city centre is undergoing a major transformation; a new large city park has given the city a new heart.
Councils continue to lead this effort locally, working with local communities and businesses to build on the opportunities for growth and to reshape high streets and shopping centres. Local partnerships are crucial because high streets, unlike shopping centres, represent complex sets of interests. The Government must think about how to further empower local partnerships with the necessary funding and tools, and must shift the policy emphasis away from retail alone.
As my noble friend Lord Storey said, people in cities need decent homes to live in. Councils are playing their part to encourage growth. Through the planning system they are overwhelmingly saying yes to viable and sustainable residential and commercial development. Councils play a key role in facilitating housing supply locally, both through council building schemes and via their leading role in, and facilitation of, partnerships, the de-risking of sites and the provision of land or support in kind.
However, councils could do more if they were provided with genuine self-financing. We welcome recent moves by the Government towards a devolved finance system for council housing, but the system will not be genuinely self-financing unless councils can keep the proceeds from the sale of council housing under the right-to-buy scheme. We need a reversal of the Treasury's position on creaming off the forecast growth in the business rate yield for 2013-14 and 2014-15. The proposals for relocalisation of business rates could be an important step in this direction, provided that councils are able to retain all the proceeds of growth. The presumption that in 2013-14 and 2014-15 the Treasury will cream off a predetermined level of forecast growth will mean that local authorities will only be able to benefit financially from growth over and above the Government’s forecast.
I firmly believe that our major cities will thrive and grow if economic development is devolved to them and if they work with the Government on tailor-made city deals, which I am sure we all thoroughly welcome.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Storey for initiating this debate. I thank him too for his comments on my role as adviser to the Government on cities policy. I have taken a very close and detailed interest in this over the years. I am pleased that great progress has been made because we need to make progress urgently.
In contributing to this important debate, I want first to make one very simple point: cities drive growth and jobs and they do it best when freed from central constraint. The Core Cities Group in England, of which I was a member when leader of Newcastle City Council, has laboured over this one critical message for more than a decade, building evidence, demonstrating practical examples, and developing new instruments and financial models. Yet the productivity of our greatest cities still lags behind that of their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere.
Let me give two examples. My noble friend Lord Storey referred to GDP figures. The eight English core cities account for some 27 per cent of GDP, while Greater London accounts for 28 per cent. If you compare them with other major European countries, for example, you see the gap. If we compare the GDP figures for the eight largest non-capital cities in England with the eight highest performing non-capital cities in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, the examples of Germany and France, which are closest to us, are particularly revealing. We are simply much lower in any GDP test that we seek to apply.
A simple and practical example is the annual patent applications per million of population. Germany’s top non-capital eight cities have an average of around 400 patent applicants a year, France has around 200 patent applicants a year, and the top eight non-capital English cities have an average of 70 patent applications a year. To me, that sums up the problem. England has been—the United Kingdom less so—hugely overcentralised. One of the things that the Government are trying to do which I am particularly pleased about is to reverse that trend. The economic contribution of our cities has never been more vital to the growth of the United Kingdom.
The government publication Unlocking Growth in Cities, launched in December, comes at a decisive moment for the economy. The document builds on an amendment to the Localism Act, originating from the core cities, which I and other noble Lords present have spoken to and supported in this House. It sets out the goals, opportunities and process for bespoke city deals, giving each place the means to improve their specific circumstances—not to a one-size-fits-all formula. These are called city deals and initially those deals will be with each of the eight core cities—Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield—but with a clear and stated ambition to go much further.
Each of these cities, working with their local enterprise partnerships, is engaged in discussion and negotiation across Whitehall for further decentralisation of the tools and resources to drive up growth and jobs and drive down dependency on public services. As I said, these eight cities already produce 27 per cent of the country’s total economy. However, recent independence forecasts by Oxford Economics demonstrate that the eight core cities local enterprise partnership areas are capable of delivering an additional £61 billion in GVA and 1.3 million jobs beyond those currently predicted up to 2030.
Some contributing growth factors are beyond the control of local or national governments, and we need to recognise that. But others, including a more locally sensitive application of the levers of growth, can and should be devolved.
The eight core cities I mentioned have a particular role, but their work has always been applicable to a much wider constituency of towns, cities and local authorities. What works for them can work in other places, particularly using the bespoke method that the Government have put in place. Unlocking Growth in Cities and the Localism Act set in motion a long-term process of decentralisation for growth, and it is not a one-off initiative. It is my hope that many other places will in due course come forward, jointly with business leaders, to benefit this process—perhaps several times as needs change—and that we will in turn all benefit from the increased growth that they produce.
I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lady Eaton said about Bradford. It has been a common comment, because there has been a misunderstanding that somehow this is only about eight cities. It is about those eight core cities that have for the past decade been planning for how they could use the levers of government to drive growth. It was made absolutely clear by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech in Leeds in early December to launch the new cities policy that this was the forerunner for other cities. There will be a second round starting later this year, and this should be perceived as a continuum.
Cities will need to be bold, and all those who would like to be in a further round will equally need to be as well. Government departments will also need to be bold following the localist lead set by my right honourable friend the Minister for Cities. This requires nothing short of a complete culture change in the way we all work, moving from a central to a more local model, driven by good city governance, with political and business leaders working more closely together.
This is about rebalancing the economy away from an overreliance on London and on financial services; it is about our need to invest and build in our cities so that they can create more of their own wealth and a rising tax base, without simply being dependent on financial support from London and the south-east.
So what needs to be different? We need to manage cities in a different way. Rather than waiting for the centre—Whitehall—to give out money tied to specific programmes and outputs, we need to use money, which may be limited, wisely, defining the local priorities that are felt to be important, and let them shape the funding to fit that set of local priorities. Local authorities will in future be less development managers and more development facilitators. They will act less on the basis of national targets and work more in collaboration with neighbours to establish growth ambitions and delivery. Crucially, risk and funding, which are currently undertaken at the centre, will be managed by the local authority, the council, the first eight core cities and their city regions. This is quite a significant culture change that the Government are proposing.
However, the context is very important and it relates to governance of the United Kingdom. There has been devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and there will probably be increasing devolution to all those places. Perhaps we do not talk enough about the implication of that for England, which cannot be left out of that process. The Localism Act, which is now in place, focuses mostly on local government and its relationship to Whitehall within a context in which government offices in England have been abolished.
There is a strong centre of government in London and there are strong centres of government in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but there is no longer a government office in Newcastle upon Tyne, my city, or in any other regional capital in England that hitherto existed. There are some outposts of Whitehall departments, which are very welcome, although I sometimes feel that they could be better co-ordinated. Perhaps at some point they might all be collocated. We will see. As I said a moment ago, we have to address the issue of devolution from Whitehall.
Noble Lords may care to look at the document, Unlocking Growth in Cities, which was published in December. It gives a list of 21 policy areas in which the Government are prepared to enter into negotiation with cities to establish greater freedoms to invest in growth. I cannot go through all of them but some are very important. It refers to one consolidated capital pot for local decision-making and powers for cities to offer business rate discounts to local businesses. There will be a particular role, from 2014, for structural fund—the European RDF and European Social Fund—programmes under which there is a plan across Europe to adopt a special focus on cities and which will be able to play more of a leading role in shaping bespoke and integrated programmes.
There will be the ability to create industry-specific business improvement partnerships and tax increment financing, which is part of the Localism Act and in essence enables a local authority to borrow against future business rate income. At the moment, in England, councils are required to borrow prudentially against guaranteed sources of income. Therefore, there is a greater risk management in tax increment financing but also enormous potential rewards in the form of growth. There could be benefits in local authorities opting to pool business rates across their local enterprise partnership. There is the possibility of devolving local transport major funding and the responsibility for commissioning local or regional rail services, and for developing greater accountability to local communities for local bus services in the context of wider bus service operator grant reform. Public sector assets could be vested locally in a single local property company. As I say, no longer are there government offices to manage some of these things. There is a gap which someone else might have to step into to do these things.
Some of the spending functions of the Homes and Communities Agency—including a whole range of things such as planning, broadband and skills—could be devolved to councils and cities. It is a major concern to me that, despite all the multi-millions of pounds that have been spent in my region and in many others on skills development in the north-east of England, 25 per cent of manufacturing and processing companies are finding it difficult to recruit people to work in them. There is a mismatch between what the private sector needs to create wealth and therefore tax income for this Government, and the investment that is being put in. It seems to be leading people to develop skills, which in one sense is very good but in another sense does not help us drive the growth of the economy that we need.
Areas that should be looked at are city apprenticeship hubs, the creation of a city skills fund, and much closer working with and perhaps leadership of Jobcentre Plus. There certainly should be greater integration in the service of Jobcentre Plus at a local level. I would welcome it working much more closely with the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government can do a whole range of things. Each city will be different. One size will not fit all. I hope, first, that by Easter some cities will have reached agreement with the Government and that others can follow quickly. After that, round 2 can start and it is to be hoped that similar agreements can be reached.
As I said at the start of my speech, I am immensely encouraged by what the Government are doing. There is enormous potential in the policy work that is now being done and I hope very much that this will be grasped by all the cities and urban areas in England in order that we can produce the growth that the country needs.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, in the past decade we have seen for the first time more than half the world’s population living in cities and city regions. In the United Kingdom, 74 per cent of the population lives in cities and their regions. Therefore we are more urbanised than most. That figure is forecast to rise to more than 90 per cent by 2030.
As my noble friend said, cities are the engines of national economies but it is important that we take note that not all our cities are automatically winners. A recent paper by the Institute for Government and Centre for Cities has an interesting analysis. It contrasts Brighton, which saw a 25 per cent increase in private sector jobs between 1998 and 2008, with Stoke, which was once at the centre of our international pottery industry and has lost getting on for one in five private sector jobs in that same decade. That is why I strongly recommend and welcome the Government’s document, Unlocking Growth in Cities. The picture is not one of even growth and a great deal must be done. Along with Stoke, the other losers in that analysis are Burnley, Birkenhead, Gloucester, Blackburn, Oxford, Birmingham, Nottingham, Swindon and Blackpool. I should like noble Lords to note that these cities are not all in the Midlands and the north of England. In the past decade, for every 10 jobs created in London and the south-east, just one was created elsewhere, which is why our economy desperately needs rebalancing.
Cities compete all the time with each other for talent, investment and funding. That competitiveness is encouraged by even artificial constructs and devices, such as the city of culture. I well remember that my own city of Cardiff lost out to Liverpool, the city of my noble friend Lord Storey, in the city of culture competition a decade or so ago. Although we were really sorry not to have won and although we envied Liverpool its year of culture, we benefited from that competition. It stimulated cultural ideas and cultural planning in Cardiff. We have, for example, the Artes Mundi competition. It is a modern art competition of world status and was established when we were hoping that we might win the city of culture competition.
I make no apologies for drawing on examples from Cardiff. I know that it is not on the magic list of the eight core cities that have been referred to but we are a city of considerable significance. Although Cardiff is a minnow in terms of size compared with Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, it is a city of considerable strategic importance because it is the capital city of a small nation.
Looking across the cities of Britain, historically, each of them has a reason for being—a geographical reason, a reason of climate or of raw materials. Manchester, for example, exists because of its climate and the cotton industry. Stoke exists for the potteries. My own city, Cardiff, exists because it was a port and because of the proximity to that port of mines, the iron industry and, later, the steel industry. It was at one point the greatest port in the world. It is an interesting piece of local history that the first £1 million cheque in the world was signed in the Coal Exchange in Cardiff. The port still remains, of course, but is a shadow of its former self, so, like other cities, Cardiff has had to find a modern reason for being. Like other cities, it relies on being a thriving retail centre. In 2009, the largest new shopping centre in the UK was opened there, bringing, at a very difficult time for the economy, more than 400 new jobs. Cardiff now ranks among the top 10 retail cities in the UK. However, you have to have more than shopping and retail, so the city council has important plans for a central business district and has already indentified £40 million of capital finding to take that project forward. Rather belatedly, I am very pleased that the Welsh Assembly Government opted to follow the example of the UK Government by establishing a series of enterprise zones. One has been earmarked for Cardiff, specialising in the financial sector.
