House of Commons

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 28 February 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business Before Questions

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (21 February), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 6 March.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 6 March at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 20).

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

1. What support his Department is providing to the Libyan Government.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

We are working closely with the transitional Government to provide stabilisation assistance across a range of issues, including policing, security and prison reform, as well as on projects to promote youth and women’s political participation and human rights. We have also worked to ensure that Libya’s assets are available to fund its own reconstruction.

[Nicola Blackwood]

During a recent round table on women in Libya organised by the all-party group on women, peace and security and attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), we heard about the importance of the DDRRR—disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration—process of integrating the militias, which helps not only the men but the women engaged in the uprising by, for example, redefining “fighter” to include women. Will the Minister outline what support the UK Government are giving to the Libyan Government in developing their DDRRR plan to ensure that it addresses the concerns of women in post-conflict Libya?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important issue. From the beginning, including in the very first visit that I made to Benghazi in June last year, during the conflict, we have gone out of our way to support the involvement of women in the transition in Libya. We are working closely with all the relevant organisations on this. We co-funded the first women’s convention in Tripoli in November. We are about to start a six-month programme of support to promote women’s and youth participation in the political process in Libya. I am pleased that the election law that was approved earlier this month will provide, in effect, for a certain proportion of the seats in the national congress to go to women.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

On 21 February, Gareth Montgomery-Johnson, a freelance cameraman, and several others were arrested in Tripoli by the Saraya Swehli militia. Despite repeated requests, the militia have refused to transfer Mr Johnson and his colleagues to the Libyan Government or to provide access to Human Rights Watch. His next of kin, who are constituents of mine, are increasingly concerned about the situation. Will the Secretary of State assure them that the Foreign Office will do everything in its power to release my constituent from militia captivity?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the position of his constituent. We are aware of the situation. The embassy in Tripoli is doing everything that it can to assist. It is important that consular access is given to his constituent and to one other person involved, and so, while we have not yet achieved everything that we want on this, we are continuing to work on it.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to work with his EU counterparts on tackling human trafficking.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office work closely with other EU member states to try to prevent human trafficking. Three of the countries recognised in the Government’s human trafficking strategy—Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—are EU member states. We are working with partners in these countries to help to combat trafficking at source.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his work in raising awareness of modern-day slavery. Given the international nature of human trafficking, what support has the Minister provided to the European Commission-backed project, led by the Human Trafficking Foundation, to set up a parliamentary network on trafficking that aims to promote and strengthen a network of parliamentarians and businesses against trafficking in human beings throughout all EU member states?

[Mr Browne]

I share my hon. Friend’s abhorrence of this terrible crime. We are keen to work through the Commission and through other bodies in the European Union, at Parliament-to-Parliament level, and at Government-to-Government level. For example, we share skills, knowledge and experience, and fund projects that help countries to tackle the problem at source.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The whole House will share the Minister’s abhorrence of this form of modern slavery. Will he give an absolute guarantee that nothing that this Government negotiate at the European level will make it more difficult for women, in particular, who have been trafficked to be given proper refuge in this country and that nothing will give them an incentive to continue in slavery rather than risk being sent back to their country of origin to be re-trafficked?

[Mr Browne]

Our intention always is to give paramount importance to the victims of such crime. When we negotiate in the European Union and elsewhere, we try to give those victims the most protection that we can.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

3. What support the Government are providing to the Falkland Islanders; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

The Government support the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. That support takes many forms, from the military deterrent on the islands to the work of our diplomatic network to promote their rights in the region and more widely. We do all that with the full endorsement of the Falkland Islands Government.

[Sheryll Murray]

What discussions have taken place with Argentina to encourage it to rejoin the south Atlantic fisheries commission, which was set up in 1990 to facilitate action on conservation issues of mutual concern around the Falkland Islands?

[Mr Browne]

It is a source of regret to us that the many fruitful negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina in the 1990s on this topic were effectively suspended in 2007, when the Argentines withdrew their co-operation. We want to work closely, co-operatively and in a friendly spirit with Argentina on a range of issues, including this one. It is a source of regret to us that that has not been possible in recent years.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The whole House and, indeed, the country will be outraged at reports that two British cruise liners, the Adonia and the Star Princess, were refused entry to a port in southern Argentina. What representations have the Government made to the Argentine authorities and to the international maritime authorities about this completely unjustified action?

[Mr Browne]

We make frequent representations to the Argentines and to many other countries in south America. It is a source of sadness and frustration to us that people who are on holiday and who want to further relations between ourselves and Argentina at a people-to-people level are not able to do so. We enter the relationship with Argentina in a spirit of friendship and it is a source of sadness to us that it does not always do the same.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

4. What representations he has made to the Hungarian Government on state control of the judiciary in that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

An independent judiciary is necessary for the preservation of democracy and fundamental freedoms. We have urged Hungary to consider the implications of its new laws and to continue working with the European Commission to ensure that those laws are consistent with EU norms.

[Andrew Miller]

I welcome that response from the Minister. There have been suggestions in the media over the past few days that progress is being made at the EU level. Will he spell out what that progress is? Will he give the House an assurance that this and the other outstanding issues with Hungary’s new constitution will be pursued vigorously by this Government?

[Mr Bellingham]

On 17 January, the European Commission released its analysis of the incompatibility of specific elements of the new Hungarian constitution with EU treaty obligations. Letters of formal notice were sent to the Hungarian Government as the first stage of EU infringement proceedings.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the EU’s concerns, is it not the case that the vast majority of Hungarians voted for Fidesz at the last election? We should remember that that party is led by a man who was at the forefront of the battle against the socialist dictatorship in Hungary, a country in which I have a great personal interest.

[Mr Bellingham]

I certainly respect the will of the Hungarian electorate. However, we strongly urge the Hungarian authorities to consider the implications of the new laws for political balance and to work with the Commission to ensure that the laws are consistent with EU norms.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The agreement on a second rescue package for Greece last week is encouraging for Greece and the European economy. The crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect on growth across Europe. The Government are arguing vigorously for EU action to promote growth by deepening the single market, boosting trade and cutting red tape.

[Claire Perry]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what his Department is doing to improve the economic conditions right here in Britain? Are we using our global network of embassies and business contacts to promote British exports, especially those of small companies?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we absolutely are. The prosperity of the country is one of our key objectives. My hon. Friend may have noticed that our exports to India, Turkey, Brazil and other emerging economies went up sharply in 2011. That is very important, given that the eurozone economy is flat and that our exports have declined. The Foreign Office is highly active in helping businesses, including small businesses, to seek out new export markets.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the preparations that are being made in the event of a default by the Greek Government and the possible collapse of the euro?

[Mr Hague]

We have contingency plans for many eventualities in the world, and I ensure that they are fully up to date. The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not go into more detail about those plans, because doing so can create a greater expectation that they are going to happen, but we are prepared for any eventuality.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

19. I suggest that EU politicians are failing to recognise that the eurozone is a dead man walking. Given the effective suspension of democracy in at least two countries and the deepening democratic deficit across the eurozone, as politicians break the rules in order to save the euro and their dream of political union, why is Britain supporting the anti-democratic zeal of those politicians as they make worse this self-made crisis?

[Mr Hague]

To put it in a slightly more balanced way, I have pointed out for many years that one of the disadvantages of the euro is the loss of national sovereign decision making to the countries concerned. However, there is one flaw in my hon. Friend’s argument, which is that it is very clear that not only the representatives but, at the moment, the people of Greece choose to try to stay in the euro. That is the democratic choice that they are making, and we should support them in it if that is their choice.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The European Union is our biggest trading partner, and a resolution to the eurozone crisis is clearly in our national interest. Given that our bilateral relationship with France is central to that, why is it being reported that the Prime Minister has refused to meet one of the leading presidential candidates, François Hollande, when he visits London tomorrow?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, the bilateral relationship with France is of great importance, and it is true that our co-operation, particularly on foreign and security policy, is the closest that it has been at any time since the second world war. Relations with France are very good and very close. Of course, the Prime Minister sometimes meets opposition leaders and sometimes does not, but I am not aware of governmental leaders across Europe taking a different approach from his.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

6. What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

15. What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I am horrified at the continued violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. We will use all diplomatic and economic means to bring an end to the violence. Those responsible for the shelling of homes, the execution of detainees, the killing of political opponents and the torture and rape of women and children must be held to account in the future.

[Sajid Javid]

Journalists in conflict zones risk their lives every day to bring us unbiased news, and that is why my condolences go to the family and friends of Marie Colvin. On that note, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the whereabouts of the wounded British journalist who was in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right—the thoughts of much of the nation have been with the family and friends of Marie Colvin. I am happy to confirm, though, that the injured British journalist Paul Conroy is safely in Lebanon, where he is receiving full consular assistance. I pay tribute to journalists who ensure that the world is aware of the crimes that are being committed, which we are determined to document and seek justice for. Too many people have already lost their lives in Homs and elsewhere in Syria, and we will urge the Syrian regime to ensure both an end to the violence against civilians and safe access for humanitarian agencies.

[Mr Evennett]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the UK’s initiative to help gather evidence of the crimes against humanity in Syria. Will he update the House on the progress of that important work, and can he confirm whether other nations and international organisations are involved as well?

[Mr Hague]

This work is progressing. We are sending teams to border areas and ensuring that people can come to a single documentation hub to bring together the evidence of the crimes that are being committed. I spoke about that at the Tunis meeting of more than 60 nations last Friday, to encourage other nations to join in that initiative or take initiatives or their own, and I believe that other nations will be doing so.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Turkey, the Arab countries and our NATO allies about the idea of creating a safe haven in north-western Syria?

[Mr Hague]

I have had many discussions over the last week with Turkey and Arab nations on the margins of our Somalia conference, in Tunis and at other meetings. That idea has been debated—in public, never mind in private—but the difficulty of establishing safe areas without agreement with the country concerned is considerable. Without such agreement, military force will be required—and sufficient military to force to be wholly effective, because one of the worst things we could do, I believe, is to tell people that they might be safe and be unable to provide that safety to them. None of those discussions, therefore, have led to the idea being adopted in the international community.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome the fact that the EU yesterday announced further sanctions on Syria. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that those sanctions included travel bans on a further seven close associates of President Assad? If that is correct, does he agree that the public naming of many more individuals in that way, specifically including military commanders presently engaged in murder and slaughter in Homs, would help to sharpen the choice for individual members of the security apparatus?

[Mr Hague]

Yes—I agree in general. We adopted a number of measures yesterday in Brussels, including sanctions on the Central Bank of Syria. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we also extended by another seven names the list, which is now more than 150 strong, of individuals and entities on whom we have restrictions, travel bans and asset freezes. We are entirely open to extending that list further, but we of course take care to ensure that we are sure of our ground and that those individuals are actually complicit in the regime’s repression. As further evidence accumulates, we will certainly want to add to that list.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unpalatable fact is that we do not have many options in relation to Syria? Does he also agree that one option worth following is to persuade the Russians to give up their unquestioning support for Syria on the ground that it is deeply damaging to their long-term interests and should cease? Does he remember the impact on Milosevic and Serbia of the withdrawal of Russian support?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that that would be a desirable piece of persuasion to accomplish. I have had discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister, including at length after the vetoing of our Security Council resolution, and it must be said that the Russians are not yet persuaded of that position. However, I hope others will join in that persuasion. I have spoken in the last hour to the new UN and Arab League special envoy, Kofi Annan, who is charged with promoting a political process and solution. I hope that he will bring his persuasive powers to bear on both Russia and China.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

As the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, an estimated 70,000 Syrians are fleeing to Jordan and many more to Lebanon. What steps has the Foreign Secretary taken to put pressure on the Syrian regime to allow humanitarian assistance and to enable civilians to leave the country?

[Mr Hague]

It is a constant cry of the international community, including among the more than 60 nations that met in Tunis on Friday, that humanitarian access needs to be granted, but the regime, which, in the view of the UN commission of inquiry, has committed crimes against humanity, is insensitive even to those demands for humanitarian access or for pauses each day in the conflict—it has refused to do that. We are doing our best to send humanitarian assistance. The UK has provided assistance that will amount to tens of thousands of food rations and other emergency supplies, and we are increasingly co-ordinating our work with other countries.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

7. What progress has been made in selecting a replacement for the UK’s judge at the European Court of Justice, following the end of the incumbent’s appointment in 2012.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

We expect to be in a position to nominate a candidate for this position within the next month. The successful candidate should be able to take up the position when the term of the incumbent judge expires later this year.

[George Eustice]

Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia involve their national Parliaments in the process of selecting the judges whom they send to the ECJ. Given the power that the ECJ can have on this country’s legal system, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to involve the House in any future appointments?

[Mr Hague]

We have improved the nomination procedure by advertising the position publicly and subjecting applicants to interview by an independent panel of experts, prior to ministerial clearance. My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point. As things stand, parliamentary decisions on this matter are inconsistent with existing constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, and any change to the current procedure would, of course, set a precedent with wider implications. That can be debated in the House. I am conscious of the interest that the House takes and commit to keeping it updated on the progress made.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

8. What support his Department is providing to private sector initiatives in the west bank.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

Our private sector initiative in the west bank and Gaza supports about 500 companies. We attribute perhaps £50 million to sales and exports, and also support about 2,200 jobs.

[Mrs McGuire]

Last year, I visited Rawabi, a new Palestinian city being built near Ramallah. It is the biggest private sector project in Palestinian history and is being facilitated by the Portland Trust with the Palestinian Authority. Does the Minister agree that economic progress will be an important component of peace? Will he update the House on the recent package of economic measures reportedly offered by the Israeli Government in response to the Quartet?

[Alistair Burt]

I do indeed agree with the right hon. Lady. The economic development of the west bank has been a significant feature of the past few years, coupled with security improvements, and it is a measure of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that this has continued. We want the discussions between the Israelis and Palestinians that were started in Amman to continue. A package of support is part of those continuing discussions, and there is no doubt that a comprehensive settlement will be of benefit to both the Palestinian and the Israeli economies.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Commerce, restaurants and hotels continue to provide the highest number of jobs in the west bank, according to a recent United Nations Relief and Works Agency report on the Palestinian labour market. Given that these sectors stand to benefit directly from a future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, will the Foreign Secretary reiterate the importance of the Palestinian Authority returning to direct peace negotiations without preconditions?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that we are talking about private sector initiatives in the west bank, not about the peace process more widely. I want a brief reply from the Minister, and then we will move on.

[Alistair Burt]

The health of the private sector economy is a component part of the all-round package for the future of the Palestinian Authority and Israel to which my hon. Friend alludes. There is no doubt that a comprehensive settlement will benefit both the state and private sector economies, and I am pleased that she raised the matter.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

9. What recent progress has been made in negotiations on an international arms trade treaty; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

The United Kingdom remains committed to a robust and effective arms trade treaty. The recent preparatory conference in New York had a successful outcome as far as the Government and leading non-governmental organisations were concerned, and we look forward to the full negotiating conference in July.

[Duncan Hames]

The UK delegation clearly proved crucial in making progress at the conference. Throughout the Arab spring, Governments in the region have used policing and security equipment, including tear gas and batten rounds, against peaceful protesters, sometimes with lethal effect. Will the Minister give his strong support to a genuinely bullet-proof treaty that includes those items?

[Alistair Burt]

We have said clearly that we want a comprehensive arms trade treaty, which would include all conventional weapons, including small arms and ammunition. The precise details of the treaty have yet to be negotiated. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments about the noticeable support of NGOs. I particularly thank Amnesty International for its recent comment on the preparatory conference. It said that

“the UK championed our right to be in the room during final negotiations”.

That is a measure of our relationship with NGOs in support of a robust and effective treaty.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you and the Minister will recall that one year ago I asked an urgent question on Bahrain, when the House was shocked to learn that we were still exporting arms to the country used in the repression of its citizens. Today, people are still locked up in prison, and Amnesty reports hundreds, dozens, scores of political prisoners and tear gas being thrown into confined spaces. It is just as brutal as ever it was, yet we have resumed arms sales to Bahrain. Again, may I ask the Minister and the Government to suspend arms sales to these repressive regimes until a political and peaceful solution has been found?

[Alistair Burt]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at precisely what has been sold to Bahrain, he will find that licences for any items that could be used for internal repression have been refused. Body armour, sporting targets and rifles, and naval cannon have been sold, but these things cannot be used for internal repression. We support the reform process that is under way through the independent commission that is working in Bahrain, and we support all political parties in working towards a settlement and reforms there.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

10. What his priorities are for the 56th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities is currently in New York attending the commission. She will be pressing for more progress on meeting the millennium development goals, tackling violence and discrimination against women, and challenging the way women are represented by the global media.

[Diana Johnson]

Given that the UN Commission on the Status of Women is focusing on the rights of women in rural areas, will the Minister say what action his Government are taking to encourage the participation of women in rural Afghanistan?

[Mr Bellingham]

We are publishing our national action plan today, and Ministers at the Department for International Development have made it clear, in DFID’s “Strategic vision for girls and women”, that stressing the importance of empowering rural girls and women is essential for global prosperity, achieving the MDGs and ensuring safer and more stable rural communities.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

11. What recent reports he has received on the political situation in Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

At the London conference on Somalia, the international community agreed on the need to inject new momentum into the political process, using the Garowe principles to chart a route to a broad-based constituent assembly, chosen by the Somali people, that will determine a new and representative Government for Somalia.

[Mark Lancaster]

There is growing concern among British Somalis that the sense of isolation experienced by those who chew the drug khat is being exploited by al-Shabaab to recruit in the UK. Now that the UK is completely out of step with Europe, as the only country not to have banned khat, will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter with the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Hague]

Khat is certainly quite popular among many Somali people. Indeed, the only other bit of air activity I saw when I visited Mogadishu four weeks ago were planes arriving to deliver khat. However, I will certainly look at the point my hon. Friend raises and discuss it with the Home Secretary, as he suggests.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his team on his work on the Somalia conference? As the final communiqué of the conference says:

“We called on all those willing to reject violence to join the Djibouti peace process.”

How will the Government reach out and engage with those individuals to facilitate the broader base for the Somali Government that is necessary to make progress?

[Mr Hague]

All the decisions that were made and set out in the communiqué at the end of the Somalia conference are to be taken forward by different authorities, and in this case by the authorities in Somalia, through the creation of a new constituent assembly and, then, a more legitimate and representative Parliament. That is a process that is there to be engaged with by people who want to be part of a peace process and want now to transform the position of their country. There will be some who are irreconcilable and wedded to violence, which is why the parallel agreement on expanding the funding of the AMISOM—African Union Mission in Somalia—forces is also important. This process is to be taken forward in Somalia, by Somalis, under the Garowe principles.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and the whole of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their remarkable diplomatic and organisational achievement in convening such a widely attended conference? With an estimated 600,000 Somali refugees now living in Kenya, we now have an unusually valuable opportunity to ensure that our overseas aid expenditure goes on resettling them in their own country, before they unsettle Kenya.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. The conference was well supported by other nations, which were delighted with the outcome. We have received stronger diplomatic support, and a stronger welcome around the world, for this than for any other diplomatic initiative that I can recall in recent years. That in itself is welcome and shows the commitment of the international community to this matter. We do indeed put a great deal of our humanitarian assistance in the direction that my right hon. Friend describes. We are the second-largest bilateral donor to the horn of Africa, for exactly the reason that he described.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Given the Government’s support for the new stability fund, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to retain confidence, humanitarian aid, including that for refugees, should be seen as something quite separate, necessary though it is?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, there are many uses for development funds. Much of this is humanitarian aid delivered through international agencies, and it was of extreme importance during the recent famine in the horn of Africa. Increasingly, we want to be able to provide stabilisation support, and the more stable each area of Somalia becomes, the more we will be able to do that. At the moment, 60% of such funding is going to Somaliland, because that has become a more stable area. So, yes, we make a distinction between different things.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

12. What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Maldives; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We remain concerned and unclear about the events of 7 February, in which power transferred from President Nasheed to his vice-president. We welcome an independent inquiry into those events, and we strongly support the efforts of the Indian Government and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in seeking to secure early elections by the end of this year.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Minister for that response. Will he tell us what progress the Governments have made on securing a date for those early elections, following the transfer of power?

[Alistair Burt]

So far, it has not been possible to secure a date from the new Administration. We remain absolutely convinced that an early date for elections—before the end of this year—is essential, and we will continue to support the efforts of Commonwealth and international partners to secure that.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Given that we have no firm date for elections in the Maldives, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look closely at any invitations to the Queen’s diamond jubilee that might be sent to an unelected Commonwealth President?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is taking us down a particular route, but we will have to wait and see what happens. We are quite sure that we need answers from the Administration about what has happened. I am in regular contact with the former vice-president and with former President Nasheed, to whom I spoke less than a couple of hours ago. We are watching the situation extremely carefully, but there are still questions to be answered if the situation is to be regularised as far as the United Kingdom is concerned.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the likely progress on human rights issues at (a) the next meeting of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and (b) the 56th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

The advisory committee sat from 20 to 24 February, and we shall assess its recommendations when they are presented to the Human Rights Council. I said in an earlier reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities was currently in New York pressing for progress on ending discrimination and violence against women.

[Sandra Osborne]

I thank the Minister for that response. What action are the Government taking to call on the Government of Sri Lanka to bring to justice those who are responsible for human rights abuses—particularly the many acts of violence against women—within a reasonable time scale?

[Mr Bellingham]

We obviously want the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the HRC recommendations, and we will be pushing them as hard as we can to do so. We will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady’s strong representations on the subject are passed on.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

14. What recent reports he has received on settlement activity in the west bank; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We receive regular reports from our posts in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on settlement activity on the west bank. We were concerned to hear on 22 February of moves to legalise existing housing in Shvut Rachel and Shilo, both of which are deep within the west bank, but we acknowledge that those were the first such announcements this year.