I put in an unashamed plug to the Minister. Cardiff would be an ideal location for the green investment bank, especially because of the promised electrification of the train service through to Cardiff, and the almost promised electrification of the valley lines. The central business district will create, as well as a lot of jobs in an important financial sector, a new bus station and will improve the train station. I am talking about transport because transport links are the key to the development of city regions. City regions are the way forward, because they spin out jobs to the rest of the economy in the area around the city.
While many of our great cities can be recognised as city regions, the idea has been resisted in south Wales until now. There has almost been a resentment of the growth of Cardiff. Therefore, I strongly welcome the fact that there is currently a Welsh Government consultation on Cardiff as a city region. It is so important that it is recognised that the future prosperity that we all hope the south Wales valleys will have depends on Cardiff, Newport and Swansea flourishing as cities, because they provide jobs for that region.
City regions can be seen as a sign of co-operation between urban areas rather than competition. The region of Leeds, which I do not think anyone has specifically mentioned so far today, includes Bradford, Kirklees, Barnsley, Wakefield, York, Harrogate and more. It is a massive conurbation which requires a great deal of co-operation across local authority boundaries. It is absolutely essential that that co-operation takes place. It has to be the way forward, because outright competition on all fronts often simply means shifting the jobs around from one area to another. The current crisis in the retail sector might be partly due to the fact that we have decided to shop online instead of in the city centres. It is also partly due to the difficult economic times that we are in. However, it pinpoints that you cannot have a city based entirely on the fact that it has a nice shopping centre. The shoppers move, and the jobs move, to the newest shopping centre which has opened. You always lose shoppers and jobs when a new shopping centre opens within your area.
We have to be careful about initiatives which might move jobs from one area to another. I think back to the 1980s and the enterprise zones. Analysis since then has shown that, to a large extent, they moved jobs around the country. Although I strongly welcome the enterprise zones that the Government have now introduced, I am pleased to see that there are measures to prevent that happening this time.
The Government’s strategy starts with the eight core cities, our largest. As my noble friend said, there will be, we hope, a second tranche. Of the eight that have been announced so far, I note that only one of them, Bristol, is not in the Midlands or the north. That is understandable, but it is important that the balance is redressed in the future. Otherwise there is a danger that the south-west will be excluded from growth because of the empowerment and funding that is going into those eight core cities. I realise, of course, that the core cities have chosen themselves on the basis of size, but a strategic look at the geographical spread of the cities in the second tranche is needed.
My noble friend Lord Shipley has referred to the fact that devolution inevitably means that there is a separate treatment of the cities in the devolved nations. None of the Welsh cities that I referred to earlier is included. That is because of devolution. It is thus important that the two Governments work closely together. To return to Cardiff, there are already concerns that although the UK government initiatives such as enterprise zones, tax increment financing and local enterprise partnerships are being copied in Wales, they are being copied at a slower pace. In the economy, there is often no prize for second place. There is nothing if you have done a very good job but have not managed to be the best. Indeed, Wales has already lost one major development to an enterprise zone in England: the Jaguar Land Rover engine plant. Plans have been announced to establish it in an enterprise zone in Wolverhampton. The hope that it would be located in south Wales was unfulfilled.
Whatever the political differences, it is essential that economic policy in all devolved Administrations works with the grain of the UK’s Government’s macroeconomic policy. Otherwise, the cities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland risk falling into the gap between the two Governments and the two sets of regulations. I am particularly attracted by the “tailored city deals”, as the Government’s strategy refers to them, empowering the leadership of our great cities. For many decades, we have had the drift of power to the centre, away from local government. Indeed, the term “local government” really does not reflect the reality of city regions such as Manchester, with a population of 2.6 million people. That is almost as large as the whole population of Wales and larger than the population of Northern Ireland. It is vital that we think globally. The competitors to our major cities lie not just in other parts of the UK but across the world. That global success is the envy of the UK economic success as a whole. We need to do comparatively better than other global cities if we are to succeed internationally. We are not, as my noble friend explained, doing as well at the moment as they are in many European cities.
I very much support the power of general competence given to local authorities in the Localism Bill and the proposed business rates retention that will enable local authorities to create tax increment financing schemes and allow borrowing for capital investment. I support financial empowerment. It is so important that cities are enabled to look towards the private sector to energise and empower them, rather than, as they have been doing for decades in the past, looking upwards to government for a handout in difficult times. Our cities are the strength of our economy and they need to be empowered in order to fulfil that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Storey for initiating this important debate. The White Paper, Unlocking Growth in Cities, which was published in December, received remarkably little publicity for what it had to say, so it is good that we now have a chance to debate it at somewhat greater length.
As has already been mentioned by other speakers, the White Paper had two key themes: first, that,
“Cities are the engines of economic growth and they will be critical to our economic recovery”;
and, secondly, that,
“for too long decisions about the future of these proud cities have been taken in Westminster, constraining local leadership and stopping cities reaching their full potential”.
As the White Paper says,
“We want to help cities exercise their independence and take their economic destiny into their own hands”.
When I announced that I was going to participate in this debate, somebody jokingly asked me, “Are you going to talk about Guildford?”. I said, “Certainly not, the last thing that Guildford wants is talk about the case for any sort of growth”, although it does have aspirations to be a city. No, my reason for wishing to participate in this debate stems from research that I undertook during the 1990s, when I was a research fellow at the science policy research unit down at the University of Sussex—I should perhaps declare an interest as I remain a visiting fellow of that unit—and was looking into innovation in Europe.
In particular, one issue that emerged from that research was the role played by a number of the core cities in Europe. In Germany, a large number of the cities play a vital role within their Land—one thinks of Munich, Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Dortmund. With the increasing prosperity of eastern Germany, cities such as Dresden are now emerging as core cities that lead their local areas. However, we looked not just at what was happening in Germany, which is the most decentralised of the European countries, but at what had happened in Spain, where devolution had encouraged Barcelona. Over the past 20 years since the Olympics, Barcelona has built itself to be a hub of growth within its local region of Catalonia. Again, Helsinki in Finland, which 20 years before had been a dull city, had also taken itself forward—partly on the back of Nokia and the electronics revolution—to become much more important and another hub of growth. I was interested in the role of cities within their sub-regions and regions, and I was interested in the degree to which they became a core for growth.
The other reason I wish to participate in this debate is because, in the course of the past year, I have been chairing a commission for the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and the AOC that is looking at the role of colleges in their communities. I wanted to flag up the importance of colleges as well as universities within this agenda.
Let me start by taking up the whole issue of European cities, which has already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shipley. As I said, my interest stems from the work that I did in the 1990s, but that work was carried forward to a considerable degree in the early part of this century with a report published by the then Deputy Prime Minister's Office—in the time of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott—called Competitive European Cities: Where do the Core Cities Stand? That was led by research from Professor Michael Parkinson at Liverpool John Moores University. Among his co-authors was Greg Clark—I rather excitedly thought that this might be the Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, but on chasing him up further, I discovered that it was not the same person, although the name is the same.
The Competitive European Cities report picks up some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Storey. It is a rather depressing story. The report was written in 2004 so it does not reflect the continuing growth in our core cities that took place from 2004 to 2008 and their continuing renaissance, which my noble friend Lord Storey talked about. It showed that Britain's core cities in the late 1990s and the early years of this century, while going through something of a renaissance, nevertheless in general lagged behind their European competitors in terms of productivity, GDP per capita, innovation, education levels, connectivity—the transport and communication routes, both electronic and physical —social cohesion, quality of life, political capacity and connections with their broader sub-regions. The only exception to that was Bristol, which in GDP terms was actually above the national average rather than below. With the exception of Bristol, all the major cities in GDP per capita terms fell below the national average.
Equally, the very positive message from the study was that the situation can be turned around, albeit over time. It instanced the very positive stories of cities such as Barcelona and Helsinki, which I have already mentioned, which over the previous 20 to 25 years have transformed themselves and their regions from being backwaters into being leading global players.
The factors that were listed as contributing to success were interesting. One was economic diversity—not being too dependent on a single sector of the economy but having a range of sectors, all of which contributed to their success. Connectivity, the physical and electronic capacity to move goods and services and people quickly and efficiently, was important. In that sense, airports played an important part. Barcelona, for example, has a splendid new airport that was built for the Olympics and it has made a great deal of difference to the city. Again, in Spain, the linking up of all the Spanish cities by the TGV-type fast train has made an enormous difference.
Other important factors included strategic decision-making capacities, the significance of networks and the relationship between key players in public and private sectors to get things done and get them decided. Networks are extraordinarily important—I want to come back to that point because that links up with the work that I was doing on colleges in their communities.
Innovation and investment in knowledge-based industries, combined with research education capacity, are also vital. That is something that one sees so strongly in countries such as the United States. I remember back in the 1970s being very impressed with the degree to which a group of universities in North Carolina had created a hub of growth within what had been a very backward state. One sees this very much in the United States, where the links between university and research have carried many states and regions within states forward.
Decentralisation and access to a skilled workforce are also very important. I want to pick up both of those issues and talk a little bit more about them. Decentralisation is very interesting and was an issue that hit me in my own research. The Competitive European Cities report said:
“Although it is not a straightforward relationship the evidence does suggest that where cities are given more freedom and autonomy they have responded by being more proactive, entrepreneurial and successful. Decentralisation in France has invigorated provincial cities during the past 20 years. The most successful cities in Europe have been German, which is the most decentralised country in Europe. The renaissance of Barcelona in part stems from the move towards regionalisation and the lessening of the grip of … Madrid”.
The question arises as to whether the new powers we are proposing to give to our core cities are sufficient in this respect. My noble friend Lord Storey has been quite optimistic, but others have been much more critical about how much real economic decentralisation is proposed. In looking at the list of new freedoms that were being given, it seemed to me that it was again—one has seen this before—a list of pots for funding for this initiative and that initiative. Such funds are of vital importance, but the only new money seems to be the degree to which these cities are able to control business rates. Indeed, all they seem to be getting is the right to access any money from the growth in business rates—yet I think it was perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, who said that this is now being constrained as the Treasury is holding it back.
England remains the most fiscally centralised country in Europe and, probably, in the world. In the week in December in which this announcement was made, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government announced that, after a two-year freeze on council tax, he will intervene if any council raises its council tax by more than 3.5 per cent this coming year. Such intervention would, in most countries, be regarded as quite untenable. Most of these successful cities in Europe have the discretion not only to set their own tax rates but often to develop new forms of tax, such as local sales taxes, local property taxes and so forth. They also have—and this is very important—freedom to go to the market to raise capital. One looks at German cities and the importance of the links they have with the local Landesbanks, with which they are often in partnership in new projects and developments. That seems so important.
However, in this country, if you want to raise money, you go cap in hand to the Treasury and say, “Please sir, can we raise the money for this? Can we have the money for that?”. The Treasury controls absolutely everything. You can devolve political leadership—we have seen that and we have some very fine local leaders—but as long as the Treasury is not prepared to devolve in economic terms, and unless those leaders have the tools to do the things they want to do, I am not confident that we will see this turning around that one has seen in some of these European cities.