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the campaign, supported by many of my constituents, to prevent the illegal demolitions in Silwan neighbourhood and the village of al-Aqaba? Will he pledge to continue to raise this important issue with his Israeli counterparts?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, I spoke to the Israeli ambassador on 23 February about our concerns about the demolitions. We will continue to raise that issue. There have been a number of more positive moves over the past few months. I understand that some of the demolitions suggested in the Bedouin area of E1 have now been suspended, which we believe is good progress, as is the decision not to demolish the school at Khan al-Ahmar that I visited a short time ago.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Continued settlement activity on the west bank cannot be helpful in securing peace, but does the Minister believe that this is the only barrier to peace when the total withdrawal of all settlers in Gaza resulted in rule by Hamas and a continuing focus on attacks on Israeli settlements?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady rightly gives expression to the complexity of the situation in Israel and the difficulty surrounding the settlement issue, where one side sees it as an obstruction to progress but the other remembers what happened in relation to Gaza. The United Kingdom is firmly of the view that continued settlement expansion is an obstacle to peace, but that the confidence and security needed to create an overall settlement is essential between the two sides, which is why we welcome the continuing conversations in Oman between the Palestinian Authority and Israeli leaders.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

16. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in Pakistan and other countries bordering Afghanistan on the effect on security of the draw-down of allied forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

In the bilateral conversations with Pakistan and at the Istanbul conference in November last year, there was a focus on regional security in the full light of combat troop withdrawals. The long-term commitment of the international community to the security of Afghanistan will be confirmed at the NATO summit in Chicago in May.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister will be aware of the humanitarian cost of previous fighting in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, including over 1 million displaced people. What assessment has he made of the impact on children and communities of the draw-down of allied forces, and what steps has he put in place to mitigate it?

[Alistair Burt]

The Department for International Development has a substantial programme to assist those in Afghanistan. We are acutely conscious of the issues affecting withdrawal. There will be a further conference in Tokyo this year where the long-term commitment on development will be considered. This conference can be seen in conjunction with those in Bonn and Chicago, as I mentioned, that will look comprehensively at the international community’s support for Afghanistan post-2014. Development issues and the protection of women and children are a key feature of that.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to encourage the use of the UK's embassies and high commissions to support the promotion of UK exports.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

Supporting UK firms is at the heart of our diplomacy. Our missions overseas are taking a leading role in campaigns to win new business. We have a dynamic Trade Minister in my noble Friend Lord Green and a highly focused prosperity directorate at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are determined to play our part in driving up British exports.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Under the previous Government, the number of embassies we had overseas was reduced and exports flatlined as a proportion of gross domestic product, whereas in Germany exports have increased as a proportion of GDP—up to 50% now. What steps are the Government taking to open more embassies to help firms like Herbert Engineering in South West Norfolk, which plans to export 65% of all its goods next year to countries as far away as China and Dubai?

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Our exports in 2011 were up 10.7%, while our trade deficit fell from £36.7 billion in 2010 to £28 billion in 2011. It is, of course, our intention to get into surplus. That is one reason why we are opening new missions around the world, including five in Africa. I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted the excellent engineering business, R J Herbert Engineering, which is a superb example of a medium-sized engineering company succeeding in tough export markets.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

18. What reports he has received on humanitarian access to conflict areas in Burma.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

We receive regular updates on humanitarian access to conflict areas in Burma from non-governmental organisations and from our embassy and Department for International Development officials in Rangoon. Access is still very restricted, and we continue to press the Burmese Government to increase humanitarian access to all areas.

[Graham Jones]

In addition to medical supplies, Médecins sans Frontières has recently highlighted the chronic lack of antiretroviral and tuberculosis drugs in Burma. In the light of that, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Burmese Government about the international supply of these drugs?

[Mr Browne]

The Foreign Secretary visited Burma last month—he was the first Foreign Secretary to do so since 1955—and had a wide range of productive conversations with the Burmese Government and others. It is worth pointing out that although no United Kingdom aid goes through the Burmese Government directly, the United Kingdom is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Burma, and will be spending an average of £46 million a year until 2015 on precisely the sort of projects that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I understand that our ambassador meets Burmese Ministers regularly. What is at the top of his agenda when it comes to highlighting the continued abuse of human rights?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the appalling abuses of human rights that have been taking place in Burma for many years. I think it reasonable for us to acknowledge that progress appears to have been made in recent months, and, when appropriate, to reward it, but we should not anticipate further progress before it has happened. Our ambassador and others, including Ministers, are keen to continue to press the Burmese Government to liberalise society further in that country.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The progress in Burma is very welcome, and no doubt the Burmese Government will want to see changes to the current sanctions regime. I was pleased to note that the Minister said that it was probably too early for that to happen, but what discussions have been held with our European counterparts about the issue?

[Mr Browne]

A decision is likely to be made in a few months’ time. I think it right for Britain to maintain a position on trade with Burma which is very tough, and which takes account of the concerns about human rights abuses in the country that are expressed frequently in the House, but we want to maintain a common European position, because we feel that that is an effective way in which to proceed. We will maintain that position with a hard-headed attitude which I hope will meet with the hon. Lady’s approval.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday. We agreed on a number of additions to our sanctions against the Assad regime, notably the freezing of the assets of the Central Bank of Syria, a ban on imports of gold and precious metals, a ban on cargo flights, and the listing of seven more Government Ministers.

[Julian Sturdy]

I am always sympathetic about the dangers facing the Israeli people from some of their aggressive neighbours, and will remain so, but does the Secretary of State agree that settlement-building programmes are never a means to an end and are, in fact, becoming a serious obstacle to peace?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree with that. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has often pointed out, we have made very strong representations to the Israeli Government whenever settlements have been announced in recent times. Settlements are on occupied land, they are illegal—that is the view of almost the whole of the rest of the world—and this is an issue that Israel must address.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Given the recent violence in Afghanistan in response to the unintentional burning of the Koran at a United States air base, and given that it took some time for President Karzai to call for an end to the violence, are the Government fully satisfied with the efforts that he is making to bring the situation fully under control?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. The British Government, along with our partners, condemn any behaviour that disrespects any religion. We welcome the apology from President Obama to President Karzai, which demonstrated sincere regret for the incident—which was, I believe, a genuine mistake, as was reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s question—and we welcome the calls for calm from the Afghan Government. We echo President Karzai’s call to the Afghan people, as he put it,

“not to allow the enemies of peace to exploit the opportunity for their own ends”.

[Mr Alexander]

Is the Foreign Secretary fully satisfied more generally with the work that President Karzai is doing? The objective of achieving peace is one that we all share, but according to the latest reports there are continuing concerns about corruption, governance and, more broadly, the provision of services and security.

[Mr Hague]

Of course there are always things that we are urging the Afghanistan Government to do, and addressing accusations of corruption and improving governance—both from Kabul and around the country—are important examples. However, our relations with the Afghanistan Government are very good. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister and President Karzai met a month ago to sign a long-term enduring partnership between our countries, which demonstrates the good basis of trust between our Governments.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

T3. Burhan Ghalioun, chairman of the Syrian national council, has said that a revolution in Syria will not be successful without the support of the minorities in that country, and he has offered to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected in a post-Assad Syria. With Kurds representing up to 20% of the Syrian population and the Christian community a further 9% to 12%, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the SNC and its chairman on this subject?

[Mr Hague]

I discussed that issue, and many others, with the chairman and his SNC colleagues in Tunis on Friday. I have long encouraged them to set out their determination to protect minorities and to seek to represent all communities in Syria. On this occasion, I was impressed by the chairman’s determination to do so and by the speech he gave to the conference in Tunis, which contained a full commitment to democracy and the protection of minorities. It is very good that the Syrian opposition have made those things clear.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

T2. Does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns about the proposed evictions of Palestinian families and the demolition of their homes in the Silwan area of East Jerusalem? If so, what representations is he making to the Israeli Government and what actions are the UK Government taking to help prevent the destruction of these Palestinian homes?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

On behalf of the United Kingdom Government, I have made representations on Silwan both to the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and the Israeli ambassador. It remains a matter of concern for us, and we continue to press on these issues in the manner that the Foreign Secretary set out a moment ago.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

T4. Given that the eurozone is a slow-motion train crash, will the Government divert some of the extra billions of pounds they are, yet again, about to throw at the inflated EU budget into furthering trade relationships with the Commonwealth? A shared language, shared accounting and legal systems and growing markets suggest that that is a no-brainer.

[Mr Hague]

I think that my hon. Friend has had the euro as both a dead man walking and a train crash in the same Question Time, so his metaphors are becoming a little confused. However, we certainly are putting much-increased effort into our trade with emerging economies across the world, including many Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend might like to know that the Commonwealth represents a steadily increasing proportion of the trade of the world. That underlines the importance of our renewed commitment to it under this Government.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

T9. Twenty-four hours ago, a new President was sworn in in Yemen, yet at the same time 26 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack in the south. What steps are the Government taking to support the new Government of President Hadi at this crucial moment in Yemen’s history, and when will the Foreign Secretary visit the country?

[Mr Hague]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited Yemen, as has my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and he will be visiting again in the not-too-distant future. Over the past few weeks we have had discussions with the then vice-president, who has since been inaugurated as the new President. Yemen now has a genuine moment of opportunity. We will revive the Friends of Yemen process, which has the potential to bring a lot of co-ordinated international support to the efforts of the Government of Yemen to bring stability and peace to their country.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T5. Last August the Deputy Prime Minister announced that up to £20 million from the Arab Partnership Fund would be allocated to Libya from 2012 to 2015. That investment is co-funded by the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. How much of the money will be spent on poverty-reducing economic growth?

[Alistair Burt]

I cannot confirm the exact amount because the Arab Partnership projects in Libya are still being rolled out, but money is being spent not only on building capacity in Ministries that will be designed to work on these difficult issues, but on democracy building and the like. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full list of current projects as soon as possible.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Ministers will know that there is a sizeable Somali community in Leicester, many of whom followed the deliberations of the recent conference with great interest. I am keen to find out how Ministers plan to continue to engage with that community. In addition, to what extent was the role of children discussed at the conference? What more can be done internationally to protect children in that part of the world?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

There has been a huge amount of engagement with the Somali diaspora in this country, both on the part of FCO Ministers and from the Prime Minister downwards. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met Somali diaspora groups on a number of occasions, and I have had five such meetings and have visited the Finsbury Park mosque as a result of an invitation from the local MP. We will carry on that engagement, because understanding the views of these groups and their vision for the future, including that of their children, is incredibly important.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T6. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the UK will give no support, militarily or diplomatically, to Israel if it launches an armed attack on Iran?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend will be aware of our policy on Iran, which was debated thoroughly at the beginning of last week, when the Government’s approach was massively endorsed in this House on 20 February. So we have set out our policy in detail. We are not calling for or advocating a military attack on Iran, and at this moment we advise others not to do so. But we also believe that it is important to keep Iran under pressure and that no options are taken off the table.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

If the Secretary of State is committed to the UK being a world leader on business and human rights, as I am sure he is, what is he doing to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to drop the provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that will shift liability for cost and insurance away from multinational companies and on to innocent victims in developing countries?

[Mr Hague]

My Department has had discussions with the Ministry of Justice about this matter, and the hon. Lady will be aware of the Government’s position, as set out by the Justice Secretary. Of course if there is any change in that position, it will be for my right hon. and learned Friend to announce it.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

T7. There is considerable nervousness among Christian communities across the middle east in these uncertain times, and apparently many Copts are beginning to leave Egypt. What discussions have the Government had with the Egyptian authorities on religious tolerance?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend raises a subject of considerable concern, not only in Egypt, but across a range of countries, as she rightly said. We engage bilaterally with those countries on the importance of the rule of law and of rights, stressing to Governments how important those things are. Equally, I keep in contact with the non-governmental organisations that deal with this issue; I saw representatives of Christians from Pakistan in my office just last week. This is a matter of concern all over the region and so the remarks made by Burhan Ghalioun in Syria about reaching out to Christian minorities there were particularly significant.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Reference has been made this afternoon to the emerging political and security difficulties in Afghanistan. Have the Government assessed how capable the Afghan state is of effectively administering the presidential elections due in 2014?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Lady says, those elections are due in 2014. Over previous elections the Afghan state, supported by the international security assistance force, has shown an increasing capability to administer elections safely. I am sure that that capability will increase much further over the next two years, given that the build-up of the Afghan national security forces is continuing. As she knows, it is our intention that by the end of 2014 the Afghan national security forces will be able to conduct security all over Afghanistan for themselves, and that includes supervising elections.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T8. Given the growing tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran, which are extremely worrying, what are we doing to upgrade our diplomatic support to Azerbaijan, which is both politically and economically extremely important to this country?

[Mr Hague]

We have good links with Azerbaijan, particularly given its current membership of the UN Security Council—it joined a few months ago. So our diplomatic contact and co-ordination with Azerbaijan has increased. As to the level of representation, we regularly review that but I do not have any new announcement to make about that at the moment.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Earlier, the Foreign Secretary outlined the atrocities in Syria. Will he say in which circumstances he would stop maintaining diplomatic relations with Syria?

[Mr Hague]

There are good arguments for and against maintaining diplomatic relations in these circumstances. We have seen in recent days some of the advantages of maintaining relations, because our ambassador in Damascus has been very active in trying to secure the safe passage out of Syria of the injured journalist whom we were discussing earlier. Having people on the ground and having a channel of communication has a value, even when we so deeply disapprove of the conduct of the Government concerned. Of course, we must keep under review for security reasons the position of our embassy in Damascus and I stress that that is something that I keep under very intense review.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T10. The Minister will be aware of the shocking murder of Christians in Borno state, northern Nigeria, by Boko Haram. Will he outline what steps the British Government might be able to take to assist the Nigerian Government in dealing with that problem?

[Mr Bellingham]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s outrage at these attacks on both Christians and Muslim groups in northern Nigeria. The Prime Minister met President Goodluck Jonathan last week and the UK has offered to share experience on counter-terrorism policy, doctrine and legal frameworks. We have also offered to promote more bridge-building initiatives between Christians and Muslims.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In view of the fact that the Argentines are economically blockading the Falkland Islands and threatening the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, will the Foreign Secretary make representations to his right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary to ensure that the UK votes differently at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank and instead supports American efforts to galvanise a coalition among G20 countries to deny such loans to Argentina? In fact, will he make representations that we should stop making contributions to those loans?

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s fury and frustrations about the economic blockade that the Argentines are seeking to enforce against the Falkland Islands. On this specific issue, I have made inquiries as I know that there are concerns in the House and I have been told that no UK taxpayers’ money is spent on providing finance to Argentina through the World Bank, nor does the Department for International Development give any aid at present to Argentina.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Building on the success of the marine protected area in the British Indian ocean, may I ask the Minister what recent assessment he has made of the merits of establishing marine protected areas in Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that 90% of Britain’s biodiversity lies in the overseas territories, which is why a very important part of the forthcoming White Paper on the overseas territories will be devoted to how we manage that habitat and its biodiversity. Of course, the territories he has mentioned will play an important part in that exercise.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must now move on.

Health and Social Care Bill

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Health and Social Care Bill following a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to MPs and peers and the Government’s response.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I am glad to have this opportunity again to set out the purposes of the Health and Social Care Bill. It will give patients more information and choice, so that they can share in decision-making about their care. It empowers front-line doctors and nurses to lead the delivery of care for their patients. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy and strengthens the voice of patients and the role of local government in integrating services and strengthening public health.

The values of the Bill are simple: putting patients first, trusting doctors and nurses, focusing on results for patients and maintaining the founding values of the NHS. We are constantly looking to reinforce those values, strengthening the NHS to meet the challenges it faces. We know change is essential; we will not let the NHS down by blocking change. Throughout the development and progress of this Bill, we have engaged extensively with NHS staff, the public, and parliamentarians.

The Health and Social Care Bill is the most scrutinised public Bill in living memory—[Interruption.] With over 200 hours of debate between the two Chambers and 35 days in Committee, we have ensured that Members and peers have had every opportunity to examine, understand and amend the Bill to—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I granted this question because I want Members to have the chance to scrutinise the Government of the day, but courtesy dictates that the Secretary of State’s statement must be heard.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We have made this legislation better and stronger. We have made significant changes to the Bill, including in response to the NHS Future Forum’s work and we have been open to any further changes that would improve or clarify the Bill. For example, so far in the Lords, the Government have accepted amendments tabled by a number of Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Baroness Williams wrote to their Liberal Democrat colleagues explaining their support for the Bill, with those changes and some further amendments they wish to see. They said, for example, how we must

“rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS”.

I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill is about quality, not competition on price. It will not permit any NHS organisation to be taken over by the private sector. It will put patients’ interests first. The Bill does not permit any extension of charging, and care will be free, based on need. Where the doctors and nurses on the ground know that competition is in the best interests of their patients—where it is based entirely on the quality of the care and treatment provided and not in any way on the price of that care and treatment—then competition can play an important role in driving up standards throughout the NHS.

We will not see a market free-for-all or a “US-style” insurance system in this country. I believe in the national health service. I am a passionate supporter of our NHS, and that is why I understand the passionate debate it arouses. It is also why I resent those Opposition Members who seek to misrepresent the NHS, its current achievements and its future needs. We—and I do mean all of us on the Government Benches—are using the debates in the Lords further to reassure all those who care about the NHS. I am grateful for this chance to reassure all my hon. Friends regarding the positive and beneficial effects of debate in the other place and about the work we are all doing to secure a positive future for the NHS.

[Andy Burnham]

On Friday, the Prime Minister promised there would be no more amendments, and yesterday lunch time the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said that the whole Government backed the Bill as it stood, but hours later the Deputy Prime Minister called for changes to a flagship Bill that he has supported all the way. The Government appear to be in complete disarray—or perhaps this was pre-agreed coalition choreography for the Deputy Prime Minister to save face. Either way, this House is entitled to ask, “What is going on?” The NHS matters too much for us to allow it to be carved up in the unelected House in cosy coalition deals, so we are grateful, Mr Speaker, that you have brought Ministers here today to start providing some answers.

First, on the process, will the Secretary of State tell the House when he was first made aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter? Was he consulted about its contents in advance and did he consent to the apparent change of policy or was he overruled by the Deputy Prime Minister? Who is in charge of health policy? Is anyone in charge?

Secondly, on policy, will the Secretary of State update the House on the precise detail of the changes that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking in the five areas he identifies? For instance, we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister, having previously defended the 49% private patient income cap for foundation trusts, now wants “additional safeguards”. What are those safeguards? Are the changes still under discussion or do they now represent Government policy? Yesterday, the Liberal Democrats played up the changes, but the Secretary of State’s Department has dismissed them as minor. Is his view the same as ours that the amendments do not affect the substance of his Bill but rather are cosmetic changes designed to make the Deputy Prime Minister look good in advance of his spring conference?

The Prime Minister has been clear: this Bill is about competition at the heart of the health service. The Deputy Prime Minister has supported it all the way. Are not these just empty gestures designed to save face? This is a bad Bill that cannot be amended. Last week, the president of the Lib Dems spoke for his party when he admitted that the Bill should have been dropped. Does that not explain what this posturing is all about? In their heart of hearts the Liberal Democrats hate this Bill but have not had the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and say so. Both coalition parties are putting their political pride before the best interests of the NHS. Is it not time for them to do what they said they would do at the start—listen to doctors and nurses and drop this Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman even read the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, judging from what he has just said. I will tell him exactly what the process is. The process is for detailed discussion in another place. There were 15 days of debate in Committee in another place. It is the habit in another place not to amend the Bill in Committee, but to use those debates in Committee as a basis for amendment on Report. The process is straightforward. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, together with Baroness Shirley Williams, explained to their Liberal Democrat colleagues some of the amendments on which we have been working together in order to make sure that there is further reassurance. [Interruption.] That is literally true.

Let me put the right hon. Gentleman right about something. What is at the heart of the Bill is improving the quality of care for patients. I note that he did not quote me or represent that he was quoting me. I have never said that competition is at the heart of the Bill. Competition is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve quality. Where competition enables us to deliver better quality for patients, we should use it. Where integration of services and an absence of competition is in the interests of patients in delivering quality, that is the basis upon which the NHS should proceed. The Bill has been tremendously strengthened and is now a long-term sustainable basis for the NHS to deliver the quality of care for patients that we are looking for, while maintaining all the values of the NHS.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to understand how it can be that a party which, when in government, promoted practice-based commissioning that involved GPs in commissioning, promoted private sector investment in NHS institutions, and promoted the commissioning of care from private sector providers where that was in the best interests of patients now thinks all those principles undermine the national health service to which he, we and presumably the Opposition are still committed?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes extremely good points. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) appears to be trying to represent us as not agreeing about matters. He is chronically incapable of agreeing with himself. In June 2006 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that what the NHS needed in future was foundation trusts, practice-based commissioning, more involvement for the private sector and payment by results. The thing is that Labour in office did not achieve any of those things. It is only through the mechanism of the legislation that we are putting together that we are going to enable the NHS to achieve those things in a way that does not entail all the difficulties that Labour had, such as getting the private sector involvement with the NHS wrong. We are going to get those things right.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Salisbury convention requires the House of Lords not to reject a measure if it has an electoral mandate? As all the parties in the House were mandated not to totally reorganise the national health service, would it not be wholly proper for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords to have some guts, join with Labour and Cross Benchers and vote the whole measure down?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about that. Perhaps he was not here last Wednesday when we debated health matters. [Hon. Members: “He was.”] Well, then he did not listen. I set out very clearly how the Bill was responding to the manifesto mandate that we in our party had, and it was a manifesto mandate that the Liberal Democrats brought to the coalition Government, not least in relation to the role of local government, bringing greater democratic accountability, which is precisely how some of these things have been achieved. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a mandate in the Lords, he might like to tell his colleagues that at the last election his party was elected on the basis of supporting foundation trusts, for example, to be able to be free to increase their private income.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If I am to accommodate anywhere near the level of interest in this important matter, I shall require brevity—to be led, as so often, by Mr John Redwood.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Am I right to tell my constituents that the purpose of this reform is to give more choice of care to patients, and to give more power to GPs to deliver better free treatment?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, absolutely right.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman inherited an NHS with record short waiting times, record high public satisfaction and improving competitiveness, does he ever in his darkest moments wish that he had not embarked on this damaging and costly upheaval?