I will just spend a little time talking about colleges in their communities. My remit was to look at the role that colleges can and do play within their communities and the value that they might add as potential leaders. That led me to visit a great many colleges. If you are talking about the role and levels of education and so forth, a lot of emphasis is put on universities and the development of graduate education and research, which is absolutely important, but the majority of those at the local level—if one is talking about skill levels—are trained by the colleges rather than by the universities. Where Britain really lacks capabilities is in the intermediate and technician-level skills, where colleges can potentially play a very important part. The skill profile in many of these cities is below the average; they have a disproportionate number of those completely lacking higher-level skills such as Level 2 or 3 and a disproportionate number with very low-level skills.
I was very encouraged by what some colleges are doing in reaching out, for example, to work with local employers. I am thinking of a college such as Birmingham Metropolitan College, which has worked with the BBC to train technicians for the digital switchover and with Samsung to train electronics technicians. The college has also developed a new link with Caterpillar and its supply chain and developed lots of apprenticeships. However, I also think of a college such as Barnsley College, which is facing very different conditions. Most of the local employers are small and medium-sized enterprises, which are loath to take on apprenticeships. Barnsley College has set up a separate company to employ apprentices off their own bat, whom they then hire out to small and medium-sized businesses. Some 99 per cent of these young people fulfil their apprenticeships and there are no problems, but the college acts as a guarantor and will always take them back if it does not work out.
It is so important that colleges link up in partnership, not only with employers but also, for example, with the police and local youth offending teams to bring the NEETs into college and give them experience and that they link up with community groups and ethnic minorities. All of this is happening as best practice in the best of our colleges, but one just needs to see it happen far more widely. This whole issue of upgrading the skill levels of people generally is an absolutely vital one if our cities are to succeed.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, we welcome this debate about cities and thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for tabling this Motion. It is a tribute to the Lords that in this short debate we have had very informative contributions from former leaders of three great northern cities—Bradford, Liverpool and Newcastle. We have also had very good contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with her deep experience of circumstances in Wales, and Cardiff in particular; and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with her great knowledge of universities, and of the knowledge economy and its relationship to economic development. We also welcome the government paper published in December, Unlocking Growth in Cities, which I think is a response to cross-party pressure from all sides of this House and elsewhere suggesting that our great urban centres need more power to shape their own destinies.
This has never been more needed. I have welcomed the fact that the Liberal Democrats chose this subject for debate. However, on this side of the House we have to put on record that our big English provincial cities in particular need these powers to facilitate growth and to generate dynamism and momentum because the current austerity programme, which the coalition is pushing through too far and too fast, is hitting disproportionately hard those very English provincial cities that the Liberal Democrats have been speaking of so eloquently today. It hits them hardest in terms of public sector jobs cut, in youth employment and in welfare cuts that will cause real social misery and pain. We are facing this challenge because of that austerity programme.
That has to be said, but there is here a bigger and longer-running issue which has nothing to do with party politics. Given the intense feeling that a lot of people have that we are as a country too centralised and need to be more localist, why has that not happened? I have just a few thoughts on that. I have been a localist all my life—I have spent 10 years in local government—but my thinking on the role of the city in localism was greatly affected when I did an exercise for the president of the European Commission in Brussels, looking at the social challenges facing Europe. I came across the work of a US urban theorist called Richard Florida, who had written a very good book called The Rise of the Creative Class. The core proposition in that book is that metropolitan regions with high concentrations of technology workers, artists, musicians and lesbians and gay men exhibit a higher level of economic development than do other places. You could say that this is a flawed piece of academic punditry, and certainly some of it goes a bit over the top. Professor Florida, for instance, produced an index of what he called “high bohemian” cities. But it does to an extent at least accord with the reality of what is happening on the ground. I saw this when I came back from Brussels in 2007 and became chair of Cumbria Vision and involved in regional development. Our great northern cities were undergoing a remarkable renaissance. They had been devastated by the austerity of the 1980s, although they were rescued in part by the great vision of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. But our cities have had to spend the last quarter century finding new drivers of economic activity. To an extent, those have been found. Look at higher education and the contribution made to Tyneside, for example, by the expansion of universities in Newcastle, with the new Northumbria university. Look at how the UCLan, in a much smaller city space, has made a big contribution in Preston. Look at the explosion of sport as a driver of economic activity and how important it is, particularly to Manchester and Liverpool. Look at culture, with the Tate in Liverpool, the Lowry in Salford and the Sage in Gateshead. It is a great flourishing of culture, a celebration of diversity and a triumph of the creative spirit, acting as a magnet for sources of dynamism in our society.
I am really proud of what the Labour Government contributed to the transformation of our cities in the past 15 years. It has become the stock in trade to knock the regional development agencies and what they did. Of course, they had their faults; everything does. They were over-bureaucratic, and the regional political dimension to complement them was never put in place. But what they did and contributed to makes me immensely proud of what my party did in its period of government, including the regeneration of Liverpool Docks, Media City at Salford Quays, the bringing together of the new university at Manchester, which will be world class, and the Daresbury science complex—as well as a new university with a campus even in a place like Burnley. This is the fantastic urban development that took place.
The coalition chose to toss away the achievements of the regional development agencies, which was a wilful destruction of the capacity for economic regeneration at the time when that capacity was never needed more. Therefore, the coalition will have a heavy price to pay for job losses and increasing regional equalities—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley—that are occurring in this country under his Government’s stewardship.
What are we to make of the latest initiative to fill this gap? As I have said, we have seen lots of initiatives in the past for greater localism. When I was first a special adviser working for the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in the Callaghan Government in the 1970s, I remember writing lots of memos for him on the work of the Layfield report and how it was going to introduce more decentralised local government. Well, that did not come to pass.
It is tempting to blame the Civil Service for seeing off localism and local government, and I know from personal experience that there is deep-seated control- freakery in parts of Whitehall departments. I see quite a bit of this lurking in the language of the December paper. But our politics is also responsible for the centralisation of our country. In sections of my own party, people are deeply committed to Fabian centralisation, and in the Conservative Party you have Mr Eric Pickles proclaiming his commitment to localism. As one of the noble Baronesses opposite pointed out, he is introducing the fiercest regime of rate-capping and control of council budgets that has ever been in place. It is not just on the central issue of finance that he is controlling; he deems it proper to decide how often councils should collect their bins. There is no consistency. What you do not have is genuine commitment to local decentralisation. What you have there is commitment, frankly, to populism.
When I look at the latest paper, published in December, my fear is that it is ersatz decentralisation. Anyone who has served government knows the tell-tale signs of these things. The paper is very good on symbols; a Minister for the Communities is being created, the excellent Mr Greg Clark, for whom I have great admiration—he is an excellent Minister. A new unit has been established in the Cabinet Office, the Cities Policy Unit. We have had a lot of Cabinet Office units of various types in the past. There is a new ministerial group under the Deputy Prime Minister to drive the agenda forward—very good, three cheers for that. It is excellent, if I might say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has been recruited as an adviser in this latest drive for greater localism.
There are, however, important gaps in the prospectus, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Government propose to deal with them. If she is not able to do it in her speech, I very much hope that she will be able to send me a detailed reply. First, we are talking not about full-scale decentralisation but about decentralisation by exception to a limited number of cities. That is clear from paragraph 1.12 of the paper, which declares clearly,
“we are not looking to dismantle national policy frameworks”.
I dare say that Whitehall departments were very insistent on getting that sentence in.
Secondly, while I welcome measures such as the introduction of a single capital pot for participating cities, to an extent that was what the RDAs had as well. Some government departments look as if they are not going to play ball with this decentralisation; for instance, the Department for Work and Pensions, where the business of active labour polices to get people into jobs is so important for city development, is keeping its distance, as is BIS on skills. The example of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of the experience in the north-east shows how, when you have a nationally run target programme of skills training, it just does not work in terms of regional skill needs.
To me, there is an obscurity about the financing aspects of these proposals. What is the Treasury’s position on business rates and tax increment financing? There also seems to be confusion about governance. There are going to be referenda for elected mayors in a lot of these cities—at least we think there are. At the same time, there is a lot of talk in this paper about the role of the local economic partnerships, which are wider than cities. What is the relationship between the LEPs and the mayor? Where is the idea of the “metro mayor”—the mayor for Newcastle or for Greater Manchester, not just for the city, which is a tiny part of the area? There are real questions about how this is going to work and whether it is real decentralisation.
One of the most revealing bits of the paper is figure 1 on page 12, a graph that shows how cities do according to the national income of their countries. The country that has by far the most prosperous cities is Germany, and second is Italy. Why is that? It is because, particularly in Germany, there is a real political decentralisation of power.
We welcome this initiative but we want to know what it really represents. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, well, but I think he is going to have a mountain to climb if he is going to succeed in his ambitions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate my noble friend Lord Storey on securing this debate. He started us off with a wonderful picture of his Liverpool—its past, its present and what I know will be its great future. As I read up on his biog, I see that he served that city for many years as lord mayor and as a councillor for 37 years. It was a hugely successful capital of culture, as we have heard from Cardiff, a city that also bid for that role. So who better to speak for Liverpool than the noble Lord?
I hope to answer as many questions as I can. If I am not able to do so, I hope the noble Lord will understand if I have to write. Many people have spoken and, as I go through, I will mention as much as I can. I always have a sharp intake of breath when the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, stands up to speak because she is so well informed and I learn so much from her. I can never answer all her questions so I know for sure that I will miss out some of hers, but I thank her very much.
England’s cities have always been centres of drive, creativity and initiative. One has to think only of Chamberlain’s pioneering leadership in Birmingham or Brunel’s vision in transforming the landscape of Bristol. As we have heard so often today, England’s cities showcase some of our best talent and innovative thinking. We have made a very good start with centres of expertise such as the new MediaCityUK in Greater Manchester, which will promote the growth of the media sector, and Sheffield’s centre for advanced manufacturing, where such world-leading firms as Boeing and Rolls-Royce are carrying out cutting edge research. I am sure that it is an ambition shared on all sides of the House that we should work together to give our major cities the best possible opportunities to thrive and gain international significance as economic powerhouses in their own right and their own unique way.
My noble friend Lord Shipley spoke of comparisons with the cities of Germany and France. It is always very useful to look at the cities of Europe in particular to see what we can learn from them. The noble Lord spoke of the core cities amendment, which is now part of the Localism Act, and its creation of a historic opportunity.
The Government’s policy towards cities builds on several initiatives already under way to promote local economic growth. Local enterprise partnerships enable civic and private sector leaders to work together to boost local economies, and I acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague in another place, the Minister for Business and Enterprise, Mark Prisk, in driving this agenda forward. Some £765 million has been invested in urban areas through the regional growth fund. Enterprise zones have been created in 24 cities and their wider LEPs, which will generate jobs by reducing barriers to enterprise and providing new fiscal incentives. I am sure we all recognise that the promotion of local economic growth is a fundamental priority at this difficult time.
With 58 per cent of England’s population living in cities—74 per cent if you include the wider commuting area—and 61 per cent of jobs based in cities, or 80 per cent including the wider commuting area, our cities are crucial to driving local growth and have tremendous economic potential. All our cities have their individual strengths, which have enabled them to build strong and proud international reputations over the years. The Minister for Cities and my colleague in another place, the right honourable Greg Clark, has shown his appreciation of local concerns and priorities in the way that he has pursued the cities agenda.
My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke of rebalancing our declining cities and asked what we are doing for them. The Government believe that all cities can improve their local environment for growth. The Government’s approach focuses on three key themes: shifting power to local communities and businesses; promoting efficient and dynamic markets; and focused investment through the regional growth fund and enterprise zones. The Government’s approach to cities will allow local leaders to identify their own priorities and grant them the powers to drive local economic growth in the way that they think best. As my noble friend Lord Storey said, this will be based on unlocking investment and funding, devolving power—yes, certainly that—and good city government.