[Mr Lansley]

At the last election the average waiting time for in-patient treatment was 8.4 weeks. In December 2001, when the most recent data were published, it had come down to 7.7 weeks. The right hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment in the NHS is now more than half what it was at the last election.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for accepting many of the amendments to the Bill proposed by our colleagues and others and thank his colleague in the House of Lords for accommodating not only Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, but Labour peers who have joined us in bringing forward such amendments. Will he give an undertaking to continue to work collaboratively to improve the Bill to the very end and reject Labour’s allegations that it did not force privatisation on the NHS, which we are definitely not doing?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and thank him for his positive remarks about my noble Friend Earl Howe. I attach to that my appreciation to Baroness Northover for the work she has been doing in another place and to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is responsible for care services, who has been heavily engaged in discussing some of the amendments. I recall that nearly a year ago there was a clear expression of interest from the Liberal Democrats, as a party, on how they felt the Bill should be improved. I was pleased that we were able to bring forward changes that reflected virtually all those. Indeed, they are reflected directly in what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his letter yesterday.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

If the competition in the Bill is just an extension of what the previous Government did by introducing independent sector treatment centres and everything else, why are more than 90 clauses writing into the law of the land that competition policy should run the NHS, not the NHS, as has been the case in the past?

[Mr Lansley]

I would not characterise this as an extension of the independent sector treatment centres programme. That is precisely what we do not need to do with the private sector. Under the Labour Government, the private sector was paid 11% more than the NHS, which was wrong, and in another place there is a legislative provision that will prevent discrimination in favour of the private sector. The Bill will carry forward exactly the principles and rules of co-operation and competition, as reflected in the panel set up under the previous Government. As NHS Future Forum set out, the reason for having that in the Bill, with Monitor exercising those responsibilities, is so that there will be a health sector regulator, rather than that being done without health expertise by the Office of Fair Trading.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Some Conservative Members never criticised, and in fact supported, the previous Government when they introduced private health care providers into the NHS. In his letter, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the use of private health care firms has been explicitly prevented as a result of his involvement. Is that really true? If so, should someone not tell him who is running this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that we are a coalition Government and, therefore, this is a coalition Bill that reflects the views of the whole coalition. To that extent, I reiterate to her and to the House that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has quite rightly said, the legislation will not allow discrimination in favour of the private sector in the way that the Labour party did.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

All those royal colleges, all those nurses and all those doctors know that this Bill is about privatisation. Along come these tin-pot Liberals, who put forward an idea to make a few marginal shifts. It is the biggest con trick of all time. This is about trying to save the face of those people, who should have opposed the Bill from the very beginning. Drop this lousy Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what the Bill is about: improving care for patients. That is what I care about, and it ought to be what he cares about. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) who is chuntering inanely from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose, that the Chair is perfectly capable of adjudicating upon what is and is not in order and that it does not behove an hon. Member to seek to intervene in such matters? These proceedings have thus far been entirely orderly. That is the beginning and the end of the matter.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

There is an old political saying that the Liberal Democrats say one thing at one end of their constituency and another thing at the other end. Will the Secretary of State lay that rumour absolutely to rest—that they are not saying one thing at this end of Parliament and another thing at the other end?

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I, with my colleagues, have had very constructive engagement with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in government and, indeed, during the course of our debates in another place.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Following the question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), can the Secretary of State tell us when he was aware of the letter, whether he was consulted on it and whether he had any input?

[Mr Lansley]

I believe that I answered that question. The point of the letter was to reflect the discussions that we have been having.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the debate so far risks ignoring the importance of the Bill’s renewed outcomes? In cancer, for example, such focus is instrumental in driving forward earlier diagnosis, which in itself could save quite literally thousands of lives.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that in that context he shares with me the appreciation of the benefit that will come from campaigns to promote the early awareness of cancer, such as, following piloting, the roll-out of the national campaign for the awareness of bowel cancer symptoms.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Is not this another attempted PR and political fix for a mismanaged health Bill that is again in chaos? Which of the changes set out in the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter was not agreed in government first?

[Mr Lansley]

Would that be the same Bill that the right hon. Gentleman described as “consistent, coherent and comprehensive”?

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

May I ask the Secretary of State today to confirm again that when the Bill becomes law the national health service will remain funded through taxation and free at the point of use regardless of ability to pay? Opposition Front Benchers should stop scaring our constituents with grossly inappropriate scare stories.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I share his deep resentment at the way in which Opposition Members misrepresent and distort what is in the legislation and then, when people write to us concerned about what is in the legislation, accuse us of not listening to them. Opposition Members should read what is in the Bill, find out that it achieves the purposes that my hon. Friend describes and not distort it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I simply say to the Secretary of State that to refer to somebody “distorting” something is perfectly in order, but I know that he would not want to use an unparliamentary term and talk about anything being “misrepresented”. I think he is accusing a Member of being erroneous. I think that is what he has in mind.

[Mr Lansley]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. They are very erroneous.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

There is clearly no mandate, either in this House or in the other place, for these huge changes and massive top-down reorganisation. Some 162,000 people have signed an e-petition calling on the Government to drop the Bill, so may I remind the Secretary of State that his own party’s election manifesto stated that

“any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate”?

Does he not think that it is time for us to have a full debate about the issue, to find out who is in favour and who is against and to drop the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman, himself, was present at 40 sittings in Committee, during which his hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the shadow spokesman, said that the Bill had been thoroughly scrutinised. We have debated it; in another place they continue to debate it very fully and very constructively; and I believe that that will deliver us the right Bill for the NHS.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Bill is superb news for patients, and that under the Secretary of State’s new Bill, my constituent who requires less invasive hip treatment in a neighbouring county will be able to choose to go to that other provider for a less expensive operation that will do him less harm and more good?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, indeed. For the first time, not just through the legislation but through the modernisation of the national health service, patients will be able to see, through the data, the quality of the service provided in the NHS by a range of providers. When patients are asked whether they want—on that basis, as NHS patients with a free service based on their need—to be able to choose who should provide them with care, 81% say that they want that choice. We will give them that choice; Labour would not.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister’s letter promised

“additional safeguards to the private income cap”.

Will the Secretary of State explain what are these additional safeguards aimed at ensuring that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profits before patients?

[Mr Lansley]

We have already made it very clear in another place that the legislation will ensure that foundation trusts should have the freedom to increase their private income, not least in relation to international work. However, their principal legal purpose is for the benefit of NHS patients, and so they already have to make sure that they reflect that in their annual reports and in their annual plans. As the letter indicates, we are, with my hon. Friends in another place, working on a further corporate governance mechanism to ensure that foundation trusts reflect their principal legal purpose in all that they do. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the questions and the answers. Members are a little overexcited and they need to calm down just a tad. A good example of such calm will now, I am sure, be provided by Mr John Hemming.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Under Labour, local democratic accountability in the NHS was reduced by the abolition, without consultation, of the community health councils. The letter refers to the creation of the health and wellbeing boards, which will increase local democratic accountability for the health service. Will the Secretary of State explain how that will ensure that local services in the health service better fit local health needs?

[Mr Lansley]

That is a very powerful and positive step forward. Through the joint strategic needs assessment and the strategy derived from that, local authorities and the NHS will now increasingly work together to deliver integrated services extending across health, social care and public health.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State please confirm whether all the changes outlined in the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter now represent Government policy?

[Mr Lansley]

The Deputy Prime Minister’s letter accurately reflects the discussions that we have been having in another place—[Interruption] I do not see why that is funny; it is very simple—in anticipation of the amendments that will be debated there on Report.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

The previous Labour Government, of whom the shadow Secretary of State for Health was an active member, negotiated private finance initiative contracts that are costing the NHS almost £3,000 per minute. Will the Secretary of State detail what his Department and the Treasury are doing to help to alleviate this enormous level of debt, which has risked the viability of some NHS services?

[Mr Lansley]

We are helping all trusts with PFI contracts to manage the costs of those contracts. Seven trusts were left with unsustainable PFI contracts, and we have made it clear that we are willing to help support them. Labour Members—they are not even listening—are distorting the nature of this legislation, which does not permit privatisation. Given that during their time in office they left the NHS with 102 hospital projects owned, in effect, by the private sector, with a PFI debt of £67 billion, it is outrageous for them to sit there pointing fingers at us.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If this is such a marvellous measure that protects the NHS, as the Secretary of State has been saying, why is it opposed by virtually all those in the medical profession and by most of the public, to the extent that he has become almost a hate figure? Is it because he lacks persuasiveness or because this is a worthless Bill that will undermine the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to the clinical commissioning groups across the country that are delivering on the clinical leadership that will modernise and improve the NHS rather than simply sitting reading the newspapers and imagining that he knows what is going on in the NHS.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when she was in government, Baroness Williams was one of the chief architects of ruining the state education system in this country? Given that, why would a Conservative-dominated Government wish to dance to her tune?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Williams is now a member of the Liberal Democrat party, and in that respect I am not aware that she has ever transgressed in government.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Last year, when the Bill was in its infancy, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), gave me an assurance that NHS services in Trafford undergoing changes would not be privatised. In the light of all the amendments, is the Secretary of State able to offer me the same assurance, especially given that the Co-operation and Competition Panel in his Department has instructed the local NHS to devise a contract that is divided into six separate lots, with a warning that competition must be prosecuted, otherwise there will be severe consequences?

[Mr Lansley]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the same reassurance that the Minister of State gave.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the previous Government were, in 2006, given the advice that it was neither possible nor desirable to ensure that competition was not allowed in the NHS because it is subject to EU competition rules?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that important point. People such as the former Chair of the Select Committee on Health, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), who is no longer in his place, are fond of asking why we are introducing competition into the NHS. We are not. The Bill does not introduce competition to or extend competition within the NHS. The legal advice disclosed in one of today’s national newspapers makes it clear that the previous Labour Government introduced the reach of competition law into the NHS by introducing the elective choice programme in 2006.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

If the Health Secretary believes so much in the value of his Bill, why did he not take the time to explain it to voters before the general election, instead of promising that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

I refer the hon. Lady to pages 46 and 47 of the Conservative party manifesto and, to understand the Bill fully, to the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I encourage my right hon. Friend to read the minutes of the Hinckley and Bosworth health and wellbeing partnership meeting. He will see that clinical commissioning groups are in place and that there is a priority on early intervention. There is support for the health and wellbeing board and its priorities. Does that not go completely against what we are hearing from Opposition Members?

[Mr Lansley]

I had the pleasure—before Christmas, I think—of meeting the local authority, the director of public health and the three clinical commissioning groups from across Leicestershire, who are all enthusiastic about the opportunities presented by the modernisation of the NHS legislation.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Is it not clear to even this Secretary of State that the Bill is now a dog’s breakfast? Given that doctors, nurses, the public, the Lords and many Government Members oppose the Bill, what mandate does he have for such a radical change of the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point I made about the mandate. Beyond the mandate, staff across the NHS have been clear for years that they want more clinical leadership and clinically led commissioning; they want local authorities to integrate health and social care services more effectively; and they support the transfer of leadership in health improvement into the hands of local authorities. The Bill achieves those principles. That is why all through last year, the Royal College of Nursing told me that it supported the Bill.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is not the only one who has noticed a shift in the Opposition’s stance on independent sector provision. I have started to receive letters from constituents who are concerned that Labour will next call for much-loved NHS services that are currently provided by the independent and charitable sectors to be shut down. Will he assure me that if those calls are made, he will fight them?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about what would happen if we followed the apparent views of the Labour party. More than 11% of mental health services in this country are provided by the private and charitable sectors. Recently, I was in Northampton, where St Andrew’s Healthcare provides important services. I opened its new building, which will provide first-rate, state-of-the-art care for mental health patients. The attitude of the Labour party is that all that should be shut down.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Up and down the country, thousands of NHS staff have already been laid off—so much for no top-down reorganisation—and many of them are being re-employed at vast expense. When will the Secretary of State publish the costs to date, before the Bill is even law, of this overarching reorganisation?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has read the latest monthly data on the NHS work force, but since the election the number of non-clinical staff has gone down by 15,000, including the number of managers by 5,800, and the number of clinical staff has risen, including more than 4,500 more doctors.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to accommodate a few more questions, but from now on I really do require single-sentence questions without preamble and comparably pithy replies.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

My constituency has considerable health inequalities, so I very much welcome the fact that tackling health inequalities is at the heart of the Bill. Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the Opposition do not similarly welcome that?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell my hon. Friend that nothing much about the Opposition surprises me any more.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State now accept that, contrary to the impression he is trying to create, the opposition to his muddled bill is not some plot by health workers or trade unions with vested interests, but is coming from many Liberal Democrats, the majority of the British public and almost the entire health community, to whom his Government promised to listen?

[Mr Lansley]

Opposition Members distort what is in the Bill and tell their constituents that it is something other than what it is, and then they come to the House and say, “Oh, it’s muddled.” It is not muddled at all; it is they who are muddled.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I do not know any GPs who want to see inappropriate use of the private sector. They will be doing the commissioning and the public will be able to see what they are doing. Should we not let them get on with it?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was very pleased to hear what was said by Dr Sam Barwell—I think her name is Barwell.

[Dr Wollaston]

Barrell.

[Mr Lansley]

Barrell. One had only to listen to how Dr Sam Barrell and her colleagues in the Baywide clinical commissioning group in my hon. Friend’s constituency are providing clinical leadership in south Devon and Torbay to be absolutely clear that the Bill is right to give them that responsibility and that they will use it extremely well.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

If the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter agreed with the Secretary of State, as the Secretary of State has confirmed today, can he explain why the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, said on Radio 4 yesterday that there would be no further changes to the Government’s Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend and I are very clear that, as I explained—really quite carefully, I thought—it is customary in another place for some of the issues that have been debated to be reflected in amendments on Report, and that is what will happen.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the principles underpinning the Bill are that the NHS is and will remain free for all patients; that a person’s GP knows them and their needs best; and that although we are spending billions of pounds more than Labour would have done, every pound needs to work as hard as possible if the NHS is to be modern and provide care for the future?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right, not least on his point that the coalition Government are investing in the NHS, with real-terms increases each year. That contrasts with the Labour Government in Wales, who in the course of this Parliament intend to reduce spending on the NHS by more than 6% in real terms.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

At a very lively Conservative away-day last Friday, a document was issued that stated:

“If we changed or altered the bill now, we would end up in a no man’s land, and chaos.”

Four days later, can the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s position?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government’s position is that there has been very constructive debate in Committee in the Lords, and I look forward to that being reflected in equally constructive debates on Report.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats hate Labour’s health reforms, which result in hospitals being paid for operations whether they happen or not. Does the Secretary of State consider that the NHS, for which he remains responsible, would be in better health had Labour’s reforms been subjected to the parliamentary scrutiny that his have?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Many of the issues that have been the subject of some of the most heated debate on the Bill have been raised because Labour never addressed them. He is absolutely right that one result will be that in future, it will no longer be possible for £250 million to be paid to the private sector for operations that never take place.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain why he is prepared to get into further discussions with the Liberal Democrats to help them to save seats in May, but not to do so with doctors, nurses and midwives, who all oppose the Bill? Is he engaged in patching up the coalition rather than in providing proper health care?

[Mr Lansley]

I think I made that perfectly clear not only in the course of the initial consultation on the White Paper, but then through the NHS Future Forum. Many thousands of NHS staff contributed their views to the NHS Future Forum, which made many recommendations and we accepted them all.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the text of the letter merely reflects the Government’s amendments on Lords Report? The Opposition really should have done their homework, because it has been on the website since 1 February. They are four weeks out of date.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right up to a point. On Report in the other House, amendments reflecting the debate in Committee will be tabled. They might not all be Government amendments, but I am looking forward to constructive amendments. As I have said, if amendments from Liberal Democrat or indeed Labour peers are constructive and will help to improve the Bill, we will accept them.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the changes are significant, as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister, or merely reassurance, as stated by the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson?

[Mr Lansley]

The amendments on Report that we will support will, by their nature, be significant.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that our NHS reforms will outlaw the practice common under the previous Government of the private sector being paid more than the NHS for exactly the same operation?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, that is absolutely correct. For the first time, we will have a provision in law that prevents the kind of discrimination in favour of the private sector that was practised in government by the Labour party.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In an article in The Guardian on 13 February, Baroness Williams said:

“The way out of this mess is not hard to find… What that would mean for the bill would be dropping the chapter on competition”.

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he is willing to accept such an amendment from Baroness Williams?

[Mr Lansley]

As I understand it, I have come to the House to answer questions about a letter, jointly signed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Baroness Shirley Williams, which does not say that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

In 2007, when he was Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State waxed eloquent, saying that he celebrated the private sector in the NHS. Has my right hon. Friend any clue to what changed the right hon. Gentleman’s mind?

[Mr Lansley]

I think opposition changed his mind.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said this afternoon that competition will not be allowed to get in the way of sensible integration of services, so why is Trafford Healthcare proceeding with the commissioning of provider services in six penny packets, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins)? How can that support the sensible integration of services?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady must be aware that under the Bill, we will move from primary care trusts that, under current public procurement rules, are very often not capable of integrating services as they would want, to clinical commissioning groups, which will have the freedom and power to do so.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that clauses 22 and 25 of the Bill remain, which for the first time ever put a duty on the Government to deal with health inequality.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed true, and it gives the lie, if you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, not to anybody in the House, but to those who would represent the legislation as having the effect of widening health inequalities. Health inequalities widened under the Labour Government. For the first time, our legislation will place on all NHS bodies and the Secretary of State a duty to tackle and reduce health inequalities.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that Tower Hamlets clinical commissioning group in my constituency has decided today to ask the Government to drop the Bill, citing the bureaucracy it will generate as a key reason. When the structures he has established to advise him tell him that they want no part in the nightmare that he is creating, is it not time to think again and drop the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

I have been to Sam Everington’s practice in Bromley-by-Bow, which has been gearing itself up. It will use the powers in the Bill and will do so very effectively.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Foundation trusts will be given the freedom to increase private services and patients will have the right to choose any provider that meets NHS standards. Was the Secretary of State as surprised as I was to learn that that was in the Labour party’s 2010 manifesto?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I suppose that we should not be surprised that the Labour party in opposition has abandoned everything it said in government, but for it to abandon so quickly so many of the things it said even in its manifesto is pretty dramatic.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

If I may say so, I think that the Secretary of State and the Government have been at sixes and sevens over this issue in recent weeks and they would be better off dropping this disastrous Bill. However, may I press the right hon. Gentleman on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)? If he now agrees that the amendments are significant, as the Deputy Prime Minister has boasted, does that mean that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson was wrong to downplay them as a mere reassurance?

[Mr Lansley]

I am clear that sometimes we need to ensure through amendments that we not only achieve the effect that we intend, but reinforce it in legislation. Some of them will reassure, and some will have significant effects directly on the governance of the NHS.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

To avoid the continuation of the erroneous—that is the word, I think—statements from the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the GP survey continually referred to was filled in and returned by about 6% of GPs only, and therefore is not reflective of the views of GPs across the country, such as those at HealthEast, who are keen to get on with commissioning quality health care for their patients?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have the benefit, as do many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, of talking to GPs across the country, individually and in clinical commissioning groups. The issue to address is not the distortion of legislation and its effects but realising benefits for patients. That is where we are. We want to achieve and improve quality for patients. That is where GPs are, where nurses are and where doctors and health professionals are. The legislation is part of the broader process of devolving responsibility to them and patients to allow that to happen.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

What is the Secretary of State most worried about: the frightening chaos of the billion pound commissioning underpinning the reforms that will benefit Circle health care, United Health, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, McKinsey and the rest at the expense of patients; or the personal embarrassment that he would feel if he did what he should do—if he listened to the professionals and the thousands of people who have signed the e-petition—and dropped the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

I will tell the hon. Lady what most frightens me: it is that if we had carried on the inheritance from Labour, with waste and bureaucracy escalating and a year-on-year reduction in productivity in the NHS, in a financially challenged environment the quality of patient care would have suffered. At the moment, we have an NHS that is doing magnificently well at raising performance across the service while transforming itself to meet future challenges.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

This feels like groundhog day—nothing ever seems to change. Every time the Labour party brings this issue to the House, we hear the same statements, questions and scaremongering. Does the Secretary of State agree that we hear nothing new from the Labour party? All we hear is the same scaremongering—nothing new, no new thinking.

[Mr Lansley]

I bring good news to my hon. Friend. Out there in the real world, things are changing: there are clinicians, doctors and nurses across the country who are taking the opportunity of this responsibility to improve services for patients; there are patients who realise that they will get additional voice and choice; and there are local authorities that realise that, through their health and wellbeing boards, they can use this to drive improvements in health for their population. Those are the things that are changing. Unfortunately, not only is the Labour party not changing but it is going backwards.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), but it struck me as gobbledegook. Will he spell out in plain English the additional safeguards to the private income cap that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to ensure that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profit before patients?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have to look at the amendments tabled in the other place tomorrow.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend detail for the House how the Bill will help to improve patient safety and quality of care, which are so important to my constituents and those of everybody in the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because there are a number of ways in which I think this issue will be important. First, for the first time, how we improve patient safety will be published in a consistent way, as one of the five domains of the outcomes framework. Secondly, that will be demonstrated by achievement—for example, we have the lowest ever levels of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and clostridium difficile infection. Thirdly, the NHS Commissioning Board, which will be established under the legislation, will take national responsibility for the delivery of patient safety, linking it directly to commissioning, whereas in the past the National Patient Safety Agency was an organisation on its own and was not directly linked to the exercise of commissioning responsibility.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

In Chester, we are seeing the effects of tens of thousands of patients fleeing the NHS in Wales to seek better treatment in England. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that there is nothing in the Bill that will cause the English NHS to be as bad as what we see over the border in north Wales?

[Mr Lansley]

Not only are the Labour Government in Wales cutting the budget of the NHS, where we are increasing it, but the situation is as my hon. Friend describes, with 91.6% of patients in England being seen and treated within 18 weeks, whereas in Wales the comparable figure is just 68%.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

This urgent question has been very much a repeat of last Wednesday’s lengthy debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last 50 or so minutes has been more about spiteful politics than about policy and patient care?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but fortunately this urgent question has given me another opportunity to remind everybody in this House and beyond that this Government’s purpose is to empower patients, get front-line doctors and nurses in charge in the NHS, cut our tiers of bureaucracy and improve the quality of care for patients.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank colleagues for their succinctness, which enabled 53 Back Benchers to question the Secretary of State in 42 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. I am indebted to the House.

Under the terms of Standing Order No. 24, I now call Mr William Cash to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, he has three minutes in which to make such an application.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

16:22

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I seek leave to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the legal and other action now to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in upholding the rule of law and protecting UK interests in respect of the nature and content of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance in the economic and monetary union. In my remarks I shall refer to it as “the treaty”.

This is not an EU treaty. The fifth draft was made available only immediately before the last European Council. It confers functions on EU institutions, including the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The importance of this matter is that the treaty—a non-EU treaty—is between only 25 of the 27 EU member states, the Prime Minister having exercised the veto. However, the treaty makes use of certain institutions of the EU, in particular the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The United Kingdom Government have expressed grave reservations about the legality of the arrangements, as demonstrated by the recent letter from the UK ambassador to the EU, Sir Jon Cunliffe, to the secretary-general of the European Council, which has been placed in the Library. Concerns expressed by pre-eminent lawyers about the treaty include concerns about breaches of European and other aspects of the rule of law, both in principle and by reference to specific articles of the treaty.

The urgency of the matter arises from the fact that there is a European Council meeting on Thursday 1 March, which the Prime Minister will attend. The question of the legality of the treaty and whether the Government intend to take the issue to the European Court of Justice is a matter of great urgency, given that other member states and their Parliaments, such as the Bundestag yesterday, are deciding the issues and the ratification of the treaty. In respect of the United Kingdom, there are legitimate concerns about the legality of the conferral under the treaty of those functions on the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, which are institutions of the EU.

The European Scrutiny Committee is taking evidence on the treaty. Last Thursday at business questions, the Leader of the House declined the request I made as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee to allow a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House. We are holding an inquiry into the treaty and its legality. The Foreign Secretary has twice declined the unanimous request of the European Scrutiny Committee to appear before the Committee in reasonable time, although the Minister for Europe did give evidence last Thursday.

It is essential that the United Kingdom Parliament, on behalf of the voters of the UK who are affected by the treaty proposals and the Government’s decision on the question of legality, debates this subject as a matter of urgency. My proposal is supported by many Members of Parliament. I suggest that the Attorney-General attend the debate. I would of course be grateful for the support of the House for my proposal for an emergency debate to be held before the European Council, which takes place on Thursday this week.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Members may sit at this stage. They are ahead of themselves, but we are grateful to them. They are not backward in coming forward.

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, legal and other action now to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in upholding the rule of law and protecting United Kingdom interests in respect of the nature and content of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance in the economic and monetary union.

I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Gentleman, and I am satisfied that the matter that he has raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

Application agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

Members will be pleased to know that there is no requirement for me to count them, although I hope that I would be capable of so doing, as no objection has been voiced. The hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Wednesday 29 February, as the first item of public business. It will last for three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Gentleman’s application.

Eradication of Slavery (UK Company Supply Chains)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

16:27

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require retailers and manufacturers in the UK to make annual statements of measures taken by them to eradicate slavery and human trafficking and exploitation from their direct supply chains; to require large retailers and manufacturers to provide customers with information about measures taken by them to eliminate slavery and human trafficking and exploitation; to provide victims of slavery with necessary protections and rights; and for connected purposes.

This House is rightly proud of its contribution to the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade 200 years ago, but a lesson that we need to learn is that we cannot be complacent. It is shocking that in the last quarter of a century the existence of modern forms of slavery has actually grown. From child labourers on west African cocoa farms to Chinese prisoners being exported to the Maldives to build infrastructure projects, slavery is thriving around the world. As consumers, we enjoy the cheap products that forced labour has helped to deliver. The aim of my Bill, which is modelled on legislation already in force in California, is to ensure that consumers know when forced labour has been used to make a product that they buy. Armed with that knowledge, they might well choose an alternative.

The Bill would require large UK manufacturers and retailers to report on the following issues in their annual reports and on their websites. They would have to report on how they verified product supply chains to evaluate and address the risks of human trafficking and slave labour. They would have to describe the audits that they conducted to ensure that suppliers adhered to company standards. They would need to certify, through direct suppliers, that the materials used to make a product were from countries that did not engage in slavery and human trafficking and that complied with anti-trafficking laws. They would have to describe their procedures to ensure that employees and contractors maintained company standards on human trafficking and slavery, and the training on human trafficking that was provided to personnel working in supply chain management, focusing on where the risk was greatest. In addition, my Bill would place a duty on a company that uncovered trafficking or slavery within its supply chain to provide remediation to victims. This could include education for children, or refuge or payment to adult victims.

Clearly, such a range of responsibilities would be a burden on a smaller company, so the reporting requirements of the Bill would apply only to companies that generated sales worldwide of at least £500 million. That stretches from such companies as Ocado to Tesco via brands such as L’Oréal and Imperial Tobacco, and it excludes smaller companies. The burden is not fundamentally a regulatory one; it is a responsibility to report. My belief is that, confronted with knowledge of such a practice within their supply chain, most successful companies would want to drive it out. Customers would also want to choose slavery-free products.

So what do I mean by slavery and trafficking? In 1930, the International Labour Organisation convention concerning forced and compulsory labour defined slavery in a way that included

“all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”

This century, the UN protocol on trafficking in persons defines trafficking as

“the recruitment…(etc) of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion…(etc) to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs…Most simply, slavery covers anyone who is forced to work without pay, being economically exploited and unable to walk away.”

It is an archaic and demeaning practice, yet as the campaign group Slavery Footprint, which can provide people with a phone app to count how many slaves are working for them, points out, people are made vulnerable to this kind of exploitation by high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, discrimination, corruption, political conflict or cultural acceptance of practices.

If we all agree that slavery and trafficking are wrong, why has more not been done? I want to recognise that some companies have done good work to eliminate slavery. Let us take chocolate, for instance. In 2001, the global cocoa industry committed to ending child trafficking in its supply chains through the US-based Harkin-Engel protocol, but it worked too slowly. By 2009, it was estimated that there were still more than 1.8 million children working in the cocoa industry, many of them trafficked.

Progress is now being made. As the MP representing Mars chocolate factory in Slough, I am proud to say that in 2009 it committed to certify independently its entire cocoa supply by 2020. Mars launched the first Rainforest Alliance-certified chocolate bar in the UK —Galaxy—in 2010, and will go Fairtrade with Maltesers this summer. I gather from its competitor Nestlé that KitKat is also being certified by UTZ.

John Lewis Partnership is an example of a retail company that is acting. It has explicit requirements in its suppliers’ code of practice, which is available on its website, to prevent the employment of children and the use of forced labour. Many smaller UK companies that supply large companies based in California are already being required to report as part of their supply chain audit.

Not all the Bill’s sponsors, who include 11 Members from six different parties, will share my concern about abuse of the process whereby unemployed people can get work experience in retail stores here in Britain. This can be a great chance to learn about the world of work, but in some cases in my constituency people have received no training, have been used to substitute for paid labour and face withdrawal of benefits if they discontinue the placement after the first week. The Bill was not designed to address that problem. Indeed, when I conceived it, I thought its application to UK-based companies would not extend beyond parts of the agriculture and food industries that were already regulated by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. However, if we are not vigilant, exploitation will not be confined to the poorer countries where it thrives most. In enabling public information to be provided, the Bill aims to use the power of the purchaser to prevent slavery and exploitation.

I hope that by raising the issue and debating it, we shall accelerate progress towards the eradication of slavery from the supply chains of every major UK company before the decade is out.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Fiona Mactaggart, Mr Richard Bacon, Hugh Bayley, Tom Brake, Michael Connarty, Mark Durkan, Jane Ellison, Dr Julian Lewis, Caroline Lucas, Siobhain McDonagh, Jim Shannon and Jim Sheridan present the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed (Bill 311).

Estimates Day

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[5th Allotted Day]

Vote on Account 2012-13

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Department for Transport

Transport and the Economy

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: The Third Report from the Transport Committee, on Transport and the Economy, HC 473, and the Government response, HC 962; and the Fifteenth Report from the Transport Committee, on Counting the cost: financial scrutiny of the Department for Transport 2011-12, HC 1560.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—

(1) resources, not exceeding £3,413,771,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,

(2) resources, not exceeding £3,478,411,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £5,850,719,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Francois.)

16:36

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to launch a debate on two reports from the Transport Committee about expenditure by the Department for Transport. The first, “Transport and the economy”, considered how spending on transport could boost economic growth, and was published last March. The second, “Counting the cost”, was published only last week. That report follows up important aspects of our earlier work and comments on changes to departmental expenditure plans, particularly the new transport projects announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn.

I should begin by putting the Department’s expenditure into context. In 2010-11 the Department’s budget was £12.8 billion, which was split between capital projects and ongoing resources spending. As a result of the spending review, that budget was due to decrease by 15% in real terms by 2015. Resource spending, covering items such as local authority grants and the bus service operators’ grant bus subsidy scheme, was cut by 21%.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend. During the last two or three months, I have observed an increasing number of complaints from constituents whose bus services are being cut in Runcorn and Widnes. Has the Committee made any assessment of the wider impact on bus services throughout the country?

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee investigated the impact of spending cuts on bus services, and found that cuts had been made in more than 70% of transport authorities. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that it is currently re-examining the issue.

The cut in the bus subsidy scheme was larger than the 11% cut in capital spending. The situation has changed a little following the autumn statement, with some extra money provided for capital projects

The fact that most of the Department’s budget is spent by external agencies, specifically Network Rail, Transport for London and local authorities, makes it more difficult for the Department to have detailed control over those areas. However, the Department was generally regarded as having emerged relatively well from the spending review, despite the significant cut in its budget. I welcome the Government’s statement that they believe that spending on transport infrastructure can help to boost the economy.

It is important to recognise that congestion on the road, rail and air networks remains a major constraint on connectivity and growth. There is clear evidence that relieving congestion by providing new capacity helps to increase productivity and promotes economic development. It is also important to note that congestion is not the only indication of the need for transport investment, particularly where regeneration is required and disparities are evident.

The last major Government study of the relationship between transport and economic growth was the Eddington report, commissioned by the previous Administration. It showed that transport is necessary for economic growth, but of itself is not sufficient. To be effective, transport and economic development must go hand in hand. Building transport links to Canary Wharf regenerated the area because that was linked with an economic strategy. It is not clear that the Government appreciate the significance of this point made strongly in our report.

Our report expressed concern that the abolition of regional structures may lead to the absence of economic development strategies required to maximise the potential of transport investment across local authority boundaries as well as making it more difficult to prioritise transport projects of wider significance. The Department has encouraged the local enterprise partnerships to fill that gap and it is now suggesting that transport funding could be devolved to groups of local authorities and LEPs. How will this work in practice, however? This new approach to regional planning might work well in some areas but could struggle to take off in others, and there will be parts of the country which lack a strong voice or which fall between two strong regional centres and are overlooked by both.

The Department did not identify the issues it is seeking to tackle through its spending on transport. For example, the Government state that they want to “rebalance the economy”. That can mean a number of different policies, perhaps including more private sector employment, reducing disparities between regions, or reducing reliance on the banking sector and encouraging manufacturing. How are the decisions on transport spending related to these objectives and what assessment takes place to identify which transport modes are most appropriate to deliver them? How is the balance of spending between road and rail determined? Has any assessment been made of the significance of the absence of an aviation policy on economic activity generated by international connectivity? The answers to those questions are not clear. That is because the Department does not have an explicit transport strategy and lacks a coherent framework for deciding which transport schemes to prioritise.

I must note, however, that some progress is being made. Rail and aviation policy papers are due very soon and the Committee is looking forward to scrutinising them. There has been an important review of the Highways Agency, a national policy statement regarding ports has been agreed, and a policy statement for national networks is awaited. Will the Minister assure us that we will soon see a Government strategy for transport? That is greatly needed and has been long awaited.

The Committee considered the appraisal that is undertaken of transport projects. There is sometimes too much focus on cost-benefit analysis: not all the costs and benefits of a project can be monetised. For example, the wider economic benefits of a project or its environmental impacts are often excluded. It is also often forgotten that the economic appraisal is just one aspect of a more complex appraisal process based on five areas, including strategic fit and project affordability. Unless an overall strategy is identified, it is not possible to assess the strategic fit of any individual investment. Greater transparency in decision making is important. No doubt we will debate High Speed 2 in more detail on another occasion, but it is notable that although a huge amount of material about the project has been published, no information about how it is to be financed has been made public.

In respect of smaller schemes, there is often very little published information about the strategic fit or how they are to be funded. The new projects announced in the autumn statement seem to have been funded on the basis that they were ready to proceed. It is unclear whether they are necessarily the investments that offer the best value for money or that will meet transport objectives. The Department contributes significantly to two cross-departmental funds—the regional growth fund and the growing places fund—but no information is available on where the Department’s financial contributions have been invested or to what effect.

Strategic fit should include consideration of how a scheme contributes to rebalancing the economy. The major investment that has taken place in transport infrastructure in London and the south-east is clearly necessary, but transport investment across the UK is required. Interestingly, £15 billion will be invested in Crossrail, about £5 billion of it directly from Government funds, and £5.5 billion will be invested in Thameslink, while a reappraisal is taking place on whether half a billion pounds should be invested in The Northern Way, improving rail services right across the north.

The new transport spending announced in the autumn statement is welcome, but the analysis of the regional breakdown published by the Institute for Public Policy Research North raises concerns. It found that 84% of planned new infrastructure spending would be in London and the south-east, compared with just 6% in northern England. That works out at an average spend per head of £2,731 in London compared with just £5 in the north-east. The Passenger Transport Executive Group has produced similar information showing that transport spending is more than twice as much per head in London and the south-east than it is in Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands and the north-east. That imbalance is a matter of concern.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the discrepancy in the level of spend in London and the south-east, which occurred under the previous Government, as the Select Committee report made clear, and is apparently continuing under this Government, as the IPPR figures that she cited made clear. Did she and her Committee consider why the methodology by which transportation schemes are assessed continues to drive an answer that skews the cash so much towards one small part of our country?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The imbalance to which he refers dates back many years and decades, spanning many Governments. The Committee did examine the issue and has stated, in recognition of it, that congestion should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding where investment should be made. The importance of economic development and the potential of transport investment in relation to that should be recognised too. The Committee made a specific recommendation on this in its most recent report, stating that the Department should publish an annual analysis of its “regional spend” and publish information about the “regional impact” of its announcements.

More clarity is required on the information published generally by the Department about its spending decisions. When the Department’s budget was cut after the 2010 election, details of which specific items of expenditure were reduced were not published until a parliamentary question was tabled requesting that information. The Transport Committee also discovered that the Department had underspent on its 2010-11 budget to the tune of £1 billion and had returned £500 million to the Treasury. The underspend was far greater than the budget cut made during the year and it was larger than the cuts to bus subsidies, which have caused so many difficulties to bus users across the country. Funding made available for transport should be used for transport and should not be returned to the Treasury. I hope that we will all be able to have more confidence in the Department’s budgeting in the future.

Most rail projects are agreed as part of a five-yearly control period process. We are currently waiting for the Government to set out schemes they would like Network Rail to take forward during the 2014 to 2019 period, and to identify the funds that will be available. This approach has helped to protect rail from indiscriminate budget cuts at the time of the spending review. The Chancellor’s autumn statement included support for some rail schemes, such as the new Oxford to Bedford line. The Committee has asked the Minister to make it clear whether those schemes are additional to the projects that will be announced as part of the normal funding process or are simply being brought forward for slightly earlier implementation. There is a need for much more clarity when announcements are made on whether the schemes are genuinely additional to those that have already been agreed or whether they are agreed schemes being brought forward at an earlier date.

The National Audit Office has recently suggested that the Government should have a mechanism to reopen control period settlements in order to have more flexibility to make cuts, if necessary. I oppose that suggestion. The arrangements for rail have helped to provide a relatively transparent and stable way of investing, which is necessarily medium and long-term, but would be undermined if the Department could reopen earlier settlements.

The recent strategic review of the Highways Authority has recommended that a similar five-yearly funding settlement for road projects should be introduced, and it has been suggested that that could lead to a more efficient procurement and supply chain, delivering significant savings. That is an interesting suggestion that I am sure my Committee will want to examine in due course.

Government expenditure is essential to political decisions, particularly during a time of austerity. The Transport Committee will continue to focus on financial issues and has specific plans to examine the cost of the railway when the Government’s response to the McNulty report is finally published. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views today and urge the Minister to support our key recommendations.

16:51

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).

I want to comment principally on the “Transport and the Economy” report. The report recognises, of course, that for many years transport was like Cinderella, as it rarely came to the fore and was not regarded as one of the key parts of Government policy. That was true for many years, but there has been a sea change and there is recognition both in the report and in the actions of the previous Government and this Government that the performance of an economy can be directly related to transport.

Transport can undoubtedly boost growth and increase competitiveness, and one of the best policy interventions a Government can make is to ensure that the infrastructure allows industry to thrive. Some of the infrastructure not only benefits industry but improves the quality of life of a number of our citizens, although clearly it can be provided in a number of ways that differ not only physically but financially. Efficient infrastructure will allow efficient and cost-effective movement around national, regional, sub-regional and local networks—I think that that is implicitly recognised in the report. The fact that transport can boost the economy—the report questions its efficacy in some areas, which I wish to discuss later—is also self-evident.

Any report that links transport and the economy is welcome, but having read both the report and the Government’s response and having listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I would like to address one or two areas of slight concern and some surprise. For instance, as the hon. Lady conceded, we are discussing this report some time after its publication and so a number of its explicit recommendations have, to the Government’s credit, been covered in a number of ways. Indeed, it seemed to me that the Government were already covering a number of the report’s recommendations at the time.

Let me pick out recommendation 5 as an example. It states:

“The Government must explain the nature of the economic solutions that it is seeking to deliver through transport spending and how the schemes that it is supporting will achieve these aims.”

By the time the report had been published, however, the Government had already set out those things through their transport business case. They have also set out quite clearly in their business plan some of their objectives for transport spending, as well as a vision for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, and they have attempted to provide a greener, cleaner and fairer solution for our communities.

Moreover, during the previous Government's period in office, many of us on both sides of the House recognised that the formula that the Department for Transport was using to analyse a number of its schemes beyond the basic benefit-cost ratio, NATA—the new approach to appraisal—had a number of deficiencies. We should recognise that the Government have set out a more embracing framework for analysing infrastructure spending. Clearly, there are the four areas to consider: the economic case; whether there is commercial viability; whether a scheme is financially affordable; and, perhaps most importantly, whether a scheme is achievable. That sort of framework, beyond what was previously in place, should provide a greater degree of rigour, for there is now more than one test. There are not only the tests in NATA or the benefit-cost ratio but a number of tests which, added together, will give a transparent and more rigorous approach to the analysis of economic transport investment. I hope that such an approach will stay in place for some time, because one of the problems with transport investment has been that for an awfully long period in this country’s history there was complete inconsistency in approaches to what a scheme could deliver. I support what the Minister has put in place, and I hope he will ensure that it is enshrined and embedded for a long period.

I was somewhat surprised at the report’s conclusions about regional strategies and the removal of regional strategic development and development agencies. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I almost intervened, but as I hoped I would have the chance of catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I saved my remarks. I listened to the hon. Lady’s comments about what regional development agencies were doing for transport spending. However, I think the previous Transport Committee concluded in one of its reports—I forget which one—as did commentators up and down the country, that the variability among what RDAs delivered regarding transport was vast. It is fair to say that what the regional development agency did in the north-west in some of the delivery and spending on transport projects was well appreciated and supported. However, in other parts of the country, particularly the south-west, the RDA was felt to be failing almost everybody it attempted to help.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the arguments and strategies developed by The Northern Way, which brought together three RDAs in the north of England, made a huge contribution to the development of the High Speed 2 project and the northern hub?

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed I do, and I thank the hon. Lady for making that point because it helps me to make my next point. One thing that this Government have recognised is that, although there was some mix of RDAs, the reality is that a differing of approach in different areas will be the solution.

I also think it is quite clear that the report has prejudged the efficacy of local enterprise partnerships. It seems to me that all the initial evidence, anecdotal though it is because they have been in place for so short a time, shows that they are taking their responsibilities towards transport seriously.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The report reflected the evidence that was given to the Committee. In taking this further, the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State recognised the potential gap that would be caused by the removal of the previous regional structures. Indeed, efforts are being made to replace them through other means, but the comprehensive picture and the total results of the changes are as yet unclear.

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed, but the previous solution was a template solution, a one-size-fits-all solution, a “this is the way we must do it” solution, which did not necessarily reflect the economic realities. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, in the north of England it was not one regional development agency, but a collaboration of three. As I observed earlier, in certain parts of the country structures well below the regional level developed and delivered more efficient transport solutions.

I hope that in reading the report the Minister will not be deflected from the idea that solutions of differing sizes will fit different parts of the country, and that LEPs have been in place for a relatively short time. Just as regional development agencies were able to collaborate and co-operate, there is little doubt that LEPs will be able to do the same. It is also true that in certain parts of the country integrated transport authorities and passenger transport authorities will provide the lead in regional structures. The clear message must be that there are differing appropriate sizes and structures.

[David Mowat]

I agree that the jury is out on LEPs and that the RDAs were not a panacea in this area, but the real point is that neither the RDAs nor the LEPs can compete with the velocity of spending which is so skewed away from the regions and towards London and the south-east. For example, when the Chancellor announces £30 billion of spend, of which 80% was in London, that dwarfs the amount available to the RDAs or the LEPs. The real issue is how we fix that problem, rather than tinkering with the LEPs, which I hope, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, will work in time.

[Stephen Hammond]

I certainly agree with the latter point. It is beyond the scope of my comments this afternoon to go into the differing amounts of regional money. I accept that there clearly is some imbalance in subsidy between varying regions of the country. It is important to analyse what that can deliver and its efficacy. It is interesting to speculate what Crossrail might bring to London in future, as opposed to what the northern hub might bring to the north. I suspect that the benefits of the northern hub might be greater than those of Crossrail. We will wait and see. I am sure the Minister and the DFT will continue to reflect on that.

As a practitioner of the dark art of economics, I know that different economists will always have differing views on everything. Reading the report, I was struck by the comments of the former chief economist at the DFT. Although those may have been made only in response to the question that he was asked, it seemed to me to miss out quite a lot when he said that if one looks at the history of the British economy, it is clear

“how little the underlying rate of economic growth has varied.”