On business rates, I agree with my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Shipley that the Government’s plans to localise business rate revenue create a strong incentive for growth. We are committed to making this incentive as strong as possible, while ensuring fiscal sustainability.
We can expect to see a fundamental shift in the relationship between national government and the cities, starting with a genuine transfer of power. The provisions set out in the Localism Act provide a concrete example of the Government’s commitment to transferring power to the local level.
Let me respond here to my noble friend Lady Randerson on the green investment bank. It was a good try, I thought. As I am sure she will be aware, a clear process has been set out for bidding for the green investment bank location. Cardiff will be able to apply to host it. I am sure other noble Lords will be keen for their local cities to apply, too. However, I commend her for taking the opportunity today to have a go for Cardiff. Someone should open a bottle for her when she gets home tonight.
As my noble friend Lady Sharp noted, evidence suggests that successful decentralisation will be a route towards local economic growth. We share her concern to see a radical change in the power held at local level. My right honourable friend the Minister for Cities and the Deputy Prime Minister launched the document, Unlocking Growth in Cities, on 8 December. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke on this occasion to encourage cities to be as ambitious as possible in engaging with this agenda. City region leaders will negotiate bespoke deals with the Government, which will give them the capability to do the things they want to do in their own way.
As has been referred to by many noble Lords, we are starting with the eight core cities—the largest cities outside London—and their surrounding areas as represented by the local enterprise partnerships because they have great economic potential which has yet to be fully realised. I say in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that deals will be made available to further cities in due course. I can say no more than “in due course” at this stage.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Eaton that our work with Leeds city region includes Bradford and, of course, other towns and cities in that region. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that Cardiff’s policy is a devolved matter. As she well knows, it is for the Welsh Assembly to take forward policies to boost growth in Welsh cities, including Cardiff. I strongly support that. I agree that it is important for this Government to ensure that they engage with the devolved Administrations. I know that my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Business, met his Welsh counterpart in December to discuss these very issues.
As a result of the deals, cities will have greater freedoms to invest in growth, the power to drive critical infrastructure development and new tools to help people in their area get the skills and jobs that they need. My noble friend Lady Eaton talked about skills and transport in cities. I reassure her that all our discussions with cities include new measures in relation to skills and transport.
After all, a deal is a two-way process. In return for granting cities new powers and freedoms, we expect them to demonstrate strong, visible and accountable leadership and effective decision-making structures. City leaders will need to work across their economic footprint with representatives of the local enterprise partnerships to attract skilled workers, build infrastructure and boost innovation in order to create vibrant urban environments that people want to work and live in. The Government are committed to working closely with cities in the months and years ahead to help them achieve these goals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to apprenticeships. We share the interest in increasing apprenticeships. As she will have seen, the Government have put city apprenticeship hubs on the menu of options for cities to consider, as set out in the Unlocking Growth in Cities document that we brought out on 8 December.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about austerity and the RDAs. I note his concern. The coalition is working to get the entire UK economy back on track. These measures show that the Government are committed to rebalancing the economy and ensuring that all cities and, indeed, the whole country, can fulfil their potential. The noble Lord also asked about the missing bits of the menu. The menu is illustrative, as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear. We are ready to match the ambition of the “asks” that cities put to us, but it is up to them to decide what their priorities are. This is what this is all about—making sure that the cities themselves will be able to do deals which allow them to run themselves as they see fit to help them become more successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, also asked about mayors, LEPs and metro mayors. The Government have set out their position on elected mayors. They offer an opportunity for stronger localised governance, but it is for local areas to decide on the governance structure that best suits them. That is something I am sure the Opposition will gradually get used to—the amount of times that this coalition Government will devolve power down to the people who we feel are best suited to deal with local issues.
Success in all this will mean empowered local leaders able to drive real change by looking outwards to the private sector rather than upwards to the Government. Success will mean new partnerships between civic leaders, businesses and local communities, creating further opportunities for investment and growth, and enabling cities to shape their own economic destinies. Success will mean more jobs, better services and an improved quality of life for local people.
In the words of my colleague in another place, the right honourable Greg Clark, in the document Unlocking Growth in Cities, we,
“look forward to helping our cities forge a bright future even greater than their proud histories, matching their proud heritage with a busy and prosperous future”.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I thank noble Lords. During the course of this debate, I have been struck by how many common themes there have been. We almost put our finger on the issues and problems that need to be addressed. Literally every speaker has raised the same issue.
I should of course have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, on her job as chair of the Local Government Association when there was a real focus on the importance of cities and the shifting of work she was able to do. She rightly said that power should be decentralised to the lowest possible level, and I entirely agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made an important point about the mismatch of what the private sector needs and how we needed to unlock local skills.
I was shocked at the figure given by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—that for every 10 jobs created in London and the south-east, only one is created elsewhere. That is an alarming statistic. I equally agreed with her valid point that it was all very well one city crowing that it has won new inward investment, but that might have been taken from somewhere else. That has often been the story of the past couple of decades. I know that in Liverpool, when we were lucky enough to secure Jaguar, the inward investment moved from the Birmingham area. There have been lots of examples of cities, with government help, having been able to get inward investment but at the expense of other parts of the UK. It was right and important to raise that issue. I am sorry she was disappointed that Liverpool was made the European capital of culture, but I should tell her that we still regard ourselves as the capital of north Wales. We tried to get the Eisteddfod to come to Liverpool but were not successful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked powerfully about the lessons that can be learnt from European cities. Again, we should look closely at that. Those lessons are very plain for us all to see.
I come to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and his almost political tour de force. It made me think of when I was first elected as leader of Liverpool City Council and I went to my first core city leaders’ meeting in Birmingham—I was the only non-Labour leader there. As I listened to noble Lords’ speeches, I thought that those Labour leaders would be shocked that it has taken a coalition Government, 12 years later, to introduce most of the policies they were asking for.
When the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raises those issues, it gives rise to the question: where was he when the Labour Government did not ensure that decisions were devolved locally but had stringent bidding rounds and ensured competition all the time between local authorities? I must say that I thought that some of the points he made were fair and equitable.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her response. I am delighted that deals will be made for further cities to take part.
A couple of Members made a point about core cities. The core cities used to have the view that they were self-selecting, which I thought was very unfair. They often turned down the likes of Bradford, perhaps because they see them as competition. Perhaps we should have a campaign to stop that self-selection and have a genuine partnership of cities of the United Kingdom.
I thank all Members of the House for their contributions.
EUC Report: Internal Security Strategy
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, The EU Internal Security Strategy (17th Report, HL Paper 149).
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, the report of the European Union Committee on the European Union's internal security strategy was published on 24 May 2011. I am therefore glad now, after nearly eight months, to have the opportunity to bring it to your Lordships' House for debate as chairman of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, which conducted the inquiry. However, in doing so, I cannot simply pass over that remarkable—and, in my view—lamentably long delay. If the House wishes to ensure the topicality and relevance of the debates it holds on subjects such as this and reports such as the one we are considering today, it must improve its record on the scheduling of debates.
Internal security is primarily a matter for member states themselves, but the treaty of Lisbon, although reflecting that, for the first time gave the European Union an explicit responsibility by setting up a committee whose prime aim is,
“to ensure that operational cooperation and internal security is promoted and strengthened within the Union”.
The committee is known as COSI—one of those dreadful acronyms—and I shall have more to say about it in a moment.
The new responsibility of the European Union, although limited, led to the five-year Stockholm programme, which invited both the Council and the Commission,
“to define a comprehensive Union internal security strategy”.
Both institutions took up the challenge. I hope that I am not being disobliging when I say that the Council strategy, which was agreed in March 2010, was an anodyne document of no great weight. However, in November 2010, the Commission published in response to the Council document what was intended to be an implementing communication called, The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action. That document formed the basis of our inquiry.
Security is a complex subject, and we were fortunate to have as our special adviser Stephen Hawker, whose experience and knowledge of counterterrorism and security issues is so wide that I am not permitted to divulge to the House more about his background. I can, however, say that the committee was extraordinarily grateful for his help.
In this Parliament, institutions of the European Union tend to come in for blame rather than praise, and that is particularly true of the Commission. I am glad, therefore, to be able to say that the Commission’s document was, in the view of the committee, pragmatic and realistic, focusing on five areas where the EU could and should have some real influence. These are: the disruption of international criminal networks; prevention of terrorism; security in cyberspace; improved border management; and increased resilience to crises and disasters—natural disasters, in particular. The document is a first rational attempt to articulate a comprehensive approach to the EU’s internal security, and I pay tribute to the impressive work of Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, the Home Affairs Commissioner.
Our inquiry was long and so, I fear, is our report. In this speech I shall concentrate on only a few aspects of it—primarily, not surprisingly, those where we regard the Government’s response to be unsatisfactory. However, the Government agreed with many of our recommendations, and I was very grateful, as was the committee, for that. In particular, I was struck by the fact that they firmly endorsed the committee’s view that Britain’s internal security neither begins nor ends at the water’s edge. That kind of conceptual approach is quite important because it rather gives the lie to the suggestion that we can just do this on our own and that will be fine.
The first of the areas where we are a little at odds with the Government in their response relates to cybercrime. No one nowadays doubts the scale of the damage that can be, and is being, done by cybercrime and by attacks on cybersecurity. Of course, much of the work of defending against them is a national responsibility or is being followed up in a military context in NATO. However, the cybercrime element is a bit different. The Commission recommended the setting up of a new cybercrime centre, through which the member states and institutions would be able to build operational and analytical capacity for investigations and for co-operation with international partners. Our witnesses, including the government witnesses, agreed almost without exception that this would be a worthwhile development, as did the committee. We recommended that it should not be a new free-standing institution, which we thought would be wasteful and duplicative, but that it should be located within Europol, which is increasingly becoming a central part of Europe’s efforts against various forms of crime and which possesses some of the infrastructure needed. The Government, I am glad to say, agreed on both those points. The disagreement between us comes over the funding.
Cybercrime is a huge cost to all our economies and it cannot be fought without resources, yet that is roughly what the Government would like to do. They are prepared—quite rightly, in my view—to allocate £650 million in new funds to the UK’s own national cybersecurity programme but they seem to think that Europol can fund a new EU cybercrime centre out of thin air from its existing budget. The EU’s budget framework for the years 2014 to 2020 is something that the Select Committee and its sub-committees are considering again at this moment, and I shall not stray into that wider territory. We are all realistic enough to appreciate that overall now is not the time for an increase in the EU budget. However, a reallocation of resources within the budget is another matter. The home affairs budget is actually less than 1 per cent of the total EU budget and will reach only about 1 per cent of the total EU budget if the Commission’s proposals for 2013 go through, which they may very possibly not do in the form in which they have been put forward.
I and my committee would argue that it is not really credible for the Government to suggest that the relatively modest cost of setting up the cybercrime centre within Europol cannot be found from other heads of the EU budget. The Government’s position is that it has to be found within the justice and home affairs budget, which is not really credible. I hope that the Minister will be able to undertake to look again at that aspect. I am not expecting him to concede the point here and now—I know where the true decisions on these matters are taken—but I hope that it will be looked at again because the suggestion that this can be found within the JHA budget is not very credible.
Mention of Europol brings me to the question of its parliamentary oversight. The treaty of Lisbon introduced the requirement that national parliaments should join with the European Parliament in overseeing the work of Europol. It had been suggested by the Commission, although not in the strategy document that we are debating today, that that should be done by a new and specially constituted body. My committee thought, and repeated in the report, that this could and should be done not by a new specially constituted body but by the joint interparliamentary meetings which already regularly take place between chairs of the home affairs sub-committees or committees of national parliaments and of the European Parliament.