He went on to add that transport had done very little to affect the overall growth rate of the British economy. That seemed to miss out the fact that we have had wildly varying periods across history.

The witness's analysis went back almost 200 years. Over that time, we have had wildly differing levels of infrastructure investment, and there have been periods when the growth rate of the UK economy has been well in excess of the 2% that he mentioned. His analysis also failed to consider the impact of under-investment, which is a well known phenomenon, how that would have dragged down the underlying potential growth rate of the economy even in a period when investment had resumed, and the potential growth rate had there been consistent investment. Although the analysis that Mr Riley presented to the Committee may or may not be valid, it seems to me that it falls foul of the law of averages. I think that the analysis should look at the potential for economic growth with a consistent approach to investment.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Having listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument and seen some of the evidence that was given to the Committee, it seems to me that, although it could be argued that investment in transport might not be such a direct factor in economic growth, we must also consider what would happen if we did not make that investment and this country fell further behind, which I think would lead to economic shrinkage.

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend, who more than eloquently makes the absolutely correct point—the final point in my analysis of the economic situation—about the economic analysis presented by Mr Riley.

One of the other learned gentlemen who gave evidence, Professor Goodwin, spoke of the potential for investment not to be transformational, but to be strategic—I am not sure whether he was playing with semantics. He did not like the word “transformational” but said that there was an element of strategy—I think “strategic” is the word he used. He is right that there has been a continued over-egging of the ability of certain single projects to produce the sort of result that some people hope for.

However, if we look at the sheer size of certain schemes and the investment that this and previous Governments have made that complements and adds to what is already in place, and/or if we look at the smarter changes and smarter choices in transport packages, we will see that there is a real chance for transport and infrastructure investment to be transformational. I suspect that some of the moves on work travel packages, which aim to increase access to work, and some of the major electrification projects, which are combined with other minor schemes in parts of the south-west, will in five or six years’ time be considered transformational. In that regard, the evidence given to the Committee probably fails to recognise transport’s ability to be transformational and, more importantly, to enable economic growth.

Moreover, the point that neither of those two learned gentlemen discussed—this is where I disagree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside—is that if transport is part of a cluster of other investments, including increases in education, access to work, economic development zones and others, its ability to contribute to the potential for economic growth is far in excess of what that would have been had the investment been made on its own. A number of people will have made a better analysis of the cluster theory than I have, but that is broadly what it says. Yet again, if transport is combined with other Government policies, its ability to have a significant impact should not be underestimated.

I will finish with a few other remarks. I warmly welcome and support the conclusion that using transport to support and stimulate the economy and to attempt to reduce regional economic disparities is surely right. The test of the Government in that regard must be whether they are showing any understanding of those challenges. In a time when the key overriding economic priority must be to reduce the economic deficit and ensure that the public finances are put on a more stable profile, this Government are undertaking a number of measures which recognise those challenges and provide economic support in relation to it. We have seen that, significantly, through the Minister’s sponsorship of several local transport plans and investment programmes, and they are having on a small scale quite a huge impact on bus routes, local transport—in terms of local rail—and other issues.

Equally, the support for major projects throughout the regions, such as the northern hub, which has been mentioned, the electrification of the south-west main line and the investment in the east coast main line over the past 10 years, strikes me as sending a clear message that this Government recognise the need to maintain transport infrastructure spend.

As the Chairman of the Transport Committee pointed out, the Department for Transport has done relatively well from the overall comprehensive spending review debate, and that represents the Government’s understanding of the need for and importance of transport infrastructure.

I have spoken principally about rail in my last few remarks, but it is clear also that we neglect at our peril the need to maintain and upgrade our roads, and some smaller road schemes will have a bigger impact than some major, strategic ones, so the £3 billion that the Government are putting into local road schemes over four years is likely to have a positive impact on local, regional and overall economic growth.

I welcome the report, which has sponsored a debate about transport and the economy. I welcome also the Government having evidenced by their actions their understanding of the need for infrastructure in order to support economic growth and the quality of life of our citizens. I am sure that the Minister, in his winding-up remarks, will say that this is not just the start but a continuing policy of the Government.

17:12

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I want to take this opportunity to raise the issue of declining rural bus services, especially in County Durham and in Sedgefield.

County Durham is a rural area and home to many villages, most of which had a colliery at one time. When the collieries were open, people did not have very far to travel, but now that the collieries have closed many people find that they have to travel a long way, and many miles, to get to work, so a reliable public bus service is a necessity.

The bus service is required not only for work, but by young people who want to go to college; by the elderly, who might want to go to hospital or to a medical appointment; by the same groups of people to see friends and family; especially by young people just starting out on their career, who may not have the money to buy a car and need the bus to get to work; and by people on low incomes. We need to think also of the unemployed, who might see a job in the newspaper or in the jobcentre that they would love to do, but who know that they cannot apply for it because there is no bus service to take them to the factory or the office.

Concerns about local bus services have risen up the political agenda not only in areas such as Sedgefield over the past couple of years, but in the rest of County Durham. I have a steady flow of complaints from constituents who are incensed at the cuts to services, especially by Arriva, which pulls services at the last moment, without any notification or consultation. Any cancellation of a route is not well advertised. On more than one occasion, whole villages have been left without any services whatsoever. When I compare the services that Arriva has in County Durham with those that it has in London, I think, yes, we should have an excellent public transport service in the capital city, but we need something equivalent in our rural areas as well, with regulation to ensure that there is a social obligation on privatised bus companies to ensure that people can get to work.

Bus services are being cut in our rural areas as part of the expenditure cuts to address the deficit. There has been a 28% fall in funding for councils, combined with the ending of ring-fencing of grants for bus services, a 20% cut in the bus service operators grant paid to bus companies, and a shake-up of the free travel scheme for pensioners. Pensioners now often say, “What is the point of a bus pass if there are no buses to catch because they have been cancelled?” As a consequence of all these cuts, Durham county council has withdrawn £322,000 in funding from subsidised public transport routes, leaving many villages with few or no services in the evening or at the weekend. My postbag has been full of letters and petitions about the repercussions of the changes brought about by spending cuts originating in Whitehall.

Let me explain what this has meant in practice for people needing these services in the rural communities of Sedgefield—villages such Bishop Middleham and Fishburn, as well as Middleton St George, which is in the south of the constituency. One local constituent can no longer get to work without the help of friends, and others can no longer catch a bus and so have to use a taxi, which obviously inflates the cost of getting to work.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who face a problem with bus services, but does he accept that this is not a new phenomenon? Rural bus services have been poor in many areas for a long time, and the previous Labour Government did nothing about reintroducing any sort of regulation in areas such as County Durham.

[Phil Wilson]

There may have been a lack of regulation, but we had a level of subsidy that had not been cut to the extent that it has been since, and some subsidies that were made available have been paid back to the Treasury.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Local Transport Act 2008 brought back a level of regulation, but it was opposed by the Conservative party with which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) is in coalition?

[Phil Wilson]

We can see from the lack of people on the Liberal Democrat Benches that this issue is not of particular importance to them. Whatever they said before the election, they are saying exactly the opposite today.

I have a constituent called Mrs Hardy who lives in Bishop Middleham. She has asthma and a heart complaint and has worked at the same place for 34 years. Now she cannot get a direct route to work and arrives an hour late, and the return journey that she has to make does not take her back to her own home. She is quoted in The Northern Echo as saying:

“I am now in the stressful situation of having to beg lifts from friends, colleagues and family and don’t know how I am going to get to work from one day to the next.”

Her story is not unique. However, with the help of Durham county council, I have been able to get Arriva to put on a couple of buses on workday mornings so that people like Mrs Hardy can get to work. That new regime starts on 19 March. Likewise, by applying pressure on Arriva, we have been able to redirect buses around Fishburn. However, that only partly solves the problem and is not the whole answer. There must be many more employees in my constituency who find themselves in such a position.

I have raised this issue with the Department for Work and Pensions. If somebody resigns from their job voluntarily because they can no longer get to work, they can no longer claim benefit because they are deemed to have resigned. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) responded:

“The Jobseekers Act (1995) provides that JSA will not be paid for a period between 1 week and 26 weeks to anyone who has lost their employment as an employed earner by leaving voluntarily without just cause.

The law does not provide guidance on how just cause should be interpreted because the circumstances in which employees leave employment are so varied.”

The Government need to do a bit of joined-up thinking on this issue because it affects many people in rural areas around the country, who we are perhaps not finding out about. This situation needs urgent attention. The Department for Transport needs to liaise with the DWP to find out the extent of the problem in rural areas. The problems with the buses in my constituency came to a head in the new year.

Last week, we found out from the Transport Committee report on the expenditure of the Department for Transport that the money was there to maintain the subsidy, but it was handed back to the Treasury. To use the Select Committee’s word, how “slack” is that? The Select Committee was surely correct to state in paragraph 11:

“Money voted by Parliament for expenditure on transport should be spent on transport, not handed back to the Treasury.”

My question to the Minister is whether, because the money has been there in the past, it will be there in the future. Will his Department push for extra funding for subsidies so that additional bus services can be provided in areas such as County Durham? There is a lot of talk about the need for growth in the economy. I respectfully suggest to the Government that it is a fundamental prerequisite of any economic growth strategy that employees are able to get to work.

The lack of understanding in this area does not promise much for the future. There seems to have been a fundamental failure in basic arithmetic. The Department has imposed deep cuts to bus grants, leading to the axing of dozens, if not hundreds, of bus routes and to steep fare hikes, only to end up with £543 million to spare. As a consequence, Durham county council and other local authorities are getting the flak for the cut in bus subsidy and the resulting cuts in bus services. My constituents have great difficulties in getting to work, to the hospital, to college or to see friends. The Department for Transport lost £543 million down the back of the sofa, just to find it and hand it back to the Treasury. Will the Minister therefore apologise to Mrs Hardy and the many others who are having difficulty catching a bus today because of his Department’s carelessness?

The letter from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also states:

“The matter of poor public transport in Sedgefield and County Durham”—

at least the DWP acknowledges that transport in Sedgefield and County Durham is poor—

“is a matter for the Department for Transport. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to that Department so that Ministerial colleagues are aware of your constituents’ concerns.”

Will the Minister tell me what his Department and the DWP are doing to alleviate the situation of poor public transport in places such as Sedgefield and County Durham? Is there any joined-up thinking in Government to alleviate this problem? Finally, what plans does the Department have to re-regulate or regulate more thoroughly bus services in rural areas around the UK so that people who have jobs can get to them?

17:23

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate. I am serving on a Public Bill Committee at the moment and will have to return to it at some point.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). I, too, will talk about rural bus services, because my constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, as one can guess from its name, is incredibly rural. It is also, perhaps uniquely in central England, a constituency that contains neither a dual carriageway nor a mainline train station, which gives us unique transport problems. We are within one and a half hours of three international airports, but I have yet to find a way to get from one of the main motorways that surround my constituency—the M1, the M6, the M56 and various others—to my home in Leek, in the centre of the constituency, in less than 40 minutes. That shows that Staffordshire Moorlands is isolated from much of the rest of the country.

That poses a challenge, because we want people to come to Staffordshire Moorlands. A third of my seat by geography is in the Peak District national park, which is incredibly beautiful. We have the Manifold valley, the Roaches and other places that we desperately want people to come to and—I mention this as we are debating transport and the economy—spend their money. Given our transport infrastructure, getting them there is obviously not easy.

We have not only the beautiful Peak District national park but Alton Towers, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the country. Again, we want people to come to that great national institution, of which we are very proud. Unfortunately, anybody who has visited Alton Towers will know that to get to it, one has to travel through some beautiful villages where there can be significant traffic congestion. The challenge is to get people to come to Staffordshire Moorlands and spend their money, but also to ensure that the people who live there because of its great beauty can do business and trade with the rest of the country and globally. I recently visited a design company based in the Peak park that does business across the world and needs to be able to get to the motorways and trains, but in a way that does not damage the beautiful environment in which we live.

I say to the Minister that I am not here today to call for great investment in new roads. Perhaps some potholes being filled in would be appreciated, but we are not looking for great infrastructure developments across Staffordshire Moorlands, merely better ways for people to travel.

It is also worth pointing out that some of the most statistically dangerous roads in the country are in and around Staffordshire Moorlands. It is an area very much favoured by motorcyclists, particularly on beautiful sunny afternoons such as we have had over the past few weekends. Rarely does a week go by without an accident being reported in the local newspaper, very often a fatal accident. I know from my local fire service and police that the road traffic accident rate is probably the main reason for the high levels of the activity statistics that they report.

My final point in setting the scene is that Staffordshire Moorlands is a border area. It is the most northerly seat in the west midlands, bordered by Cheshire in the north-west and Derbyshire in the east midlands. That causes specific concerns. For example, on some of our most dangerous roads there are different speed limits at different points, because they cross the borders between local authorities that have made different decisions about the appropriate limit. That causes the problem that drivers do not know what the speed limit is, because they might not be totally convinced about whether they are in Staffordshire yet. The same problem applies to bus services, which I will come to later.

Another important business in my constituency is the great number of hauliers. Being in the Peak District national park and neighbouring the Potteries, we have great natural resources such as limestone and clay, so a haulage industry has grown up. Again, that poses specific problems.

What transport problems have constituents raised with me? I have already spoken about speed limits, and the signposting of them is incredibly important. There is the problem of crossing borders, but also, in some villages there is a change from a 30 mph zone to a 60 mph zone. Because of those villages being in an area of outstanding natural beauty, signage is not quite as obvious as it should be. A constituent wrote to me only this week saying that they live just on the point where the 30 mph zone starts in the village of Alton, which, as the name suggests, is next to Alton Towers. Many drivers use that road to go to Alton Towers and are unaware that they have just entered a 30 mph zone. We need increased signposting and more traffic calming measures. We have seen great success with the solar powered signs that flash up a warning that a driver is speeding and should be doing only 50 mph, 40 mph, 30 mph or whatever is the appropriate speed. Those traffic-calming measures have been more successful than others.

I congratulate Staffordshire county council, which has been instrumental in introducing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. Some rural schools in my constituency are on very busy rural roads, and a 20 mph speed limit is welcomed by parents. I encourage the council to introduce more such limits in the rest of the constituency.

I would be remiss in a speech about transport in Staffordshire Moorlands not to mention the ongoing local issue of road changes in Leek. That is a matter for the local authority and I am not calling on the Minister to make any specific comment on the detail, but I want to state for the record that anything that can be done to improve the ability of pedestrians to cross the road safely will be greatly appreciated. As things stand, the shops in Leek will not be accessible by pedestrians because there will be no pedestrian crossing between the car parks and the shopping area. That might sound slightly unusual, but it has been proposed and I should like to put on record my concern about it.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned rural bus services. The Minister has met one of my local bus companies—a very successful family business—and has heard its concerns. Subsidies across different local authorities are a particular concern to local bus companies in the moorlands, and some bus companies run routes across four local authority areas. Establishing what subsidy each local authority provides and what regulation and Criminal Records Bureau checks each imposes makes it difficult for private bus operators to operate in areas such as the moorlands.

Another matter for local bus operators is school transport. As in any largely rural constituency, many schoolchildren in mine travel significant distances between their home and school. School transport provision is raised regularly with me by constituents, and particularly those whose children have to walk long distances down isolated and badly lit lanes to access a bus service to take them to their school, which in many cases is many miles from home.

Road hauliers were probably the only group in the run-up to the election and afterwards to lobby for an increase in VAT, desperate as they were for a levelling of the playing field between them and overseas haulage companies. They were grateful for the increase in VAT, but it will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that they are pushing for a cut in fuel duty. They are also concerned about EU regulations and raise the matter regularly. Many feel that EU regulations are imposed on them that are perhaps not observed or enforced in other countries. They are keen to ensure that EU regulations are not gold-plated for UK hauliers. They want appropriate regulations because they understand, as all hon. Members do, that regulation and health and safety rules are necessary, but there should be a level playing field for our hauliers and those from overseas with which they compete.

While I am talking about haulage and large lorries, I must mention quiet lanes and sat-nav. It will probably come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that numerous signs are popping up around Staffordshire Moorlands to advise drivers that the route they are recommended to take by their sat-nav is not suitable for heavy vehicles, or often even for normal domestic cars. That is becoming more important in rural areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands, and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House have the same experience. Any pressure that the Ministry could put on satellite navigation companies to help them to identify inappropriate quiet lanes would be very much appreciated.

One problem caused by the lack of public transport gets raised with me a lot. People are reliant on their cars, and whenever I do a high school hustings, without fail people mention car insurance for young drivers. The cost is hurting young drivers and preventing them from helping with economic growth by taking apprenticeships and attending training. They need to drive their cars to get to work, but car insurance premiums are a barrier to that.

Although my constituency has no main line train station, as I mentioned earlier, we have an excellent heritage railway, the Churnet Valley railway, which runs wonderful steam trains every weekend. If anyone wishes to visit Staffordshire Moorlands and ride on the Churnet Valley railway, they will be welcome. It is being extended as far as the Cauldon quarry, a large cement works in the moorlands. On Sunday, I was delighted to see the number of cars around the railway lines carrying people to see the steam engines travelling through and to enjoy the spectacle of a steam train travelling through the Peak district.

[Richard Harrington]

I am conscious that, as has been pointed out to me on several occasions, my hon. Friend’s knowledge of Watford is limited to whizzing through on the train, but notwithstanding what she said about rural areas, I hope she understands that extensions to train services such as the Croxley rail link, for which the Government have just given funding—I am grateful to the Minister for his time and effort on that project—are also important to constituents such as mine, and do not take away from train facilities in rural areas.

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, my knowledge of Watford extends to having attended a few training courses in Watford over the years, not just to whizzing through on the train. I wholeheartedly concur that any extensions to train services in the Watford area will be greatly appreciated.

The extension of the heritage railway in my constituency is being funded by a private rail company that has been a recipient of money from the regional growth fund—it is very grateful to the Government for that financial support. The company is looking to reopen the line to Stoke-on-Trent from the quarry, which would result in an enormous number of aggregate lorries leaving the roads and travelling by train, which would be of great benefit to people living in the Moorlands. The quarry owners, too, are keen to get as much on the railway as possible.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have had the privilege of visiting Leek—it is a beautiful place—and I have seen that railway line. Perhaps it might be possible to run a passenger train on it, as well as the steam trains and freight trains. That would help without putting any more danger on the roads.

[Karen Bradley]

That is exactly what Moorlands and City Railways wishes to do. It would like passenger trains to return to Staffordshire Moorlands for the first time since the line was officially closed in, I think, the 1950s. There is a problem, though: part of the line extension would involve relaying track to the village of Alton to provide access to Alton Towers by train. In theory, that is a good idea, but that part of the country is an area of outstanding natural beauty and the residents along the railway track are very concerned about the proposal. Although I can see the benefits of getting traffic off the roads, it has to be done sympathetically.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such consideration for areas of outstanding natural beauty should be taken into account for all train systems, or does she limit her remarks to Staffordshire Moorlands?

[Karen Bradley]

I fear that my hon. Friend’s question might be related to a certain high-speed line, which is something that I was going to touch on briefly.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently about her local trains and infrastructure. I am sure that she agrees with me about the importance of the investment that the Government are making in local infrastructure, such as reopening the train station at Ilkeston, for which we in Erewash have been campaigning for a long time, .

[Karen Bradley]

I know how much hard work my hon. Friend is putting into reopening the train station at Ilkeston. As one from a neighbouring county, I am well aware that that would be a great asset to the residents of Ilkeston and the people of Derbyshire.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

And Nottinghamshire.

[Karen Bradley]

Absolutely.

I cannot pretend that HS2 will affect Staffordshire Moorlands directly, as it is not scheduled to go through the moorlands. My concern is that, although it is half an hour away, there is already an incredibly good high-speed rail service, with journey times of an hour and 24 minutes, on the west coast main line between London Euston and Stoke-on-Trent. Although I have my half-hour journey at the other end, it is still a fast line. My great concern is that if HS2 was introduced without imposing capacity requirements on the line, my existing high-speed train line would be lost.

Let me make two further remarks before I finish. The first is about the Peak park cycleways, which I thoroughly encourage everybody to use. People will soon be able to cycle round the whole of the Peak park without setting foot on a road, and they will be able to get there by train. Secondly and finally, let me say something about inland waterways, although I know that they are not strictly within the Department for Transport’s remit. We have some fantastic inland waterways, but I would like more use to be made of them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I understand that this debate is important, but if we want to get everybody in, we will unfortunately have to drop the time limit to six minutes.

17:41

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who spoke with great eloquence and distinction. She spoke a lot of good sense on behalf of the Transport Committee and I agreed with every word that she said. She is quite right to draw the link between the wider impact on economic growth and investing in and building a modern transport infrastructure.

The Transport Committee’s recent paper highlighted the need for the Government to

“ensure that where it approves transport schemes designed to stimulate economic growth and rebalance the economy, they are supported by convincing economic development strategies.”

In my brief speech I will argue that electrification of the midland main line meets exactly those criteria, but although that is what I want to concentrate on, I will start by saying a word or two about high-speed rail.

On balance I support high-speed rail, although I understand the arguments against it, not least the argument put by hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). However, I want to put a point to the Minister on which I hope he can reassure me in his summing up. There is concern among campaigners for the electrification of the midland main line that they may not see any direct advantage from HS2—that resources for the scheme will be taken away and we will never get electrification. [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head, but that is a genuine concern, so perhaps he can touch on it in his response to the debate.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I will not get the opportunity to speak later, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that there is a concern about the total cost of high-speed rail, bearing in mind that the Y shape is not even known yet, and the rising cost of mitigation and compensation that is the inevitable result of that uncertainty? Does he share my concern about the impact that that will have on scarce resources?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me remind hon. Members that the idea behind imposing a time limit is to get everybody in. He is well placed, but every time there is an intervention, that adds another minute, which means that somebody else will drop off the bottom.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To help other Members get in, I will take no more interventions. In answer to the hon. Lady, I recognise that concern, but on balance I think that HS2 is a good investment for the economy. However, I want to focus on the midland main line, if she will allow me.

I would be grateful if the Minister passed on my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who last night kindly met me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the deputy mayor of Leicester, Rory Palmer, to discuss electrification. It was a good meeting, and I was grateful for the way she responded to our questions.