I went to Brussels last October as chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee for a meeting of those chairmen and it was hosted by the equivalent committee, the LIBE committee, of the European Parliament. At a session which I chaired, it was agreed that that oversight should be carried out by such existing annual joint interparliamentary committee meetings. The government response did not deal with the issue but I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government agree that that is a satisfactory way in which to proceed and whether they will do all that they can to ensure that this approach, and not the more cumbersome approach which the commission proposed, is agreed at EU level.
I mentioned earlier the committee called COSI, which can broadly be rendered into normal English as the committee of senior interior ministry officials. Potentially, that is a high-powered body which could, and should, help to co-ordinate and, where appropriate, direct all the European Union's work on internal security. Currently, that work is distributed among a very large number of committees, working groups and working parties. We actually managed to unearth 14 of them which we listed in our report. I do not doubt that there are some lurking in the undergrowth that we may have missed. Much of their work overlaps. Setting up COSI was an opportunity for some, at least, of these bodies to be merged or abolished, but that opportunity was not taken. Most of them continue. The Government, who supposedly favour the abolition of otiose bodies, seem lukewarm about our recommendation, telling us only that they would be prepared to consider a case for COSI replacing or overseeing such bodies once it has established itself. That was six months ago. I hope that the Minister can now tell the House that he is prepared to press for COSI to have a more significant co-ordinating function and for some of this plethora of committees to be abolished.
The chairmanship of Council working parties usually rotates with the presidency on a biannual basis. Sometimes that does no harm but the committee felt that, in this sector, with a group of experts like COSI, there was a strong case for a more durable, longer-lasting chairmanship. The Government agreed that members of COSI should be senior, operationally focused officials with authority to commit their national operational resources but they could see the benefit of one of the best qualified of these officials chairing the group for, say, two or three years. That is by no means unknown in European Union practice; it was for many years the way in which the European Union’s monetary committee was run, in some years extremely effectively and professionally, by a member of Her Majesty's Treasury. That would be an improvement over the six-month rotation in the chairmanship of that committee. The Government conceded that six-monthly rotation,
“might have a detrimental impact on the Committee”,
but thought this might be mitigated by the adoption of the three-presidency approach, by which three successive presidencies work together. Frankly, mitigation is not quite enough. If a six-monthly rotating chairmanship is detrimental, the Government should seek the agreement of other member states to do away with it and have a more professional approach.
Data protection will shortly be in the news again, when the Commission brings forward its long-awaited proposal for a new directive. This is very relevant to internal security, so much of which depends on the painstaking collection and analysis of personal data. A balance has to be found between the interests of security and those of personal privacy, and this is never easy. It is particularly difficult in the case of the passenger name record data, or PNR: the data on passengers on flights entering or leaving the European Union. Flights from the EU to Australia are already the subject of an agreement which has, in our view, satisfactory data protection provisions. Flights from the EU to the US are the subject of an agreement—the fourth—which has been initialled but is not yet in force. All I can say about that one is that its data protection provisions are marginally better than those in the existing EU-US agreement, which is not saying an awful lot.
Data on flights into the EU are now to be the subject of a directive, not just flights from Australia or from the US. The Government, encouraged by a report which was endorsed by this House, have already opted into the proposal for this directive and I hope that the Minister will confirm that during the course of the negotiations, he will be paying due regard to the importance of the protection of passengers’ data—all the more so if, as the Government hope and the Committee hopes, too, that directive is extended to cover intra-EU flights, not only flights into the EU from outside.
I cannot conclude without mentioning yet again a question which the House has raised time and again in taking evidence from Ministers and officials in this House, and many times in correspondence with Ministers. I refer to the Government’s failure to sign or ratify the Council of Europe convention on money laundering, known as the Warsaw convention. The disruption of international criminal networks is, as I have said, one of the objects of the strategy we were examining and there is no doubt that the tracing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime is one of the most powerful weapons in the armoury of states.
The previous Government undertook to ratify the Warsaw convention early in 2010. For this Government the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who will be replying to this debate, assured the committee only last month that he was pretty sure that the United Kingdom was compliant with the convention, but that the Home Office did not currently have the resources to review this and therefore was not prepared to set a date for signature and ratification. I asked him when the Government would sign the convention, to which he replied,
“I would hope we would do so within the next year or so but I am not going to be any more precise than that”.
I hate to say so but he could not have been any less precise, even if he had tried.
A failure to sign one of the major international instruments for combating serious, organised crime does not give the impression of a Government who take the fight against such crime seriously. If we do not sign and ratify such a convention, how can we expect others to do likewise and how can we hope to play a leadership role in the Council of Europe, over whose intergovernmental activities we currently preside? I know that the Minister has already taken one broadside on this subject in the course of Questions in this House today. I am offering him here a somewhat less difficult matter, which does not raise the issue of extraterritoriality which he referred to earlier. It is frankly a little difficult to believe that the amount of resources needed to be quite sure that we are in conformity with a convention, as he is confident that we are, is such an enormous burden that it cannot be undertaken. It is a shame, frankly, that we are not signed up to and ratifying that convention.
This inquiry was one of great interest to the Committee and our report raised a number of serious questions for the Minister to answer. I look forward to hearing his replies. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am a member of Sub-Committee F. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his excellent chairmanship of proceedings and for managing to dock our little boat so successfully. I also thank our clerk, Michael Collon, for his indefatigable work in making sure that we stayed on the straight and narrow, and our special adviser, Stephen Hawker. This is a complex and difficult area and without his advice and help we would have floundered.
I am firmly of the view that national security must be the responsibility of each member state, on two grounds. The first is that in a liberal, plural democracy, the ability and readiness of a country to defend its citizens is the fundamental part of the social contract by which we all coexist. Secondly, and no less importantly, the way that policing takes place is a reflection of history: the historical traditions of a country and the way that its society has developed. Traditions will be quite different from country to country. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
Nevertheless, in that ghastly and hackneyed phrase, we live increasingly in a global community. The Commission's communication on the EU's internal security strategy, with its focus on the five areas that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, read out, and which I will not repeat, makes it clear that there is a world dimension to these issues, quite apart from the EU dimension, which we have to take into account. I will repeat his quotation from paragraph 17 of our report, which states:
“The security of the United Kingdom does not begin or end at the water's edge, and cannot be defended independently of the security of other States”.
The complexities of trying, for example, to prevent terrorism or disrupt international crime networks are compounded when they are addressed through a multinational organisation such as the EU. Success in the five selected fields will require leadership of the highest quality, providing focus for dedicated and expert resources, deployed consistently over time. This is painstaking work; these are hard yards to gain. My concern is that our report showed that to some extent the EU has so far failed to address the challenges and yardsticks that the approach requires.
I turn first to leadership. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we now have the standing committee COSI whose chairmanship rotates every six months, in line with the EU presidency. I urge my noble friend to readdress this point. This is a committee of critical importance, whose chairman has barely got his feet under the table before he is moved on. On that basis we cannot get the consistent and focused leadership of the very expert resources that we need. We need to find a way—I am no expert in the diplomatic niceties of this—to ensure that somebody takes responsibility for a longer period of time. If we heard that one of our largest private companies was rotating its chairmanship every six months, we would think that it had taken leave of its senses.
The membership of COSI seems to be complex and frequently changing. I understand that so far it has not included representatives of FRONTEX or Europol. Given that two of the five objectives of COSI are improved border management and the disruption of international crime networks, not having FRONTEX and Europol representatives on the committee seems at the very least to be counterintuitive. Further down the chain of command, the situation is even more unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to, box 10 on page 51 of our report lists the 14 bodies involved: seven working parties, three working groups, one group, one task force, one committee and one strategic committee. To be candid, this does not give me confidence that we will have a joined-up approach because, to be effective in this area, very close attention to tiny details is essential and good communication is no less so. From my point of view, there is a good deal of work to be done on the strategic shape of the architecture of the EU’s approach to this very important area, which we have highlighted in our report.
This is all at EU level and, as I have already noted, internal security is a matter for each member state, so, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there is also a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the freedom, privacy and prevention of unnecessary intrusion that the citizen is entitled to enjoy and, on the other, the need for the protection of the citizen. As the work on the EU’s internal security strategy develops and gets traction, I hope there will be an important scrutiny role to ensure that this balance is maintained by the European Parliament, national Parliaments and intergovernmental activities and organisations. I hope very much that we will keep our eye firmly on this one, because the creep of intrusion into our individual personal lives on the grounds that national security demands it is very insidious.
The rest of my remarks focus on cyberspace and cybersecurity. On 15 September last year, an article in the Times quoted a Cabinet Office source that last year intellectual property theft cost UK companies £9.2 billion, industrial espionage cost UK plc £7.6 billion, online theft cost business £1.3 billion, blackmail cost business £2.2 billion and identity theft cost consumers £1.7 billion. This is clearly an area that does not respect national boundaries.
However, the way we tackle cybersecurity is made more challenging by three features. First, we all increasingly wish to be in open communication. We wish to do more and more online. We are being encouraged to do more and more online. We believe our prosperity and future growth depend on online communication, so the channels by which the criminal can approach us are widening and broadening all the time.
The second issue is the fear of fraud being published. It is perfectly clear that many firms do not wish the news of a cyberattack to be published. They fear that it may lead to imitative attacks. The knowledge that a firm has had an attack may lead others to try the same approach and, of course, very importantly, it saps public confidence in a firm’s reputation, and nowhere is that more important than in financial services. So the second challenge is: how do we make sure that people, firms and financial institutions bring forward the information without fear of disadvantaging themselves?
Thirdly, and finally, what sort of organisation do we need to tackle these types of crimes? We had some powerful evidence about how conventional structures in government and policing are hierarchical. They are age based, and very often they are arts graduate-training based. In the cyber area, the ideal structure is very different. It is not hierarchical at all. It is completely flat. It consists of very much younger people, and it has a physics and engineering-based orientation. That is going to present a real challenge to COSI and other organisations about how you integrate those two very different approaches.
As far as the EU is concerned there is a further challenge: namely, the variable understanding of the threat and its seriousness. At paragraph 19, we refer to the evidence that we took from William Shapcott, the former director of SitCen. He said:
“You can roughly divide the member states into three groups: those who are threatened and who really understand it. The UK is clearly in that group, and the Germans and the French are as well. Then there is a group that possibly is threatened but maybe doesn’t properly register it, and then maybe some that aren’t terribly threatened”.
He went on to explain that as the threats changed so would the groups, which could learn from one another.
That takes me to the really important point about the establishment of the cybercrime centre as being a means whereby experience, knowledge and information can be shared. I am delighted that the Government have decided that it should not be placed at Heraklion in Crete as part of ENISA. We have kicked poor old ENISA often enough and hard enough. I am delighted that there will not be a new body and I hope very much that it will find its way into Europol because it is, after all, crime that we are talking about.
As part of that, I hope that the Government will give some attention to a sub-theme. In our sub-committee, we have had quite a lot of evidence that in a number of cases bilateral arrangements between individual countries have led to the bypassing of EU institutions. We have heard about it as regards Europol in particular. Therefore, instead of information and intelligence being routed through an EU body, it is done on the basis of relationships between the police forces of individual countries. I do not mind people having bilateral relationships but there should be a discouragement of not making sure that Europol goes into the link. If we have a patchwork quilt of relationships depending on who knows who, who gets on with who and who trusts who, critical issues will get lost and overlooked and their significance will not be understood.
I hope that the Government will make some efforts to encourage, as far as we in this country and other countries are concerned, the use of the valuable resources that will be built up in these EU agencies. It puts a responsibility on the EU agency itself. We had a comment from a Dutchman who said that Europol was like a black box into which you put a comment and nothing came back. There is a responsibility on the agency to respond. It was a fascinating report on a fascinating area.