I would argue that electrification makes economic sense. The midland main line is the slowest northbound route out of London. It is the only main line to London that has not been electrified and where there are no immediate plans for electrification. Electrification would mean improved journey times, improved performance times and improved reliability. Crucially, electrification ought to provide good value for money: estimates show that savings in operating costs and increases in passenger revenues would greatly exceed investment costs. Full electrification along the line would reduce the costs of rolling stock, energy and maintenance and would therefore meet the aspirations of the McNulty review. It would bring huge benefits to cities such as Leicester and to the east midlands as a whole, as well as to Sheffield and South Yorkshire.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increased relationship between Rolls-Royce and Sheffield means that connecting Derby and Sheffield more efficiently would be good for the economies of both cities?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I said that I would not give way again—my apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is quite right, though: Rolls-Royce is a major employer in Derby and elsewhere in the east midlands—in Hucknall, for example—and connecting Derby and Sheffield in that way is crucial for the economy.

One analysis has shown that the electrification of the line would benefit the economy by £12 million a year and by almost £450 million over the appraisal period, which makes an overwhelming case for it. It would also improve our links with Northamptonshire, making it easier for me to visit the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) should I wish to do so, as well as the links between Derby and Sheffield. All estimates suggest that the conurbations served by the midland main line are set to grow—between 2000 and 2010, the population of those areas grew by 300,000, and estimates suggest that it will grow by 800,000 by 2030—so in addition to the economic reason for the investment, there is also the simple reason of population growth.

The trains currently running on the route are diesels, and research suggests that CO₂ emissions could be reduced by 43,000 per annum as a result of electrification. There is therefore also a good environmental argument for pressing ahead with electrification. There is another strong value-for-money argument, which is that electrification would result in immediate job creation along the line, it would boost the economy, and it would help cities such as Leicester to attract more inward investment. I am sure that it would do the same for other cities in the region and in south Yorkshire. It would bring long-term advantages to Leicester and the wider east midlands, and it will therefore be crucial for our region in the next few years.

As I said, I am grateful to the Minister of State for meeting us last night, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State replying to this debate will pass on my thanks to her. Last week, at Transport questions, the Minister of State told me:

“The electrification of the midland main line has been prioritised by the industry in its initial industry plan, which will form an important part of the decisions that we have to make on what will be funded in the next railway control period.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 1012.]

That answer aroused a great deal of excitement on that evening’s edition of the BBC’s “East Midlands Today”, and in my own fine newspaper, the Leicester Mercury. If the Under-Secretary wants star billing on “East Midlands Today” this evening, or in the Leicester Mercury, the Nottingham Post or the Derby Evening Telegraph, he need only get up and announce from the Dispatch Box that he is going to strike while the iron is hot, build on the profile that the Minister of State already has in the east midlands, and say yes to the electrification of the midland main line.

17:48

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of our Select Committee, on securing this debate and opening it this afternoon. The contributions so far have been varied, covering a wide range of transport issues from up and down the country. I want to concentrate on the specific elements of the Committee’s “Transport and the economy” report that deal with the role of transport in rebalancing the economy.

During this time of economic uncertainty, transport must be a key factor in stimulating growth. To their credit, the coalition Government have learned from the mistakes made by previous Governments during economic downturns and prioritised investment in transport infrastructure. While other Departments saw an average reduction in capital expenditure of 29%, the transport capital programme was reduced by only 11%, with Treasury forecasts that by 2014-15 capital investment would be higher in real terms than it was in 2005-06. This has meant that a number of capital schemes have been able to go ahead that would almost certainly have faced the axe in previous economic downturns.

As a northern MP representing south Manchester, I welcome the Government’s commitment to economic rebalancing and reducing the north-south divide. This received a cautious welcome, I would say, in the Select Committee report. Transport funding has consistently favoured London and the south-east to the detriment of areas of the north and the south-west. If we are to see a rebalancing of the economy, this needs to be reflected in current and future transport funding.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

On that issue, I share the view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that some projects in the south are essential to UK inward investment. More specifically, I would say that Heathrow is the only hub airport in Europe that does not have a rail link to its immediate hinterland. It has one to London, but nothing to the Thames valley, which is the most productive area for inward investment in the UK and is obviously essential to get growth in Britain.

[Mr Leech]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is fair to say that the Government have prioritised some schemes in London and the south-east—the Crossrail project, for instance, which has received an enormous amount of money. Other parts of the country have certainly received significantly less funding over a long period.

There are some encouraging signs, however. In Manchester, rail capacity and journey times will benefit greatly from the additional electrification work, including that of the TransPennine Express, and the funding for the Ordsall chord. Congestion will be eased with the completion of the airport link road—a scheme for which my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) have been campaigning for many years. Metrolink extensions have also been given the green light and are under construction, including within my constituency.

From a Manchester perspective, two projects hold the key to whether the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy will be followed through to its conclusion. The first is high-speed rail, and the second and more urgent is the funding for the northern hub, which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be sick of me raising with him on so many occasions.

The debate about high-speed rail will drag on, with supporters and opponents making arguments and counter-arguments about whether the real economic benefits are predominantly for London and the south-east. However, what cannot be disputed is the fact that the north will see the greatest possible level of benefit only once high-speed rail reaches Manchester and Leeds. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the next phase of the high-speed rail network, but I want to know what the Government are doing about bringing forward the timetable, so that we do not have to wait another 20 years before we reap the full benefits.

I recognise that for once the Government are looking towards our transport needs for the next 100 years rather than for the next 10 years, but we need to do more to bring forward the time scale so that the regions can benefit as soon as humanly possible.

From Manchester’s perspective, however, the real test for the Government will be whether or not funding will be forthcoming for the northern hub. With £80 million already secured for the Ordsall chord, the complete hub scheme will cost only £560 million in total—and possibly less, given that some elements of the project are already included in other committed individual schemes. We should compare this to the billions of pounds that the Government have committed for Crossrail.

In a Westminster Hall debate in January, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is not in his place this afternoon, calculated that three months of Crossrail payments would pay for the whole of the northern hub. I am not sure how accurate the hon. Gentleman’s maths is, but it certainly puts into perspective the difference in funding levels for the two schemes. At a cost-benefit ratio of 4:1, with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs and a £4 billion boost to the economy, the northern hub is the opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to rebalancing the economy.

I questioned the Minister of State, Department for Transport during the Select Committee inquiry, and she said that the northern hub

“must be a really strong contender for support in the next railway funding settlement control period.”

She went on to confirm the Government’s intention to try to close the prosperity gap between the regions, saying:

“One of the ways in which we could do that is by targeting our transport spending on projects which will generate growth in different regions.”

Well, I could not agree more. If the Government are serious about economic rebalancing, they need to confirm the funding for the northern hub, and not just in a piecemeal way. The Government need to come up with all the cash in control period 5.

In the short time left, I should like briefly to raise two other issues mentioned in our report. The first relates to the dependence of transport priorities on local circumstances. A one-size-fits-all or a Government-know-best approach will not work. In line with the coalition Government’s localism agenda, there needs to be more local determination of what works in each local area. National Government is not well placed to decide what is best for an individual area and what will best support economic growth. Metrolink has been a massive success in Manchester, driving economic growth and stimulating regeneration to areas such as Salford Quays and Eccles, as well as encouraging modal shift in areas such as my constituency.

The need for local decision making was reflected in the report’s conclusions—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

17:56

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I start my short contribution by paying tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who has shown astounding leadership for some time. I am particularly proud that this report is being debated today, as I was a member of the Select Committee when we first met after the election. Indeed, I was one of those calling for this inquiry, so I am particularly pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate.

The report on “Transport and the economy” is an important one. We have heard broad statements and warm words from the Government for some time about transport and its role in supporting economic growth, but there is no sense of how their decisions on transport fit into a strategy, and no clear sense of how any particular scheme announced by the Government will fit into a strategy for economic growth. Nor is it clear how the Government’s decisions will help to deliver their stated intention of rebalancing the economy. I therefore welcome the report’s recommendation that a White Paper on transport and the economy be produced exactly to clarify that point. The report is important, too, because it makes clear that investment in transport infrastructure needs to be linked to plans for economic development. HS2 provides a good example.

The argument for HS2 is partly about capacity, so it relates strongly to the role cited in the Eddington report for transport investment to reduce congestion, thereby removing barriers to economic growth. HS2 is also about bringing economies across the country closer together, improving the dynamics of those relationships—in other words, the agglomeration benefit.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that unless some time line is put on extension of HS2 further north, there will be considerable cynicism in areas like the north-east that a great deal of investment will be made that will have very little economic impact on such regions?

[Angela Smith]

I wholly concur. In fact, if we are to maximise the agglomeration benefits of HS2, I would argue that the economies—from the far north to London and the south—that are linked by the HS2 line must have clear strategies in place for economic development in order that the transport investment represented by high-speed rail can perform to its full potential.

[Phil Wilson]

It is obviously vital that the HS2 route eventually reaches the north-east of England. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of it, but Hitachi is building a train-building facility in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency. It has already said that if this project goes ahead, it will be bidding for the rolling stock.

[Angela Smith]

That illustrates my point about the need to have clear plans for economic development in place alongside plans for transport investment.

The report is also important because it points out very clearly that there is a lack of transparency and consistency in the decision-making process at the Department for Transport. Finally, it is important because it points out that the removal of regional structures created by the last Government risks creating a vacuum in effective planning for transport infrastructure.

I want to focus particularly on the report’s recognition that the Government should produce a White Paper explaining explicitly how their plans for transport investment will be linked to their plans for the economy more generally, and in particular explaining their plans for rebalancing the UK economy. Rebalancing is important not just to the economic development of areas such as the north-west and Yorkshire but to the whole country, including London and the greater south-east.

We need transport investment to maximise the potential for a more dynamic set of relationships between economies across the country. HS2 is a case in point. According to The Northern Way, its potential impact of £13 billion would deliver at least £3 billion of economic impact to the north. The point is, however, that its economic impact will affect the whole country, and therefore potentially benefits everyone.

What do we need if we are to rebalance the economy in transport terms? I believe that we need three things. First, we need more transparency and greater consistency in decision making, so that we can hold the Government to account in relation to their stated aim of rebalancing the economy. Secondly, we need political bravery: we need to use investment to maximise economic development in areas such as the north of England, and to remove barriers to growth in those areas. Thirdly, we urgently need to know more about how the Government will develop sub-regional, regional and even cross-regional structures enabling them to produce sound, well-thought-out strategies for the delivery of transport infrastructure.

The removal of the regional development agencies and, by definition, The Northern Way group of RDAs, has left a vacuum in regional planning, especially—as the report points out—in the context of their role in supporting regional economies. Moreover, the local enterprise partnerships have not been thought through. How will these new structures working at sub-regional and city-regional level work structurally across LEP boundaries to deliver what our regions need?

The north of England is a perfect example. As a result of The Northern Way and its superb work in developing arguments and strategies relating to transport, the case for the northern hub has been clearly made and accepted even by the coalition Government. The northern hub is needed, of course, to tackle congestion on the northern rail network, thereby helping to remove barriers to economic growth; but it is also needed in the context of the decision to go ahead with HS2. It is important that we deliver both projects in order not just to reduce congestion on the network but, as I mentioned earlier, to maximise the potential benefit of HS2.

If we are to maximise the potential of HS2 to make the relationship between the economies of the north and London more dynamic, we must also ensure that those agglomeration benefits are spread across the north. If that is to happen, the Government must recognise the importance of transport infrastructure in supporting economic development plans. In particular, they must recognise our great northern cities as hubs for economic development. They must recognise the importance of greater connectivity—not only with London, on a north-south axis, but on an east-west axis, between the northern urban centres, and with international gateways not just at Heathrow and Gatwick but at the mouth of the Humber and Mersey rivers.

We need regional planning. As the report says, without it there will be a risk that choices will be made on a basis that discriminates against weaker economies. There is already an example of that in the form of the Government’s decision to electrify the Leeds-to-Manchester cross-Pennine route, which discriminates against what I call the third point of the golden triangle of the north: the city of Sheffield.

We need the Govt to recognise the broader context of an economic policy that involves stimulation of the economy and the role that transport could play in it. Long-term infrastructure projects should be brought forward, as outlined in Labour's alternative plan for jobs and growth, but instead we are seeing significant cuts in investment, such as the £759 million cut on top of the £528 million efficiency savings supported by Labour.

We also need the Government to recognise the spending disparity between the north and the south. The Passenger Transport Executive Group has produced some interesting figures. In 2010-11, transport spending per head was £774 in London and £276 in Yorkshire and the Humber. The source of those figures is the most recent version of a public expenditure spending analysis from Her Majesty’s Treasury. I ask the Minister to respond to them, and to demonstrate by way of a full written explanation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Stuart Andrew.

18:05

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.

Transport clearly affects all our constituencies. My own constituency forms part of the city of Leeds, which is the biggest financial centre outside London and, as such, as been hugely successful. People from throughout the county work there every day. That success has put huge pressures on our transport infrastructure, and all our railways and roads are heavily congested. As a result of that and the conversion of ex-employment sites in my constituency—particularly the old mills—into residential developments, more people are travelling to work, thus adding to the congestion. In the current more difficult economic climate, it is more important than ever for us to do all that we can to make it easier for people to travel, because that will help business to be active in a wider geographical area. An increase in economic activity will present real employment opportunities to people who are out of work.

Given that the Government have an unprecedented deficit to deal with—let us not forget that that is the biggest threat to economic growth—it is impressive that they have been able to announce so many major transport projects. For instance, it has been announced that in my own area, in Leeds, the M62 is to be widened. Anyone who has travelled on that road will know how congested it is. The southern access to Leeds railway station will create an opportunity for the southern part of the city to develop economically. New railway stations are being built at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, which will help with congestion and will also release £250 million of private investment. The electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds will be a huge benefit: anyone who has tried to get on to a train on that line at peak times knows how horrendous the journey can be. Extra trains have also been provided on the Airedale line.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman—who is a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee—support my call for the electrification of the line from Cardiff to Swansea, and say no to any prospect that people will have to get out at Cardiff on the way to Swansea from London?

[Stuart Andrew]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is considering the issue of east-west travel. I look forward to his contributions, for he is a diligent member. [Interruption.] I will not say any more at the moment. I have my own area to fight for.

HS2 means that we can now connect our great cities, create thousands of new jobs, and release desperately needed capacity. That is real investment, which can only help to increase our economic activity.

Let me now say something about the differences in spending in different parts of the country. For years, spending per head in the north has been considerably less than that in the south. Under the last Government, spending per head in Leeds was less than the national average. That difference still exists, and it is important for us to deal with it. In the many transport debates that we have had during the last couple of years, Members in all parts of the House representing all parts of the north of England have raised that concern, and we now have an opportunity to do so again.

The Yorkshire Post has led a major campaign to highlight the problem, and I praise it for its work. It has built a coalition of business leaders, transport bosses and politicians. However, although we have benefited from many recent projects, the gap is still large; and although we are starting to see a decrease, for which I thank the Government, we need to continue the trend in a high-speed way. All that we in the north, and those involved in the Yorkshire Post campaign, ask is a bit more fairness. Of course London is the powerhouse in economic terms, but extra investment is desperately needed in the north. In my constituency, the ring road is congested, the access to Leeds airport is poor and the A65 is constantly congested. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the northern hub, and investment is certainly needed in that. On a recent Select Committee visit to Wrexham, I thought I would be green by getting the train from Wrexham to Leeds. In a car, that journey can be done in about an hour and a half. It took me four and a half hours by rail, and I had to board five different trains.

There are major businesses in Wrexham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Newcastle and Sheffield—

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

And Goole.

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes, and Goole. We must do all we can to ensure that those businesses can connect with each other and do business with each other. Connecting with each other is an horrendous ordeal for them at present. Improvements to the northern rail routes have been desperately needed for years.

I welcome the fact that the Government have made a start. The electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds will prove to be a great improvement that helps us economically. The north was a huge player in our industrial past, and we must give it all the resources it needs to be able to be a huge player in our industrial future. Investing in our transport infrastructure will help us enormously. The Government have got off to a good start. I just hope they can do more in the future.

18:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am a Northern Ireland MP and transport is a devolved matter, but I have some questions for the Minister.

I welcome the money that will be spent on the transport infrastructure. Only one person has been injured during the construction of the Olympics stadiums and other works, and no one has been killed. The road and rail links with the Olympic village and facilities must be addressed, however. In that regard, does the Minister believe the necessary transport infrastructure is now in place for pedestrians as well as for road and rail users?

In Northern Ireland the spend on road maintenance is about £2,800 per kilometre, compared with £12,000 in England and £7,500 in Wales. Reconstructing a road can be four times more expensive than the cost of maintaining it. How much of the investment that has been announced will be spent on new roads and how much will be spent on resurfacing existing roads? Northern Ireland has a policy of resurfacing roads every 25 to 30 years, and if the work is done right the first time, the road will be okay. I understand, however, that some roads have had to wait for as long as 68 years before being resurfaced. Is that situation unique to Northern Ireland?

The Northern Ireland Executive have said that they will spend £500 million on creating and improving crucial transport routes from Belfast to other major cities and towns. That shows that they recognise the importance of our transport infrastructure. They also recognise the importance of our construction sector. The hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) mentioned construction, and it is important to create apprenticeships and other opportunities within that sector. I acknowledge that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for that, but does he have any input?

I have recently been serving on the Civil Aviation Bill Committee, and that experience served to remind me of the importance for airports of good road and rail links. That can generate considerable economic benefits. Has the Minister considered increasing expenditure on projects around not only major airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, but provincial airports on the UK mainland? That would also benefit Belfast City and Belfast International airports.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Government have reduced air passenger transport duty for Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that gives Northern Ireland a fantastic opportunity to market itself and to develop and promote its aviation industry and airports?

[Jim Shannon]

I entirely agree. We campaigned for that, and it has given a great boost. We are grateful to the Government. Problems could arise, however, if airports in other parts of the UK ask for the same measure.

We should also consider our ports and ferry links. Will the spending that has been announced benefit any of the UK mainland’s ports? If the road links to Liverpool and Stranraer are good, that will be good for Northern Ireland. When I visit the United States of America, I am always struck by the ease and speed of road travel. That shows that infrastructure investment can greatly benefit people and the economy.

We want good infrastructure to be put in place and the construction industry to benefit—and apprentices to benefit from that. We believe that better transport infrastructure will be good for regional economies and will make the roads of the United Kingdom safer.

18:17

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Like many Members who represent constituencies far away from London, I spend a lot of time travelling on public transport—in my case, over three hours twice a week on the train down from Eaglescliffe in Stockton South. I am therefore aware of the importance of transport for regions such as the north-east and the vital role it plays in our regional economies, so I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about transport and the economy and the Select Committee report.

The report makes a number of interesting observations and recommendations. It recognises the importance of transport to our economy. That is key at the current time, when driving economic growth is so vital. It also stresses the importance of our international gateways, both airports and ports. The Government must focus on those gateways and thereby maximise the economic benefits to the country.

Airports are important not only as international hubs, but as regional hubs. Our regional airports are very important to local economies across the UK. In the north-east, we have Newcastle airport and Teesside airport. The latter lies partly in my constituency and partly in that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), while a small part also lies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Recently, it has been discussed in the House on several occasions, as it has faced a challenging time of late. There has now been good news, however. It has been bought by Peel, a company that was involved previously. It has made clear its commitment to run Teesside airport as a successful passenger airport. That is precisely what people in communities across Teesside, the wider north-east area and north Yorkshire who use and rely on its services want.

In a Civil Aviation Bill debate I raised this topic and asked whether the Government could use the licensing conditions they apply to major strategic airports to require them to retain slots for Teesside. In this debate, I shall explore another possible means by which to address the problem: the public service obligation. Will the Minister share his thoughts on the possibility of using that? Under EU Council regulation 2408/92, the Republic of Ireland established public service obligations between Dublin and Kerry, Galway, Sligo, Knock, Donegal and Londonderry commencing in 2008. This can be done; it is quite possible for a Government with the right strategic view to consider the needs of regional airports and, within existing EU regulations, establish PSOs that can protect them and enable them to prosper.

In December 2007, a Transport Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question that it was for regional bodies to apply for a PSO for Teesside airport. In February 2010, in a reply to Lord Bates, the relevant Minister in the other place confirmed that no application had been received at that time from the regional development agency, One North East. That failure by the RDA to engage constructively in finding a way to protect important routes between the north-east and the capital reflects some of the challenges that Teesside airport faces today. We have an opportunity to revisit whether a PSO should be given to Teesside airport.

High Speed 2 is not quite set to come up to the north-east yet, although we hope it will do so one day, as it is an important infrastructure investment that the Government are committed to making. They have recognised the economic benefits that reduced travel times between the capital and the regions can bring. Teesside falls just outside the envelope that will benefit from HS2, and I suspect that other hon. Members will agree with me when I say that we have the opportunity to make the argument that we should examine whether a PSO for Teesside should be introduced for the period until that gap is filled—until HS2 extends further north and benefits the community that I represent, along with those of other hon. Members in the region.

I therefore wish to ask the Minister and the Department this: in the light of the answers given by Ministers in 2007 that it is for regional agencies to make a PSO request and in the light of the confirmation given in 2010 that no such request had been made, what would happen if the local enterprise partnership requested a PSO for Teesside airport? A single LEP now covers the entire airport site, even though it is in a number of constituencies, so if such a request were made, supported by local councils, business leaders and, no doubt, hon. Members, would the Government examine it? Will they consider that option? Will they constructively work with me and others to deliver it, so that the future of this important airport, which has so much potential to be a driver for our regional economy, can not only be secured in the long term, but improved to deliver a better service to my constituents? That would allow my weekly journeys down to London and back up to my constituency to be shortened somewhat from the three and a bit hours they take today. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and would be grateful for confirmation on that point, so that I can pursue the matter with the LEP. I hope that a constructive way forward can be found for this important regional asset.

00:00

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I have a great interest in all things transport-related, from aviation and road to rail and shipping. A 21st-century Britain needs a 21st-century pragmatic transport strategy. Although politics is usually, and regrettably, played as a short-term game, transport strategies and infrastructure projects require a steady long-term commitment. It is rarely possible for such projects to deliver results within a Parliament or two, but that fact should enable us to take party politics out of the mix and unite across this House on a common goal to deliver a long-term, all-encompassing transport plan.