In my final minute, perhaps I may refer my noble friend to the UK cybersecurity strategy document published in November 2011. It is very interesting and a very good read, and lots of interesting recommendations are listed at the back. It covers nearly all the departments from BIS to DCMS to the Foreign Office to MoD. It has a huge range of responses required from individual government departments. However, there is very little about our relationships with Europe and COSI. There is something but not a lot. I very much hope that the Government will give some weight to developing our European response to these intransigent, intractable and difficult issues. Unless national Governments put some weight behind COSI and bodies like that, there is no hope that we shall be able to attack these extraordinarily challenging crimes and crime networks satisfactorily.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I warmly follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, in thanking our chairman for his excellent leadership of the committee, for the diligence that he brings to that work and, as I have said before, for the firmness of his guidance. It is very good to have an effective chairman, and one with so much outstanding relevant expertise and experience to bring to bear on the issue with which we are dealing. However, if that word of appreciation is due, so also is one due to our staff, to the clerk and the others who work with the clerk, for helping us to produce useful reports for this House. A word of thanks is also due to the full European Union Select Committee for the support and collaboration that it gives. I know that there is a very good working relationship between the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the chairman of our own Select Committee. That is good, because it helps to take things forward in a constructive way.
The noble Lord referred in his remarks to the interdependent world in which we live. I am absolutely convinced that, from the moment any of us are born, one reality is indisputable: we are born into a totally interdependent world community. This is true of economic and resources realities, and pressingly true of environmental matters, but nowhere is it more true than in the realm of security. There is no way in which we can ensure the security of our people by acting alone. Effective, proven co-operation at the international level is indispensible.
Of course, the European Union provides a very good starting point for that, although—as we say in our report—this co-operation cannot be limited to the European Union. It has to go beyond the European Union into the wider world. It obviously has to be with organisations such as the United Nations, but it also has to be with specific countries such as China, India, Russia and Brazil—all sorts of influential countries on the world scene. However, it is not only with the more influential countries that there must be co-operation. So much of the danger to security comes through, and may originate from, some of the smaller, less significant players in the world, as power politics has come to be seen.
In that context, I am interested and glad that we emphasised early in our report—the chairman of the committee drew attention to this—the importance of there being a good balance between the security measures that are introduced and necessary and an absolute, resolute commitment to preserving those characteristics of our society that make it worth defending. Here I am thinking, of course, of freedom, liberty and the rest. There is a tension here. It is no good pretending that there is not; there is. How we get that right is terribly important.
It is therefore important to see that, if we are going to build a secure world, we have to get as many people as possible feeling directly that they have a vested interest in the stability and security of the society, and the wholesome nature of the society, in which they are living. That is why mistakes, when they occur in member countries of the European Union—absolutely indefensible, sometimes abhorrent mistakes that are a contradiction of everything for which we stand—are unforgivable, because of course they play directly into the hands of the extremists and those who would like to undermine our society by giving them rich ammunition for agitation and the rest. That is why we should expect higher standards all the time from those throughout Europe and the world, and certainly in our own country, who are working in the sphere of security.
Of course it is also the interrelationship in security policy between the more formal direct means of security, as we understand that word, and the importance of effective economic and social policies that gives people a stake in the society in which they are living. All those things come together and it is obvious that if we are to tackle them effectively, we have to build increasingly good co-operation and collaboration with fellow members of the European Union and beyond. Our report is really about that.
There is of course one specific area, and the chairman was exceedingly sensible to emphasise this in his words to us today, that brings that home. It is the issue of cyberspace. I do not believe that among the population as a whole there even begins to be an understanding of the significance and potential for what could happen in this context to liberty, freedom and all that goes with it. From that standpoint, the balance between liberty and security is a particularly pressing issue in the realm of cyberspace, as indeed we are beginning to see through the popular press in more limited spheres.
In commending the report to the House, we ought also to bear in mind the indispensable value of the evidence submitted, both written and oral. I hold up as an example the Minister who will reply to this debate. We had an extremely good session with him and we deeply appreciated the evidence that he provided and the spirit in which he entered into the session. A real word of appreciation is important there, because if he is not following things through with his colleagues we are whistling in the dark. That collaboration is essential.
There is one other specific issue to which we drew attention in the report—the strange absence of any reference to the armed services in the report from Europe with which we were dealing. If we are going to get this right, the relationship between all aspects of security and the armed services is tremendously important. We need to look at that and see how that point can be brought to bear. The armed services are increasingly drawn into co-operation with other dimensions to public service in the way in which they help to uphold our society. I hope that the Government will look at this and see how that could be addressed within the context of deliberations in Europe.
Above all, apart from saying what a pleasure it was to work in this committee under the leadership of our chairman, I want to say that we cannot overemphasise the importance of realising that we are simply not a self-contained, isolated island that can look after itself. When we talk to our public servants, I sometimes detect a reluctant culture that somehow or other these international bodies exist and they are working in the realm in which we are working, so we have to work with them. There is a reluctance about being drawn in further than absolutely necessary because we really like to do things on our own. That is a hopeless attitude and completely outdated. I have no doubt that the Government as a whole, particularly in the sphere of security, shall be judged in history by our success in helping international institutions, starting with Europe, to be effective.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for having finally secured this important debate. I congratulate him on an excellent report. Looking around the Chamber today I see that I am the only person speaking in this debate, apart from the Minister, who is not a member of this committee and therefore did not participate in the report. I therefore feel that I can more sincerely congratulate committee members as I am not in any way back-slapping myself. It is another thoroughly thoughtful contribution to this very important issue—of where the international meets the national and where a state’s responsibility to its citizens’ security is juxtaposed alongside their fundamental freedoms. It is intrinsic to where we are in today’s world.
I welcome the early assertion in the report that recognises that security cannot stop at the water’s edge. In the UK’s case, we know from our prolonged experience in Northern Ireland, and more recently from among our own diaspora communities, that much support for terrorism can come from overseas. Both bilateral and multilateral co-operation are therefore fundamental to maintaining security.
The report, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, is wide-ranging and extremely detailed. I just want to pick out a few of the themes. First, in the section on counterterrorism, the report was most interesting on the continuing role of the counterterrorism co-ordinator. I have great personal admiration for the current incumbent, but given the developments that have taken place since 2001, such as 9/11, the Madrid bombings—after which he was appointed—and particularly the adoption of the European Union counterterrorism strategy after 2005, I, too, share the views of committee members that it is extremely difficult to see how we might justify the role. I note the Government’s response, and particularly their emphasis on the co-ordinator being the interface between the EU’s internal and external policies on terrorism. I noted, too, with some dismay, the report’s bleak assessment of the relationship between the European Union and NATO, and certainly agree that that particular relationship needs strengthening. This was particularly brought out by Professor Paul Cornish of Chatham House. Third-country relations are also significant areas for attention and I would urge Her Majesty’s Government to encourage the co-ordinator’s efforts in this area. These will become ever more important as we come towards the drawdown of the NATO commitment in Afghanistan and, of course, with the increasing rise of extremism in Pakistan.
On radicalisation and the EU strategy, I would go further than the report in suggesting that this area is best left to member states to deal with. The report makes particular reference to the Prime Minister’s Munich speech of February 2011 on muscular liberalism. I should say that I am broadly in the PM’s camp on this one. When I served on Prime Minister Blair’s taskforce on Muslim extremism in 2005, it was increasingly clear to us that the drivers and subsequent triggers for extremism had quite a lot to do with the radicalised individual’s conception of their own identity, as well as the triggers in the external environment to which they responded through their actions. These factors differ across different diaspora communities and are affected by the environment within the country from which those individuals come at the time. One size certainly does not fit all. For example, those of Pakistani origin in the United Kingdom can have a very different take on things, and on their place within society in this country, than those of Pakistani origin in the United States. Likewise, the Baader-Meinhof gang was a rather different entity from the IRA in the 1970s.
I would firmly plump for subsidiarity in this area and suggest that member states are best placed to design their own deradicalisation programmes. However, voluntary networks should be encouraged, as they already exist very well across academia. An EU institutional-level handbook of actions and experiences would not only have little relevance to national-centric radicalisation but would also duplicate existing work.
I turn to the related area of research and its funding. Noble Lords may well remember the establishment—I think in 2006—of a significant ESRC funding stream for research projects at universities. The programme was called, I think, New Security Challenges. It was run by Professor Stuart Croft at Warwick University and had a wide enough remit to allow for a range of different approaches to research programmes and academic collaboration. In my mind, that programme is a model of how the EU should proceed to set up a network. Yes, I agree that it should be wider than this particular model, but it should be sufficiently focused so as to derive practical know-how for practitioners. I note that several submissions to the committee commented on this and also note that the committee welcomes the creation of an internal security fund. What was not clear from the report, probably due to the timing of it, was whether the next framework programme for research and development will cover the issues to do with co-ordination that Sir Richard Mottram raised in his submission at paragraph 196. I was therefore disappointed that the Government's response, while welcoming the creation of the ISF as an important development, ruled out any additional resources to be dedicated to this area. Has the committee since been updated by the Home Office, as it promised to do in its response to conclusions 252 and 253, as to where the resources for this work may be found?
I turn now to the issue of cybersecurity. The report was written before the London conference of last November, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, and things have moved on a bit, but the analysis of the importance of the issue and of the need for an appropriate architecture to support work in this area still stand. In particular, given that the technology used for cyberwar and terrorism is often in the hands of state actors, the establishment of an EU cybercrime centre is most welcome and I note that its situation within Europol is both the committee's and the Government’s preference. But there is a further important way that the UK can help EU partners; that is where some countries have not build up the requisite capacity with national computer emergency response teams. Can the Minister tell the House whether the UK has offered its expertise through its dedicated public sector capability, to assist those states whose public sector has experienced cyberattacks and are not competent to resist them?
Noble Lords will also be aware of how cybercrime plays out in foreign policy through non-state actors. We have a situation where increasing numbers of private sector firms in the UK are targeted as they are in other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, raised the issue of how expensive that is. I am one to agree with those experts who advocate a mandatory licensing system for the private sector to ensure that they have adequate levels of protection. Outside the EU, we now have a cyberwar going on in the Middle East, with pro-Palestine groups claiming to be behind the attack on El Al, the Israeli airline's systems and the Tel Aviv stock exchange, while pro-Israeli groups have attacked the Saudi Arabian and Abu Dhabi stock exchanges. As these escalate they pose an economic and security threat not only to the infrastructure of the counties involved but also to wider business and security interests. While acknowledging the seriousness of this kind of threat, it is important to note that both groups are politically motivated, although the actor on the Israeli side clearly takes its name from the Israeli Defence Force, as it calls itself the Israeli Defence Force Team, and it is therefore unclear what the role of the state may be in this case. What is not helpful is that the lsraeli deputy Foreign Minister in describing the attack as “comparable to terrorism” and threatening to respond forcefully, did not take the opportunity to disassociate the IDF from this so-called Team IDF. Israel’s neighbours will no doubt draw their own conclusions from that.
The need for international action to help counter these kind of politically motivated threats is as urgent as is the need for action at national level to deal with opposing states’ acts, which we are more familiar with. I note that the outcome document for the London conference highlighted:
“The need for governments to act proportionately in cyberspace and in accordance with national and international law”.
I hope that all Governments in the Middle East will bear that obligation in mind as they go forward in the current febrile atmosphere.
The London conference also posed some wider international security challenges, covering such questions as: how can problems between states be prevented and mitigated? What lessons can be learnt from other areas of international security and conflict prevention work? How do we develop and apply appropriate principles of behaviour? What are the most appropriate fora to take this debate forward? What tangible steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to move this urgent agenda forward? In particular, do they hope to have more concrete outcomes at the Hungary summit later this year?
My concluding remarks shall be about the remit of the Standing Committee on Operational Co-operation on Internal Security, or COSI, as it is more comfortingly known. COSI’s remit is to ensure that operational co-operation is promoted and strengthened and to provide a measure of accountability through the Council to the European Parliament and national parliaments. I share the committee’s views that it would be extremely beneficial to rationalise the alphabet soup of other bodies also charged with responsibilities in this area, in order that COSI can emerge as the lead organisation. I also share its view that there is little justification for the chairmanship to rotate along with the EU presidency for precisely the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. In order to maintain expertise and consistency, it is fundamental that we have an expert chairmanship and expert membership. I am therefore disappointed in the Government’s response, which seems to say that just because we have done it this way with other EU bodies, we will use the same straitjacket this time, too. I argue that the establishment of a new body is precisely when the architecture can and should be improved.
On transparency, the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendation is, if I might say so, equally mealy-mouthed. While the European Parliament might have received its report after an 18-month period, I am not aware whether the UK Parliament has yet had transmittal of this work. Perhaps the Minister or the chairman of the committee might be able to fill in the blank here when winding up.
The work of the committee and its detailed recommendations have been of the usually high calibre that one expects from their Lordships’ European Union scrutiny processes. I do hope that this report continues to inform our thinking around these matters here in the UK and across other EU capitals.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, I join other noble Lords on the committee in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his excellent chairmanship of the sub-committee. His background and experience made him an ideal chairman to guide the committee through evidence-taking and producing what I believe is a very important report. I am delighted to be speaking as a member of that committee. I also thank the members of the support team, led by Michael Collon, who supported and still support the committee so ably.
Security, unfortunately, is an increasingly important subject touching all our lives, whether at airports, entering government buildings or using public transport. It even touches the parking arrangements in your Lordships’ House. Securing the physical safety of their citizens is surely the most important task of any Government and in this modern age, with the world getting smaller through travel and global communications, as other speakers have said, that cannot be achieved unilaterally. It follows, therefore, whatever your views are of the European Union, that increased co-operation between friendly countries is an essential requisite of reducing security risks from those who would do us harm for political, ideological or extreme and fanatical religious reasons. As a person who has been involved in security issues for most of his life—in the police service, with the FBI and now in the private sector—I welcome the treaty of Lisbon, which allowed the European Council to adopt and implement an internal security strategy. It is that strategy, which was set out in the Commission communication in November 2010, that we are considering in this debate.
Statistically, the risk of any of us being involved in a life-threatening security incident is very small. However, as somebody once said, politicians tend to use statistics rather like a drunk uses a lamp-post—more for support than illumination. I knew a millionaire who was extremely worried about flying because of the increased security threat. He employed a security consultant to research the chances of his getting on aircraft where there was a bomb. The consultant did his work. He looked at all the flights and all the incidents, and he worked out that there was something like a 5 million:1 chance against being on an aircraft on which there was a bomb. However, the millionaire was not happy and wanted further work done. He wanted to know how he could lengthen the odds even further. The advice came back: “What you have to do is carry a bomb on to a plane yourself in insulated hand luggage”. “How will that assist?”, he asked. “Well”, the consultant said, “the chances of two strangers each having a bomb on the same plane are infinitesimal”. That sums up the difficulty with statistics.
The five steps set out in the report are comprehensive, dealing with international crime, the prevention of terrorism, security in cyberspace, improved border management and increased resilience to crises and disasters. Clearly, time will not permit me to cover all five items. I intend to concentrate very briefly on just three: international crime networks, terrorism and cybercrime.
By the nature of the beast, the international criminal knows no boundaries. Anything we can do to disrupt his travel arrangements, his communications or the secreting of his ill gotten gains is a plus. The difficulty at an operational level is that the police and security services have to operate within the law. I have to add that it is proper that they do so. As we have seen in other countries, if state officials are above the law we are all finished. Having said that, for those people who know no rules, we may well have to change our rules.
As my noble friend Lord Judd said, there is a very fine balance to be drawn between the restriction of civil liberties and human rights. After all, one man’s right to do something may well be an infringement of his neighbour’s liberty not to have to tolerate such behaviour. It is a dilemma that policemen have wrestled with throughout the ages. In this regard, we can deal with international crime and terrorism together. We have to co-operate totally with other right-thinking countries, sharing intelligence where possible, and acting together operationally if required so that there are very few hiding places. If the conspirators cannot communicate with or meet each other—or, in the case of terrorists, train and practise their dark arts—we are succeeding. If the price of freedom is to have surveillance cameras in public places, in some cases it is a price we have to pay. We have seen the success that it reaps, with terrorists, rapists and murderers being brought to justice. They never learn; we still see bank robbers on “Crimewatch” smiling at the camera.
Modern technology must be used and shared. We all know the value of DNA in bringing terrorists and murderers to justice many years after they thought that they had escaped the long arm of the law. As has been said, we must share these innovations with our law enforcement partners in other jurisdictions. I welcome the report’s endorsement of the work of joint investigation teams. This is particularly true when seizing criminal assets and establishing a functioning asset recovery office in each member state. This should be given a higher priority.
I appreciate that it is more difficult to deal with terrorists who are prepared to commit suicide. That is where vigilance and community intelligence are so important, again working together at local, national and international level. That is why the comments about reducing the incidence of stop and search made last week by the new commissioner at Scotland Yard, Bernard Hogan-Howe, are so important. He would make that process more intelligence-led. This is important because it should reduce the alienation of the police within the community they serve, thereby increasing the chances of important intelligence concerning serious crime and terrorism being brought to their attention. In this country we police by consent and we need the support and real assistance of the community, which can greatly help us in dealing with internal security.
The new kid on the block is cybercrime, as been mentioned in every speech. As our report states, the Government are to be congratulated on the priority given to cybercrime in the UK security strategy. As with many things, the European Union is only as strong as its weakest link. However, it is not just the cybersecurity of the member states that is at risk. The Commission itself must realise that its own institutions, networks and agencies are vulnerable too and take the necessary precautions; and, where they fall short, we must assist them.
Overall, I believe that we are heading in the right direction. The EU communication sets out the road map and I believe that our report helps to identify the vehicle on which we should all be climbing. I commend the report to the House.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in response to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, while I cannot say that I am the third man, I am the third person down to speak in this debate who is not a member of the committee. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, on the lengthy delay in discussing the committee’s report, and that that is not a satisfactory situation. Having said that, I doubt that this is the first occasion there has been such a delay.
As has been said, each member state has responsibility for its own national security but the Lisbon treaty enhanced the European role by providing for the creation of a standing committee within the Council whose principal role is to ensure that operational co-operation on internal security is promoted and strengthened within the Union.
As we know, under the 1999 treaty of Amsterdam, work on justice and home affairs matters has been the subject of five-year programmes agreed by the European Council, with the most recent being the Stockholm Programme agreed in 2009, which indicated that both the Council and the Commission should define a comprehensive Union internal security strategy.
In early 2010, the Council agreed an internal security strategy for the European Union which was subsequently adopted by the European Council. Not to be outdone, the Commission formulated its own communication on the internal security strategy towards the end of 2010 entitled, The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five Steps Towards a More Secure Europe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, in the report that we are discussing, the committee described the Council strategy as an anodyne document and hardly a strategy at all. In contrast, the committee described the Commission communication as having a practical and pragmatic focus on the five main objectives. They were referred to by the noble Lord and I shall not repeat them.
Accordingly, as the noble Lord said, the European Union sub-committee took this document—namely the Commission communication—as the main focus of its inquiry into the EU internal security strategy. We welcome the committee’s report and I wish to refer briefly to one or two points and issues in it.
The report indicates that the Commission’s communication will be followed by proposals from the Commission for legislation to implement its objectives. One had already been submitted before the committee’s report appeared, and given that we are now some eight months further on, it would be helpful if the Minister could update us as to where we stand in relation to further proposals emanating from the Commission.
The EU Committee comment favourably on the Commission communication as,
“the first pragmatic attempt to articulate a comprehensive approach to the EU’s internal security”,
and say that they,
“do not believe that these proposals intrude upon or threaten Member States’ primary responsibility for national security”.
That is an important point. The committee was critical of the written evidence received from the Home Office, which the committee regarded as stating that the Government would,
“criticise some Commission proposals solely on the ground that they go beyond what was agreed in the Stockholm Programme or the Strategy itself”.
The committee argued that over a five-year programme actions required to safeguard internal security may well move beyond what was originally envisaged, and that therefore each proposal should be assessed on its merits.
In his response, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime and Security refers to querying the costs of new proposals and goes on to say that ensuring that those proposals fall within the scope of the Stockholm Programme is key to managing the national and EU justice and home affairs budget. I hope that the Minister can provide assurance that despite that comment the Government will nevertheless assess on their merits any proposals that emerge.
The committee's report also refers to a Commission proposal for a comprehensive data protection framework that was due to be published last year. What is the current position in relation to this Commission proposal?
A further point made by the committee, to which my noble friend Lord Judd referred, was its surprise that there was no reference in the Commission communication to the Armed Forces in relation to civil protection and disaster relief. It is not clear from the written response by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether that surprise is shared to any degree by the Government, and perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification on that specific point. It is interesting that one of those giving evidence to the committee expressed the view that this omission was probably due to neurosis within the European Union about military matters.
The committee welcomed the emphasis on cybersecurity in the Commission communication and felt that the EU,
“could play an important part in raising standards and awareness in the Member States”.
In his response, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary welcomes the committee’s view that the EU institutions should take the lead by,
“ensuring the security of their own networks and agencies”,
and said that the UK would,
“support the EU institutions on security matters as appropriate”.
Perhaps the Minister could say whether the Government consider that the EU is doing as much as it should in this field, bearing in mind that what the EU does or does not do could also have implications for our national security as well.
The committee said that the establishment of a cybercrime centre, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, would enhance the EU’s ability to contribute in this area and that,
“Europol would be best placed to host such a body”.
The view was also expressed by the committee that,
“finding staff with the necessary expertise may not be easy”,
and that:
“Additional staff and funding will be essential if the Cybercrime Centre … is to achieve its key aims”.
The committee went on to say—and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to this—that:
“The Government’s view that this can be done within existing resources is unrealistic, and inconsistent with their making additional resources available for the United Kingdom’s programme”.
Is it still the Government's stance that any necessary resources are to be found from within the existing budget? If so, why do they think that that is possible? Have there been any further developments in the creation of the cybercrime centre?
The committee's report contains a large number of conclusions or recommendations. The sub-committee involved, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, has given the issue of the EU internal security strategy the thought that it merits. We should be very grateful for its meticulous and thorough report. Security is an issue of increasing importance and sophistication on the part of those trying to safeguard security and those seeking to breach it. As the committee states, security knows no borders, which is a significant reason why the EU has an important role to play.
However, we should also note the warning in the committee's report, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, that the Council has an extraordinary number of committees, working groups and other bodies whose tasks overlap and may conflict. As has been said, there is now a new committee with the duty of co-ordinating all the work on internal security. As the sub-committee rightly states, unless it does so, little will be achieved, but that if it does properly fulfil its mandate—or, perhaps, is allowed properly to fulfil its mandate—the EU may play a valuable role in protecting the security of its citizens. One would have thought that the Government would concur with that view. If so, I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government have that point in mind and are pursuing it within the EU.
We welcome the committee's report. It is an invaluable document. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, I await with interest to hear the Minister's response to the points and questions put to the Government during the debate.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put it, a large number of questions have been put to me and I hope to be able to answer as many as possible in the course of my speech.
I am grateful that there is a least one question that I do not have to answer: the question posed at the beginning of his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, when he talked about the security problems in our car park. That, at least, is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government; we can leave that to the House authorities.