On a wider note, I should stress that my interest in transport policy is not born simply of my serving on the Transport Committee; it also comes from a far more regional and local perspective. On a regional level, as a Yorkshire MP I know that transport links play a vital role in bridging the north-south economic divide, which previous Governments have failed to address. This issue is vital to providing a sustainable long-term economic recovery for our country and for the Yorkshire region.

On a more local level, congestion and gridlock has an impact on the daily lives of my constituents. However, it is not just local households who struggle with such congestion, as businesses are being hit hard, too. The York northern ring road and the A64 act as a brake on local economic growth, bringing increasing congestion, more accidents and costly delays. As the Transport Committee’s second recommendation in its “Transport and the economy” report outlined, investment in this regard is “a high priority” so that we can support economic growth, locally and nationally.

Travelling through or around the city of York can be an extremely time-consuming exercise. York’s infrastructure is often seen as a nuisance, but the sad reality is that it could get a lot worse, and rather quickly too. The City of York council’s draft local development plan contains some stark warning signs. It states that

“congestion delay time across the network could triple by 2026”

and that

“even with all reasonably practical and deliverable transport investments in place, congestion delay across the network will double by 2026.”

Such a frank and honest assessment is frightening. The link between transport infrastructure and economic growth is undisputable, so my fear for York and for the rest of the country is that economic growth over the next decades will become increasingly choked by the outdated infrastructure. We may want companies and businesses to invest for the long-term future in northern cities such as York, but they will require certainty that there is a long-term plan in place to deal with congestion—a long-term plan that they can buy into.

[Geraint Davies]

In 2014, we will have the centenary of Dylan Thomas’s birth in Swansea, and we are looking forward to massive tourism investment as a result. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that business and the people managing these things know in advance that the electrification of lines will take place, for instance between Cardiff and Swansea, so that they can plan ahead and business has good time to make that inward investment?

[Julian Sturdy]

Absolutely. Tourism is also a key element in York’s local economy and the congestion is having an impact on the tourism level in the city. Sadly, my local authority in York would rather tinker with small-scale schemes than take the difficult long-term decisions that will safeguard the city’s economic future. As I mentioned at the outset, we need a fearless transport strategy. We need a long-term approach to investment at a national level and implementation locally. The Government’s £3 billion of capital for local road projects outside London, to be spread over the next four years, is therefore a welcome starting point, but is that the sum part of a long-term strategy for our roads? The crux of road investment is long-term, joined-up thinking.

I shall now discuss another form of transport. We have to tackle aviation issues seriously, and we face two problems. Airport capacity in and around London is at breaking point. We should be enormously proud that our capital city has remained resilient over a number of years, maintaining its position as the best place in the world to do business. Although international politics and powers have changed, London has remained at the top table, with a positive knock-on effect for the rest of the UK. However, if we refuse to expand our capacity, we risk throwing away our the capital’s crown and, again, our economy, both nationally and locally, will suffer.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the slack that exists in regional airports could be used to deal with the shortage of capacity at Heathrow? I am thinking, in particular, of Birmingham airport, which is just 90 miles away from Heathrow.

[Julian Sturdy]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will touch on regional airports if I am able to do so, but he rightly says that there is some slack there. That is certainly the case at Birmingham, as the Transport Committee has seen on some of its visits.

As developing nations hold the key to global economic recovery, it seems ridiculous to suggest that Britain’s creaking aviation capacity cannot or should not be expanded. I share the Transport Committee’s concern that the Government’s aviation strategy to date has been limited. However, many different ways to improve this situation exist and I am pleased that the Government are consulting on how to increase aviation capacity in the south-east. Alongside the consultation, we must look again at regional airports, as a number of Members have mentioned. Such aviation links to road and, increasingly, rail are hugely significant and connectivity must be the buzz word in this subject.

As remarkable and impressive as our railways are, there is no denying that many parts of them are in need of an upgrade, and I am truly grateful to the Government for funding the electrification of the trans-Pennine line between Manchester and York. That is exactly the sort of upgrade that will improve links and productivity between Manchester, Leeds and York, with positive consequences for the businesses located within and among those three key northern cities, as well as play a key role in tackling the north-south divide.

I appreciate that I have touched on a number of different issues, but that is both the beauty and the difficulty of transport. If I had more time, I would probably go further. I hope that I am not being too optimistic in saying that I truly welcome the Government’s approach. Electrification, high-speed rail, the northern hub—although I recognise that we need the whole thing on the northern hub—and the £1.4 billion for roads, to name but a few aspects, are positive steps in the right direction. I must also commend the Department for Transport for doing so much while registering an underspend in its budget. More for less is a commendable message for this Government to send out and I for one am most impressed by the Transport team.

18:31

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

There is a reason why so many hon. Members and so many of my hon. Friends are queuing up to speak in this debate. We all recognise the hugely important role and value of a good transport system in and to our constituencies and therefore the nation as a whole. Indeed, a good public transport system and a good transport system are the arteries of economic life. I am no exception to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who so often come together to support such projects, putting aside our party political differences.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), but I agree with him very much and I hope that the Government will take on board the arguments that will, without doubt, be made by many Members on behalf of all of us on that route up to Sheffield from London —the midland main line route. We desperately want it to be improved and hope that we will see electrification, which will benefit both our region and our area. It has been estimated that the wider economic area would benefit by £400 million if that line were improved.

I am grateful to the Government for saying that after many years—more than I would care to remember, because it would give a real indication of my age, but people have been asking for this for decades—the A453, the major route from the M1 into Nottingham city, will be improved. I am so grateful that the Government have finally given the go ahead and hope that they will now give us all a date for when that road will be widened. Anybody who has travelled along the A46 will know and appreciate what a first-class modern road can deliver, benefiting not only the motorists but our quality of life and economic growth.

I do not want to speak for too long and I do not wish to be rude, but I will not take any interventions, because I know that many Members want to speak. Let me add one point. It is imperative that when we improve our transport system we work as much as we possibly can with the people who will benefit from it, or we will find that their lives are hugely disrupted. The tram route is an example of that. The Minister will be familiar with the debate in my part of Nottinghamshire about the tram route, which will now come out of Nottingham and up to Toton in my constituency. The proposal has been very controversial because of the route. Broxtowe Conservatives were always opposed to it, and I am proud to have been part of their campaign. I know that the arguments have been well rehearsed, but now that work has started, we are seeing why there was such opposition. It has led to considerable disruption—and there will be more—to the lives of ordinary people through the taking of gardens, the demolition of homes and so on. In particular, at the terminus of that route, very vulnerable green-belt land has been made into a housing development area. When we consider such schemes, we must look at the broader issues and the fact that there might sometimes be detrimental and harmful consequences for people who live on the route or at the end of it, and who want to protect their green belt. We have seen that in Toton, where an application has been made for some 800 homes on green-belt land, largely based on the fact that there will be a terminus at Toton.

Unfortunately, we must always be careful when we consider how to finance some routes and extensions to public transport. Let me take the tram as an example, although I will not rehearse the many arguments about such agreements and whether there is a bias towards tram routes over bus routes. Nottingham city council—the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) might address this in her speech—has introduced a workplace parking levy to finance the two new routes. In my view, that will have a profoundly bad effect on the very businesses that would otherwise benefit from such an extension of good public transport. It is all about getting that balance right, because in Nottingham ordinary workers at many businesses, especially large ones such as Boots in my constituency, will have to pay up to £300 a year so that they can travel to work when they have no alternative but to use their car because of the inadequacies of the public transport system. Perhaps ironically, many of those workers will not be able to use the very tram that their parking levy will fund. That does not seem right or fair.

It is a question of balance. When we take all matters into consideration, bearing in mind that better public transport provides a wonderful opportunity to fuel our economies, we do things in the right way. It is right and proper that the Government are determined to invest in our infrastructure, as that is without doubt the best way to make progress in our economy.

18:37

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on their coherent report and I want to focus on one aspect of it, which is the issue of regional imbalances in spend and how they happen, and to give some of my thoughts on how we can avoid them. Those thoughts are about the appraisal mechanisms used in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, the approach to appraisal and the Treasury Green Book.

Let us get the facts out of the way first. Table 2 of the Committee’s report makes it clear that in the period under review—2008-09—one region received substantially more funding than any other, and that was London. In broad terms, London received about two or three times more per head than the English regions. That matters as billions of pounds of capital spend generate high-quality private sector jobs that translate, through the power of the economic multiplier, into prosperity. The effect is transformative.

I cannot be the only Member of the House who thinks that it is odd that under the previous Government, in 2009, the discrepancy in gross value added per head between London and the English regions doubled at a time when that capital spending was being poured into London. That discrepancy by a factor of two between the capital city and other parts of the country does not exist in any other European country; it is unique to Britain.

I had hoped that after the election we would get all that sorted out with the new Government, and I was confident that serious attempts would be made to use the power of capital spending to fix the north-south divide. I was disappointed, like others who have already spoken, to see that in the autumn statement 84% of the £30 billion accelerated capital spend was allocated to London. Let me put it in context: that is £2,731 per head in London compared with £150 per head in my region, the north-west, and £5 per head in the north-east. I have heard Ministers talk about and challenge those figures and I would like the Minister to address that specific point.

The difference in spend is partly but not entirely to do with Crossrail, Thameslink and the underground, but even after those projects are removed from consideration, London and the south-east still receive approximately double what is received in the north. This is very serious and makes a mockery of our attempts to use the regional growth fund, and previously the regional development agencies, to redress that balance. If we put capital spend of that quantity into one part of the country in that way, then giving £1 billion here and £1 billion there in regional spend does not make much of a difference. I am not a conspiracy theorist: I do not think that the Opposition, when they were in government, or my own Government have done that on purpose. There is a deeper issue here—a systemic bias that drives these decisions—and it is to do with the method of appraisal.

As far as I can make out, the mechanism that the Department for Transport uses—the new approach to appraisal—leans heavily on a system of multiplying small, incremental changes by the number of people involved to generate the business case. The system specifically is not allowed to take into account wider economic benefits. The consequence of that appraisal mechanism, which has been used both by the previous Government and by this Government, is that there is a bias towards the parts of the country that are most congested and where the greatest number of people will benefit from relatively small changes in journey times to create a huge economic benefit. As a consequence of that system, resources for projects are continually allocated to one part of the country.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House’s attention the disparities with proposed investment packages in transport. Ministers will try to argue this away but they cannot argue away the extent of the disparity when more than £2,500 per head of population is being spent in the south-east compared with just a fiver in the north-east.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman echoes the point I am making. Just to take the politics out of it, let me point out that broadly the same thing happened under the previous Government, so we go back to my previous point: something systemic is happening here in the way that projects are appraised within the Department for Transport. I do not believe that either the previous Labour Government or the current Government wished that to be the out-turn. Frankly, the resulting disparity is not even very good for London, because the consequence of having a mechanism that removes congestion is to enable further congestion to gravitate towards our capital city and we start all over again. Enough is enough—Ministers have to challenge the appraisal mechanism.

I have thought about how the system could work and I shall leave the Minister with my suggestion. We should allocate capital budgets by region as the starting point for where money is spent. Then we would not get the issue with the north-east getting £5 a head while London gets £2,700. I understand that one risk of such a system would be sub-optimisation and that there is a need to manage cross-regional projects, but that could be done—other organisations do things of that nature. It clearly is not satisfactory for things to carry on as they are. I would like the Minister to give his view on why the appraisal mechanisms used by the Department continue to give the answers they do.

18:39

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). It is not the first time I have followed him. I first did so 45 years ago when we were both at school in my home town of Rugby.

I am pleased that the Select Committee noted the importance of investment in the transport system as a driver for growth. As a Member for a constituency in the centre of England, where warehousing, haulage and logistics businesses are a key part of our local economy, I shall focus on the road networks and links of which they take advantage. First, let me say a few words about my role before I arrived here. I was the owner of a business involved in the distribution of catering goods around the midlands, and an efficient road network was vital to our operation. My business was based in Rugby, because that is my home town, but I often told people it was based there because I looked at the UK and chose Rugby as the best possible place for a distribution business. We have the M1 taking us north to Leicester, Nottingham and Derby and taking us south to Northampton, Milton Keynes and London; we have the M6 taking us west to Birmingham and the west midlands conurbation; we have the A14 taking us to the east midlands, Kettering and Corby; and we have the A46 taking us south-west to Stratford-upon-Avon and the Cotswolds. The examples I am about to provide of the importance of the road network could apply to hundreds of thousands of businesses across the UK.

My business provided a delivery service, and the measure of our performance was the number of deliveries our vehicle was able to make during the working day. The more deliveries it made, the better and more efficient my business. That was affected by the efficiency of our route planning and by how well the road network was working—by the physical layout of the roads, and the opportunities to use new roads and bypasses to avoid bottlenecks and any hold-ups that were occurring. We sold to our customers with a promise of, “Order today, delivery tomorrow,” in order to minimise stockholding. Our ability to honour that promise depended on the efficiency of the road network and we prepared our loads according to known road conditions. We would know about big contraflows and closures and we might adjust the load on a given vehicle accordingly. Having advance notice of closures and delays is important to such businesses, and I know that the DFT has improved its performance in that area. When a van was out for longer or was not able to make its deliveries, we incurred overtime payments to staff. If a customer did not receive their goods on the allocated day, we had to load the goods on to an additional vehicle at an additional cost to the business that could not be recovered from the customer.

I also employed a team of sales people who would go out and visit customers. Again, the more calls they could make the better, and the cost to my business of an expensive executive sitting in a car in a motorway traffic jam was a significant burden. Both the delivery aspect of my business and the sales team were affected by congestion, which can be caused by overrunning works, the over-zealous placement of cones, unnecessary lane closures when no work appears to be taking place and extended motorway closures after incidents. I acknowledge that the Department has undertaken work to reduce such situations, but there are still massive frustrations to the road user and effects on the efficiency of businesses.

It is important to consider the contribution that the distribution, haulage and logistics sector makes to the UK economy. It is estimated to be worth about £10.7 billion and to employ about 293,000 people. In 2009, the Road Haulage Association estimated, in giving evidence to the Transport Committee, that

“a UK-based haulier pays around £25,000 in fuel duty each year for a typical articulated HGV, amounting to some £2 billion per annum for all lorries in the UK.”

More recent calculations suggest that the industry’s annual contribution in fuel duty has risen to as much as £4.57 billion.

The Government have announced a total of £3 billion a year of spending on new strategic road schemes up to 2015. In the current spending period, they will receive £14 billion in income while they are spending £3 billion on new road networks, so there is a massive surplus to the Exchequer that is available to the Government to spend on other services. What does the logistics industry need to help it to generate that income? It needs investment in the road network, so I am pleased that that is mentioned in recommendation 2 of the Select Committee’s report. It also needs the motorways to be kept free. Blockages and lane closures are not only frustrating but incur a substantial cost. I note that the Select Committee’s report, “Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads”, said that jams could cost the UK economy £24 billion a year by 2025.

This has been a very valuable debate. My constituency will benefit from the £3 billion allocated to capital spend on road networks over the next four years and we are delighted that many projects, including the one at the Catthorpe M1-M6 junction, are going ahead. All that work together will enable us to generate economic growth over the coming years.

18:49

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great honour to speak in the debate, bringing up the rear, as I often do. I am a firm believer in the link between good transport infrastructure and economic development. It is critical and one does not have to go far in this country to find proof of that. As Michael Portillo notes in his excellent programme about trains, they helped to develop the south-west and other parts of Britain, and that is also true of Europe. Let us understand and accept that. The great news is that the Government accept it; that is why they are investing so much, and quite right too.

I am pleased to say that in my constituency, Stroud, £45 million is being invested in the redoubling of a critical line between Kemble and Swindon, so that we can radically cut the journey time and increase the number of trains on the track. That great news is signalling to people in and around Stroud that it is a place to do business, more business and better business. That is the kind of delivery that the Government are already providing, and I thank them for it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) spoke about logistics, which is an important subject. I too intend to speak about logistics in the context of the supply chains for manufacturing and engineering. We have complex supply chains in this country, which are becoming more complex as the weeks and months go by because many firms are manufacturing to order and production is ever more dependent on supplies from further afield. We need good infrastructure to support a complex supply chain. Many speakers have emphasised the importance of Government working together. They do work together. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is focusing on supply chains, and it is good that the Department for Transport is providing the infrastructure needed to develop good supply chains, nurture and improve them.

We have also been talking about regional development agencies. I cannot think why anyone would want to bring RDAs back, but apparently some do. The Government have moved to making sure that local authorities work together. A key aim of the Localism Act 2011 is to foster a duty to co-operate. We need that co-operation between local authorities so that they think strategically when they are planning anything to do with transport and economics. The two go hand in hand, as do the needs of local authorities when transport is considered. The LEPs have already been celebrated in the debate—again, quite right too. They too have to work together in the interests of good strategic planning.

Speaking in more general terms, we need infrastructure that works and encourages communication. That is why I am a supporter of HS2. It does not go through my constituency, but even if it went nearby, I would still support it because it is right that we start to connect our big cities. We do not need to look very far on the continent or beyond to see that good connections bring about economic growth and more economic activity, so we need to promote such investment. Crucial to infrastructure is the certainty that it gives the private sector, encouraging it to add further investment. If we have a plan that people understand and recognise is a good plan, we should also attract private investment in our transport infrastructure. That is an important feature of the case for linking economics and transport policy.

Finally, I shall say a few words about airports and ports. I note from The Economist that most people live within two hours’ drive of at least two airports, so clearly we have plenty of airports. It is important that they are flexible and able to link up the main hubs. The fact that we have so many airports is good for industry, because aviation development is an extremely important part of manufacturing and engineering. We need to make that case more forcefully.

I have a small port in my constituency, Sharpness, which handles 600,000 tonnes of bulk material. That activity brings more activity and economic investment, so I am pleased that the infrastructure which supports that port is in place. We could improve it, but the fact that we have such a port in my constituency is good news. Any other hon. Member with a port, small though it may be, should support it because it is good for business.

In summary, let us never forget that transport and economics often go together, and the Government are putting their money behind that.

18:55

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Select Committee’s report on transport and the economy. It has given many hon. Members the chance to raise constituency concerns, which I hope the Minister will respond to when he sums up.

I was going to say that it was noticeable that almost all the speakers in the debate were MPs representing towns, cities and rural areas in the north, but then we had contributions from the hon. Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), which broke the flow somewhat. None the less, I am sure the Minister will want to reflect on the implications for Government policy of the concerns expressed by northern MPs and the fact that good transport links are demanded by the north.

The Select Committee report looks at the big picture and asks some searching questions of the Government, which the Minister must answer. At the heart of the report is the Committee’s conclusion that Ministers have failed to explain how their decisions on investment in transport will deliver the economic growth and rebalancing they say are needed. Of course that could be a failure of communication, but I think it is a failure arising from the absence of any strategy or joined-up thinking from this Government.

People throughout the country know that the biggest and most pressing problem we face is the lack of jobs and growth. There are 2.7 million people on the dole—the highest number for 17 years—representing a huge cost to the economy in benefit payments and lost tax, a huge cost to the individuals affected and their families, and a cost to their local communities, many of which, especially in the north, are all too aware of the long-term scarring effects of unemployment. The Government should have a laser-like focus on using every aspect of policy to turn things around by creating jobs, supporting industry and getting our economy moving.

Transport should have a key role to play, but time and again we have seen this Government take decisions that send us in the opposite direction. It is not just that they have cut spending too far and too fast, but that they have made the wrong choices. Labour has not opposed £6 billion of difficult and painful cuts to the transport budget—two thirds of the cuts proposed by Ministers—but we would have made different decisions about how to spend the remaining money to protect passengers and deliver the maximum benefit to our economy. Labour would have protected additional investment in the rail and road network as part of a five-point plan for growth and jobs.

[Mr Leech]

From what the hon. Lady has said, a Labour Government would have been forced to cut capital spending even further.

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. As I said, we have not opposed £6 billion of difficult cuts to the transport budget, whether that is capital or revenue funding, but we would have maintained a further £3 billion and we would have spent it in different ways, as I will set out.

We would have protected £500 million for road schemes vital to economic growth, providing a much-needed boost to our construction industry. We would have made sure the £435 million needed for essential road maintenance went ahead, saving the taxpayer money in the long term, according to the National Audit Office. Labour would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget; we would have put passengers first and tackled affordability. We would not have allowed the private train operating companies to boost their profits with eye-watering fare rises of up to 11% this January, 5% more than the RPI plus 1% that the Government told passengers they could expect, which means that some people are spending more on their fare to work than they do on their mortgage or rent. That is not helping to make work pay; it is just adding to the cost-of-living crisis that households are already facing.

Labour would put working people first by taking on the vested interests. We would not have given back to train companies the right to fiddle the fare cap, so that when we said that fare rises would be limited to inflation plus 1%, the public would know that that was the maximum rise they would face at the ticket office. We would also have been able to bring forward the much-needed electrification of the midland main line that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, pointed out, is so important to improving connectivity between London, Northamptonshire and four of the largest cities in the country: Derby, Leicester, Sheffield and, of course, my own city of Nottingham. We would have started the electrification of the great western main line, but we would have gone right through to Swansea, rather than stop at Cardiff.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The hon. Lady is busy telling us about all these spending commitments, but she is also saying that she would make £6 billion of cuts, so will she identify where those cuts would be made?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not go through all the cuts right at this moment, but I have already said that we would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget—[Interruption.] Well, the Minister has put forward £528 million-worth of savings from the rail industry in his departmental plans, and we would not have opposed that. We would happily find the same efficiencies that he says he would find, such as the £245 million from Crossrail. We certainly agree that where there are efficiencies to be found, they should be found. I could go through his entire departmental budget, but that would detract somewhat from the debate. I am happy to do that another time.

Under Labour, there would not have been a £680 million cut in local transport funding, which is leading to a Beeching-style cull of our bus network. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that one in five supported bus services have been scrapped. Whole communities have been left isolated, without access to public transport, and fares are rising on those services that remain. Under Labour, three quarters of local authorities would not be reviewing school transport provision, with many families being asked to pay more just to get their children to school. That increasing problem was rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in her wide-ranging speech about the challenges facing her rural constituency. As my knowledge of Staffordshire Moorlands was previously limited to Alton Towers, I now know a lot more about it.