I start by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on bringing forward the report and for all the work done by his committee. I also offer my apologies—if it is appropriate for me to apologise; I never know whether it is—for the delay between the publication of his report and the day on which it is debated. I think that that is a matter for the usual channels, not me. I see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, nod, but I am sure that he, as chairman of the EU Committee has been pressing as hard as he can to get this, along with a whole host of other valuable reports that his committee has produced, debated in a timely fashion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that he wanted to concentrate not so much on the Government's response but on where it had been less than adequate. It would be useful if I could start by saying a little about where the Government and the committee were in agreement. There is much that both the Government and the committee found to commend in the internal security strategy. We came to many of the same positive conclusions, not least that the scope of the ISS and the priorities established therein are the right ones. The Government and the committee found points of agreement throughout the strategy, including, but not limited to; support for the establishment of the EU policy cycle; the use of joint investigation teams; the value of the EU passenger name records directive—I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on that subject; and the role of EUROSUR and FRONTEX in enhancing border security.
Again, like the committee, the Government welcome the priority given to cybersecurity in the strategy. We see that the EU has an important role to play in raising standards in, and awareness around, cybersecurity among member states at both the EU level and—stressing points made by a number of noble Lords—the international level. We know that in security matters of this sort there are no boundaries.
In November, as noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary successfully hosted the London conference on cyberspace, and I shall be saying a little more about some of the cybersecurity questions later. Delegates agreed that the immediate next steps must involve taking practical measures to develop a shared understanding of the threats and to agree common approaches and confidence-building measures at an international level.
The Government also find common ground with the committee on a number of cross-cutting issues, such as the safeguarding of fundamental rights. I make it clear that this coalition Government are committed to defending security and defending civil liberties so that the Government infringe less on people’s freedoms, while providing the public with effective protection from terrorism and crime. Given the number of EU data-related dossiers which will impact upon security and the need to tackle threats to security while at the same time protecting civil liberties, we would have liked to have seen those issues addressed more directly in the ISS communication. We believe that the alignment of internal and external security policy is also an area where the Government and the committee take a similar position. The Government support the committee’s call for closer working between the Commissioner for Home Affairs and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
I should like to discuss one or two points that noble Lords raised. I start with the whole question of funding the cybercrime centre, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised. He asked me to look at this area but I think he accepted, although he was sorry, that it was something that I could not help on directly. He is no doubt right. I am sure we all agree that there are other savings within the EU budget that could be looked at. We could look at the budget of the High Representative herself to see whether more money could come out of that to help with such a centre. However, we understand that the Commission will bring forward a communication later this year regarding setting up the cybercentre, and it remains the Government’s view that this should be managed within existing resources. However, the question of where those existing resources come from will obviously have to be discussed at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also suggested that oversight of Europol should be carried out by an interparliamentary committee. The Government’s view is that Europol now has fairly robust scrutiny and accountability structures in place. We believe that the Europol Council decision, which came into force in January 2010, means that the European Parliament can require the Europol director, the chair of the management board and the presidency of the Council to go before it to discuss Europol-related issues. Additional mechanisms are in place that ensure the transparency of Europol as an EU agency. They include the submission of the Europol work programme and annual reports to the European Parliament. That provides a useful job for the European Parliament, and we think that it is something it can probably do effectively. I believe that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and its various sub-committees can also scrutinise the activities of Europol with some vigour, as they have done in the past.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson hoped that the Government would make use of the various and valuable resources within the EU agencies themselves. Our position remains that member states can and should do more to share information, not just among EU agencies but among themselves, and to put that at the disposal of Europol. Improving our information-sharing strategy with Europol is very important in terms of influencing the EU intelligence picture at a strategic and operational level. It is important to make the most of Europol’s analytical capabilities to ensure that it can identify, for example, key persons of interest and operational opportunities for multilateral co-operation.
I turn to a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He expressed some interest in the role of the Armed Forces in EU internal security and the committee’s concern that that was an oversight in the communication. We recognise that military assets can play a very significant role in supporting, for example, disaster relief activities, but we also believe that they should be used only as a last resort where there are no civilian alternatives. Decisions in such matters are, we believe, a matter for national authorities acting on a case-by-case basis.
My noble friend Lady Falkner was somewhat concerned about a lack of co-operation between the EU and NATO. I note that concern. We believe that that can be improved and developed, including in new fields such as cybersecurity, which has been raised a great deal. We have pressed both the high representative and the Secretary-General of NATO to encourage further information sharing and increased co-ordination on the ground in all areas between those two organisations.
I turn to structures and, in particular, to the questions relating to COSI which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, by my noble friend Lord Hodgson and by other noble Lords. We do not consider that there is a case for the standing committee on operational co-operation on internal security, or COSI—I forget how the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, interpreted those initials—but there are obviously a number of ways in which we can replace all oversight bodies that have a legislative role, such as the Article 36 committee. I want to make it clear to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who was worried about a lack of representatives from FRONTEX, Europol and others, that my understanding is that representatives from Europol and FRONTEX attend COSI meetings as a matter of course alongside representatives of the other EU and justice and home affairs agencies—for example, Eurojust. It is important that they are there.
I should also address the question raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I think by my noble friend Lady Falkner about their concerns about the chairmanship and whether it should rotate. I forget who suggested that they were likely to get a rather mealy-mouthed response from me on this; from her reaction, I suspect it must have been my noble friend Lady Falkner. I understand that it is a working group and subject to the same chairing arrangements as other working groups. It is chaired on the six-monthly rotational basis that works for the Council presidency. That means that we hope we have an incoming, outgoing and current chairman and we hope that they will work together over that 18-month cycle as a troika. I think it was my noble friend who suggested that this might be the opportunity to change those arrangements, but I think for the moment it would probably be best to stick to the arrangements that we have in place for that. I am not sure that the COSI chairmanship would be the right one on which to make such a fundamental change. As regards transparency, again, it operates the same rules as other groups do. In some case-sensitive operational issues these matters can be discussed, which means that certain documents obviously cannot be publicly released. That would have to be handled appropriately, as with all other information.
The last point that I want to deal with is the question of ratifying the Warsaw convention. I appreciate that there might be other points, but time may be beginning to run out. I also appreciate that I came under a certain amount of pressure from the committee when I appeared before it the other day. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to that and criticised my possibly imprecise remarks on ratification, when I said that I hoped it would happen in a year or so. I think he implied, in Sir Humphrey-speak, that that answer was not really as precise as Ministers ought to give. I have to say that, although one would like to ratify that convention, there are always concerns about ratifying and one has to get these things right.
The noble Lord referred to another convention that I was dealing with at Question Time today. We should always be very careful about any ratification; I do not think that we want to be like those countries which—dare I say it—ratify somewhat lightly, because we should consider the precise implications of ratification. In terms of the convention that I was talking about at Question Time, there are very serious concerns about extraterritorial jurisdiction, which would have a major effect on our own United Kingdom domestic law. We need to consider those carefully before we ratify and the same applies, although it is more a question of resource points, to ratifying the Warsaw convention.
As I said, a number of other issues probably need to be addressed, but time is running on—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I fear that the Minister is coming to his concluding comments and I wanted to get in before he sits down concerning the question that I asked about the forward plan, after the London cybersecurity conference of last November. Hungary is due to host the next summit and while I appreciate that he may not have the information to hand now, might he be able to write to tell us what tangible steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to implement the recommendations of the London conference?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I have some details somewhere about Hungary. I am not sure that I will be able to help my noble friend at this stage but, if I may, I will write to her in due course. As I said, I feel that I am beginning to run out of time and I am probably keeping the House up later than it ought to be. What I want to make clear is that I will respond to any points that I have not yet answered in due course by letter, but that we will keep the implementation of the EU internal security strategy under review.
As always, we are eternally grateful for the work of our own scrutiny committees: the EU Committee in this House, and all its sub-committees. They do a valuable job, and probably do a better job of scrutiny of EU matters than those of any other Chamber in any other country throughout the EU. On that, they should be congratulated. I also hope that the usual channels—that strange body which the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and I used to be members of many years ago—will take note of all the comments, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and ensure that in future these matters are debated in a timely fashion, as appropriate.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this very useful debate. I am particularly grateful to the three members of the sub-committee that I chair who participated in the debate in a singularly apt and helpful manner, but I am grateful also to all other noble Lords. I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not mention everyone, because brevity is the essence of the contribution that I am called on to make at the end of the debate.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for what he said about cybercrime. He brought a lot of very pertinent evidence to bear and demonstrated that there is a huge cost to all our economies from the—alas—all too successful cybercrime that exists. Therefore, when we come to look at the resources we devote to combating this form of crime, we should bear in mind those massive sums and think about how, not in strictly budgetary terms, they could benefit not only this country but Europe collectively. I am also most grateful for what the noble Lord said about the follow-up to the Foreign Secretary's initiative last November, which the committee warmly welcomed. Perhaps I dare say that we envisaged such a conference before it was even a gleam in the eye of the Foreign Secretary. We had written a report on cybersecurity some time previously, in which we said that we hoped to see the Government taking an initiative to deal with the global issues that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, so wisely put his finger on.
I will make just two points about the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I am grateful to both noble Lords on the Front Benches for their offer of thanks and support to the committee; it is of great benefit to us. My first point is on the budgetary issue. I will not go any further because the response given today by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was helpful. However, I must draw his attention to an Explanatory Memorandum that his department put its name to recently, which was less helpful than the response that he gave across the Floor of the House this afternoon. I think it was in paragraph 26 of the memorandum—I cite from memory—that the department stated that any increase in the resources needed for, let us say, cybercrime or anything in the justice and home affairs area must be found within that chapter of the budget. That is unbelievably restrictive and completely contrary to the policy that has been pursued by successive British Governments for I do not know how long, which is that we should look for transfers and shifts in the priorities of the budget, most obviously away from excessive expenditure on agriculture, and should focus the budget on higher priority areas.
The answer that the noble Lord gave just now was spot on. My committee is not saying that we should increase the overall resources allocated to the European Union; we are saying that we should reprioritise them. The Minister’s answer said precisely that: if savings can be found in other parts of the budget, it will be fine. However, it is not what the Explanatory Memorandum stated. I will not go on any longer because the EU Select Committee that is preparing a further report on the budgetary aspects of the multiannual financial framework will come back to this point in that context, and the Government will have an opportunity to give their considered response. I hope very much that the department for which the noble Lord is responsible will play its modest role in ensuring that it is properly understood that if we say that everything has to be found within individual chapters, it will be a recipe for stasis and for no change at all, and that no other member state will have any incentive to support reductions if resources cannot be moved to higher priority areas.
I turn finally to the noble Lord’s reply on the institutional point. I think that there was a slight misunderstanding. The approach that the EU Select Committee and my sub-committee supported was not to create any new institution. However, we are saddled with the fact that the Lisbon treaty instructs the institutions to provide oversight that brings together national Parliaments and the European Parliament. We are not proposing any shift because these meetings already take place on an annual basis between the chairs of the home affairs committees and the LIBE committee of the Parliament. We are merely suggesting that the Government throw their weight behind somewhat formalising that structure as the basis on which to keep an eye on Frontex, Europol, Eurojust and so on. It is totally cost-effective. It does not cost a penny, and it involves no new institutions. I mention that because I think that the Minister rather implied that we were thinking of something more ambitious. We are not.
I thank all those who participated and thank the Minister for his extremely thoughtful response. I am a little sad about the Warsaw convention, and I still hope that he can find some way to accelerate that. It is quite clearly less difficult than what he was dealing with earlier this afternoon. I previously dealt quite a lot with extraterritorial issues, and I understand that they bristle with difficulties. We are not really talking about that sort of thing in terms of the Warsaw convention, and I hope that he will find some way of moving to ratification of that pretty quickly because I do not think it does our reputation any credit and I do not think it is in the interests of this country that people pick and chose the things that they do or do not ratify.