Time and again the Government have chosen policies that have a disproportionate impact on the very people who need their help, particularly in these austere times. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made that point clearly and passionately. He focused in particular on the impact of bus cuts on villages in his constituency and the real problem that that is creating not only for people seeking work, but for those trying to stay in their jobs. The unemployed, 64% of whom do not have access to a car, need buses to get to interviews and jobs. How can they get back into work if there is no bus or the fare is unaffordable? What about young people, 72% of whom rely on buses to get to college? How can they stay in education or training to get the qualifications they need for the future if there is no bus or the fare is unaffordable?

Labour would be prepared to maintain investment in our much-needed bus services, but it would not be a blank cheque; we want something for something. We would reverse the cut to the bus service operators grant, but in return we would expect the bus companies to work with us to deliver a concessionary fares scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in education or training. Many people would like to get on their bicycles because it is not only a good way to protect the environment, but a cheap way to get about. We would not only protect the road safety budget, but reallocate funding to improve cycling infrastructure and give people the confidence they need to use their bicycle.

Even for those people who do have access to a car, the situation is little better under this Government. The Chancellor’s decision to increase VAT to 20%, just when global oil prices had taken the cost of filling the tank to record levels, is a real drain on household budgets, especially in rural areas. That is why a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% is a vital part of Labour’s plan for jobs and growth. It would cut the price of a tank of petrol by around £1.35 and put money into people’s pockets.

The Government claim that one of their primary objectives is to rebalance the economy, including by reducing the north-south divide. I am not sure whether Derby considers itself to be in the north—Derbyshire always feels reassuringly like the north to me—but I do not think that the Government’s claims to be rebalancing the economy away from reliance on financial services and towards manufacturing ring true with voters in Derby. The decision to award the Thameslink contract to Siemens, which will build the trains in Germany, is a real kick in the teeth for Bombardier, the only company that designs, manufactures and assembles trains in the UK. That decision put the whole future of UK train manufacturing at risk, along with thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs not only in Derby but across the midlands.

I welcome the Government’s admission that they got that wrong and their decision to amend the tendering process for Crossrail, but why, instead of spending months saying that they could do nothing about the process for Thameslink, did they not act to protect 1,400 jobs at Bombardier? Having delayed the project by a year, Ministers had the time and opportunity to restart the procurement process and ensure that wider socio-economic factors could be taken into consideration. They have proved that today.

In response to the Transport Committee’s call on the Government to explain how their policies will achieve economic growth and tackle regional disparities, the Department cites the example of HS2. There is cross-party consensus that high-speed rail is the right way to deliver greater capacity and reduce journey times between our major cities. By linking to the existing east and west coast main lines, high-speed services will serve cities including not only Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, but Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Liverpool, York and Durham. Once again, however, the Government have missed a trick: why are they legislating only for the first phase of the new high-speed line, from London to Birmingham, when they could have given a real boost to cities in the north by taking the whole Y route forward as one project, opening up the possibility of beginning construction in the north and the south and accelerating the benefits north of Birmingham? I hope that the Minister will respond to the pleas from his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), who asked for faster progress on HS2 to help Manchester and other northern cities.

Labour has offered to work on the same cross-party basis to tackle the urgent need for extra capacity at Britain’s airports. The Government’s failure to set out any strategy for aviation, or even a plan to do so by the end of this Parliament, is putting jobs and growth at risk across the country. Regional airports have an important role to play. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned Durham Tees Valley airport, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has led a local campaign on behalf of the airport, so Members on both sides of the House will look forward to the Minister’s response to that call for Government support.

[Phil Wilson]

The campaign in the area is a cross-party campaign. We have already arranged a meeting with the Minister of State on 24 April to discuss the public service obligation and the way forward. One of the reasons why One North East did not apply for a PSO was the cost that involved, and I am concerned about asking the LEP to do that. If One North East did not have the money, I am sure that the LEP will not. I think that we need to be a little more sophisticated in how we raise money to go ahead with this.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. He is quite right that one of the effects of scrapping our regional development agencies has been to make co-ordination more difficult.

The Government’s call for airports to be “better not bigger” is not a policy but a slogan, and the blanket ban on expansion in the south-east makes no sense, but that does not mean any backing down from our commitment to tackle climate change. Any new capacity must go hand in hand with tougher targets to reduce carbon emissions from aviation. I hope that the Minister will take forward that work on a cross-party basis.

Tackling climate change is not just a challenge, but a huge opportunity for British business, so it is deeply disappointing that Ministers have reversed their commitment to support the development of a national public recharging network for lower-emission vehicles, instead leaving the roll-out of recharging infrastructure entirely to the private sector. That is a real missed opportunity when such cars could and should be a growing industry.

Families throughout the country are paying the price for the global financial crisis of four years ago, and whoever was in power would have had to make tough decisions on spending, but that is why it is so important that every penny the Government spend delivers on their overall objectives, and that in turn is why Transport Ministers are failing: they simply do not have a strategy to address needs of the country. Not only are they cutting too far, too fast, but they are making the wrong decisions—the wrong decisions to create the jobs that the economy so desperately needs, the wrong decisions to get people back into work and to support young people in education and training, the wrong decisions to support British businesses, and the wrong decisions to ease the cost of living for hard-working families.

It does not have to be that way. Labour would make tough decisions—we accept that there have to be significant cuts in spending—but we would ensure that all our efforts were focused on getting the economy moving again and on getting people into work. That is the only way to cut the deficit and we would ensure that every penny spent on transport served that purpose.

19:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I welcome the generally constructive comments from Members on both sides of the House. I shall try to answer as many points as I can in the 15 or so minutes allotted to me.

The coalition Government’s vision is for a transport system that boosts growth and cuts carbon. By investing in transport that links people with the workplace and goods with the marketplace, we are building a more efficient and effective transport network that is an engine for economic recovery and for creating jobs; and by investing in projects that promote green growth and help people to make more sustainable travel decisions we can help to build a more balanced, low-carbon economy that is essential for our future productivity. I stress, however, that there is not an either/or choice between building a stable and strong economy and safeguarding the environment: cutting carbon and generating growth are two sides of the same coin. Both are essential objectives that transport must deliver, and that is precisely what we are delivering.

On the question of investment, we are pleased that the Transport Committee welcomed the additional funding for transport which was announced in the autumn statement and in the growth review—and which was significantly higher than many people expected. The announcement was not only a clear demonstration of the coalition's commitment to growth, but a demonstration of our belief that improving transport infrastructure can be among the most effective ways to drive our economy forward.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke on behalf of the Opposition in a contribution that I found astonishing and lacking in some reality. She referred to allegedly wrong choices, but by wrong choices I wonder whether she is referring to the A453 improvement in Nottingham, the ring-road improvements in Nottingham, the station improvements in Nottingham, the tram extension in Nottingham, or the other projects that we have been taking forward throughout the country—in the north and the south—on behalf of the Government.

The hon. Lady started by saying that she would make £6 billion of spending cuts, but in fact all we had were indications of further expenditure to which the Opposition are committed: expenditure on a midland main line, on electrification to Swansea, on buses, on cycling and on road safety. It seems as if the Opposition have learned nothing. It was another charter for a great wodge of expenditure, and completely out of touch with the economic situation in which we as a nation find ourselves. It was cloud cuckoo land economics.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I made clear in my contribution, we have identified £6 billion of cuts as set out in the Minister’s budget, with which we agree. I was talking about the areas where we would not cut but change the direction of expenditure in order to protect passengers and to stimulate economic growth and jobs. That is exactly what I set out, and I would be more than happy to discuss with him exactly where the cuts would be made.

[Norman Baker]

I am delighted to hear that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has written to the hon. Lady’s boss, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Transport Secretary, asking for details of the £6 billion of cuts, and so far no answer has been forthcoming.

Our growth review package will deliver £1 billion of new investment by Network Rail, more than £1 billion to the strategic road network and £500 million for local schemes and, in particular, for schemes that can make the earliest possible contribution to economic recovery.

We recognise that spending is one thing but that spending wisely is something else, so we are determined to ensure that every pound of public money invested in our transport system is made to count. That is why, although our rail investment programme is the largest and most ambitious since the Victorian era, we are committed to reforming the rail industry in order to reduce costs significantly and to improve efficiency. Members have today welcomed the electrification of the north trans-Pennine rail route between Manchester, York and Leeds, which is part of the northern hub project, as well as other major investment processes.

The Chair of the Transport Committee referred in her opening remarks to her view that an explicit transport strategy was missing, but with respect I do not accept that point. She made it to the Secretary of State for Transport on 19 October 2011, when my right hon. Friend gave evidence, and I refer the hon. Lady to her own question, Q16, from that session. The Transport Secretary said:

“To all intents and purposes, …what you will end up with…the aviation framework…the rail reform… the work being undertaken by Alan Cook to look at the Highways Agency”

is what will produce, certainly for the medium term, a strategy. When the Committee looks at the rail reform and aviation papers, which will both be out shortly, the Chair will see that. If she is making the point that we need to look over the longer term, say over 40 or 50 years, she is making a fair point, which the Government will take on board.

[Mrs Ellman]

The fact is that currently there is neither a rail strategy paper nor an aviation paper. They are both awaited.

[Norman Baker]

I agree, and we inherited that position from the previous Government, but I have already said that the rail reform and aviation papers are both due very shortly, and I hope that the Committee will do its usual good job of examining the documents and making comments to the Government following its analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was concerned about the transport business case, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is no longer in his place, made the point that we have refreshed the transport business case, and we also have the departmental plan for transport, which sets out our priorities in the short term. The transport business case does include wider aspects of economic development, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was concerned about, so the Government have now put in place a wide -ranging formula to ensure that those essential points are captured in our assessment of individual transport projects.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to declining rural bus services, a point that he had made before, but 78% of bus services are commercially run by commercial operators and are therefore not under the Government’s control, as he will appreciate. They have been affected only by the BSOG reduction, of which we gave 18 months’ notice, unlike what happened in Wales and Scotland, where bus companies were given almost no notice.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I shall make some progress, if I may.

The performance of local councils across the country varies enormously in respect of buses. If the hon. Gentleman has had significant cuts in Durham, he must consider other areas, such as East Riding and so on, where there have been far fewer cuts. Local councils have responded in rather different ways to the difficult economic situation they find themselves in, and it is not fair simply to blame the Government for that. He needs to look at his local council and at the decisions it has made in its area.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will notice that, in trying to deal with the matter, we have given money to community transport, including in Durham. I have also announced a new fund, the better bus area fund, which his local authority has indeed applied for; and the local sustainable transport fund, which is worth £560 million and includes more money for the area than the previous Government invested over the same period, has provided funding for the Wheels to Work schemes, which I mention because he made a very fair point about the importance of ensuring that there is joined-up thinking between the Departments for Transport and for Work and Pensions. I have corresponded with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the matter, and the discussions are ongoing because we recognise the important link between transport and work. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point.

On regional growth, I was disappointed that the Committee Chair quoted the IPPR’s report without question because it is incomplete and partial, as she may remember I said when I dealt with it at Transport questions a couple of sessions ago. Its figures are unreliable. Of all the transport investment announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement and in the 14 December announcement about local major schemes, 62% by value is in the north and the midlands and 35% is in the north alone. Similarly, of the strategic highway investments announced in the 2010 spending review, 63% by value is in the north and midlands and 40% is in the north alone. The spend in the autumn statement for the local authority majors totals over £3 billion of regional spending, of which 35% is in the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber, 27% is in the west and east midlands, and only 24% is in London and the south-east. I therefore do not recognise or accept the figures in the IPPR report.

[Angela Smith]

The Passenger Transport Executive Group has made it clear that there appears to be no basis for the figures given by the DFT to the Select Committee, which are reflected in its report. Will the Minister undertake to give a full written explanation of the basis of the figures that the DFT is using?

[Norman Baker]

The figures in the IPPR report need to be questioned rather than the Department’s figures. In her speech, the hon. Lady accused the Government of a lack of transparency, but that is completely wrong. There is now more transparency and consistency in decision making than there was under previous Governments. For example, we have published the internal assessments of all 41 approved local authority majors development pool schemes. We published details of the Highways Agency’s schemes at the 2010 spending review. That is a commitment the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), made and took through at the time. Every six months, we publish value for money data on all decisions.

[Angela Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Norman Baker]

There is no point in the hon. Lady shaking her head—these are the facts. We have also published a whole lot of transparency data sets that were previously kept secret. We have a very good record on transparency, which is very important for decision making centrally and locally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) asked about pot holes. The amount of money being made available to deal with pot holes in the four-year period of the spending review is more than was made available by the previous Government. In addition, we have undertaken expenditure to get best practice identified across local authority works so that local authorities get better value for money and can therefore mend more pot holes or, indeed, prevent them from occurring in the first place. I recognise the importance of that matter for many of her constituents and no doubt people elsewhere in the country.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the value of 20 mph limits, particularly outside schools. She will know, I hope, that I have made it possible for local authorities to introduce 20 mph limits, where they feel it appropriate to do so, much more easily and with much less bureaucracy than was hitherto the case. That has been well received by local government. She raised a fair point about school transport provision. I have been in ongoing discussions about that with my opposite number at the Department for Education, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); indeed, I am discussing it with him again tomorrow.

My hon. Friend asked about sat-nav. Next week I am holding a sat-nav summit to bring all the various players together. [Interruption.] Labour Members clearly do not think this is a serious issue, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Government Members do think so. We do not like HGVs going down inappropriate roads and getting stuck. If Labour Members do not mind that, that is up to them, but we are dealing with the issue in government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) referred to the significant road and rail investments in the north-west. He put matters into context fairly, and I am grateful for that. He also, rightly, highlighted his support for HS2, which is essential not only for Manchester and Leeds but for points further north. The benefits of HS2 begin as soon as Birmingham is connected, when the first leg is in place, because trains will be able to run through to the north-east and journey times will be reduced accordingly. We want HS2 to be in place as soon as humanly possible, and if we can do anything to bring the timetable forward, we will. I note his strong support for the northern hub. I can only echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who said that it was a really strong contender for control period 5. If that gets me into the Manchester Evening News, that is all to the good. I will try to get into the Leicester Mercury as well by saying that the midland main line is a strong candidate for CP5.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) here today. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is no longer in his place, intervened on him to refer to the Cardiff to Swansea line. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve by electrification, but I point out to him that it is not necessary to change trains at Cardiff to get to Swansea. When electrification to Cardiff takes place, it will be perfectly possible, and indeed desirable, to run trains through in bi-mode operation without the necessity to change, and the speed gains that come from electrification will make it a much quicker and more pleasant journey to Swansea on new rolling stock. He ought to be pleased by that arrangement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has done a lot of hard work on behalf of his local airport, and we all recognise that. He asked in particular about the arrangements for public service obligations. I can tell him that it is open to regional stakeholders to apply to the Secretary of State to impose a PSO on an air route should they feel that a case can be made and it satisfies EU regulation 1008/2008. As he knows, the airport pushed for a PSO in 2009. There is an issue with the poor service at the railway station, and I will be happy to speak to him separately about that matter if that would be helpful.

My final point relates to comments about the Department’s alleged underspend, which was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee and a couple of other Members. It is an important point. The level of underspend became apparent only towards the end of the year and could not have been predicted earlier. The money was used to increase expenditure in certain areas where results were deliverable in 2010-11 and represented good value for money. It would not have been right to scrabble around for something to spend on at the end of the year that was not good value for money; that would not have been a responsible use of taxpayers’ money. I also point out to the hon. Lady that a very large sum of that related to budget cover for depreciation and therefore was not, in any case, spendable cash in the traditional sense. The underspend arose largely because of the rail subsidy being lower than expected following the successful negotiations that we carried out with the train operators, which produced better than expected passenger numbers and a better deal for the taxpayer than hitherto might have been expected.

We have had a very good debate. The Government have demonstrated that we are committed to transport and the economy, committed to creating growth and jobs, and committed to cutting carbon emissions. We are getting on with it and doing a pretty good job.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Rio+20 Summit

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: Eighth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on Preparations for the Rio+20 Summit, HC 1026, and the Government response, HC 1737.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

(1) resources, not exceeding £1,079,958,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,

(2) resources, not exceeding £172,643,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and (3) a sum, not exceeding £1,106,539,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Jeremy Wright.)

19:27

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee following our report on the preparations for the Rio+20 summit. I am pleased that so many members of the Committee are in the Chamber. I am grateful that the Minister is in his place and say at the outset that I acknowledge that the Secretary of State is on other urgent business to do with this topic. We welcome the Minister and look forward to his comments.

All parliamentarians must engage with this issue; those of us on Select Committees are legislators who are there to hold the Government to account. We have already seen, in organisations such as GLOBE International, what a powerful contribution Members of Parliament from different Parliaments around the world can make on these important matters.

The report is the first by our Committee to be debated on an estimates day. The timing of the debate could not be better. This morning, along with other MPs, I was privileged to be able to attend the launch of the report, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet”, which comes from the high-level panel on global sustainability set up by the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and which was presented to us by Janos Pasztor. In their report, he and the panel members make a truly powerful case for global change, and that is what we have to address in the run-up to the Rio+20 summit. This debate also comes after the publication of the zero draft of the United Nations outcome document for the summit.

We began the Select Committee inquiry early, starting last spring, so that we had time to examine what the Government are doing to make Rio+20 a success and so that we could play a part in getting attention for the summit, including the pre-summit events, the actual negotiations and, crucially, the follow-up work that will be needed. If action was needed at the first Rio Earth summit, 20 years on we need solutions more than ever. Governments and politicians the world over need to get their act sorted. Equally, we have to take this to every community around the UK and to the people we live next to and work with. People in countries, towns and cities the world over need to urge the decision makers to do more.

Whatever agreements are reached at Rio, the summit is not just about one country or one negotiating bloc; it is about developing and developed countries, the haves and the have-nots, and not just one generation, but future generations. This Rio conference will affect us all today, tomorrow and in the days and years ahead. We therefore have to make it a high-level event, where we change the way in which we do politics. It is a crossroads. From now on, policies should be formulated and budgets made on the basis of what is right for the long term. We should give notice that we will change course because we believe that following a more sustainable path will enhance human well-being, further global justice, strengthen gender equity and preserve the earth’s life-support systems for future generations.

We all know that it is 150 days to the start of the Olympics. I wonder whether people in Parliament and out there are aware of the countdown to Rio. There is a bit of a paradox here. We have to be cautious and guard against the impression that this summit is the be-all and end-all. We have to remind ourselves that no instant wins or quick fixes are likely to arise from it. Rather, we need a change of direction. Rio+20 must be seen as a starting-off point for new initiatives, rather than a signing-off point to end a process.

The Select Committee report calls on the Prime Minister to attend the summit to show the UK’s commitment. His office informed us that he would not be able to do so because of a clash of dates with the diamond jubilee celebrations. That seems to have prompted the United Nations and Brazil to move the summit to later in June to allow not just the Prime Minister, but other Heads of Government to attend. The response to the report states that decisions about who will attend Rio, apart from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will be decided on later, as will the decision on the need for a special envoy. Right from the word go, the Government have to be careful not to be on the back foot. This matter has to be clarified.

I have no quarrel whatever with the Secretary of State going out there. It is vital that she attends. I know that she is very committed and that she has been involved in all the preliminary stages. However, I believe that for the full backing of the team, the Prime Minister needs to be there, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, the scientists and the business leaders. The UK team have to make their mark. At a time when the world is changing; when environmental debt needs to be as high up the agenda as economic debt; when we face temperature rise and biodiversity loss unless we learn to live within our planetary boundaries; and when we have one opportunity for the international community to frame the new priorities and to work out how we will each, individually and collectively, engage with this matter, we need the UK Prime Minister to be there, actively shaping the new agenda and understanding what alliances are being forged.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as we are a global leader in embedding natural capital in the national accounts, which I hope will be a central feature of the summit in Rio later in the year, the Prime Minister has a strong story to tell? He will be able not only to boast of our work in that area, but to share it and further strengthen our alliance with the Brazilians, who are an emerging and important power.

[Joan Walley]

I am very grateful for that intervention, especially as it comes from the hon. Gentleman, who plays such a constructive role in the work of GLOBE legislators not just in the UK, but internationally. This debate is about how we can best use our best practice and leadership and be part of the ongoing process.

It will be no good if we are not seen as one of the main contributors to a new multilateral process. The questions are as difficult as they can be and there are no easy answers, especially if we are not fully committed and on board. It is not in the UK’s interests to be sidelined in any way as the Rio agenda is formulated and then carried on after the summit. This discussion came up at the launch earlier today. This is not a question of the Prime Minister going out there to grandstand; we want him there so that he can understand and be part of the process. When the Minister winds up, I would be grateful if he could tell us what discussions the Secretary of State has had with the Prime Minister about this issue and whether we can expect him to make a commitment to attend.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could address another of our recommendations and say whether the UK will appoint a special envoy to champion some of this work in the years ahead. It was important that we had a special envoy to deal with forestry issues. I am grateful that the very capable hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who played such a distinguished role in forestry issues, is present. I hope that what happened to him does not happen again if our recommendation for a special envoy on biodiversity for Rio is accepted.

The objectives for Rio+20, as set out by the United Nations, are

“to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges.”

In practical terms, the two main themes of the conference are

“a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”

and

“the institutional framework for sustainable development”.

The Select Committee report described the lack of progress on sustainable development since the first Rio summit 20 years ago, which I am sure many Members were involved in taking forward, perhaps in local government. It identified a new impetus for urgent action and for a greater appreciation of our planetary boundaries. The report discussed the merits of new sustainable development goals and recommended that they take forward the millennium development goals, but with the key difference of applying targets to development as well as to developing countries.

The report emphasised how the green economy agenda needs to protect those who might be disadvantaged by it. We need a fair green economy that respects the social justice pillar of sustainable development. The report highlighted the need for the green economy to take account of the value of ecosystem services and beyond-GDP measures of economic activity, including well-being. It noted the need to involve the private sector in the green economy and recommended mandatory sustainability reporting by companies in their annual reports and accounts.

The report said that there is scope for the creation of an international court on the environment, which would provide a forum for adjudicating on environmental cases. However, it noted the Government’s line on United Nations institutions—that the focus should be on making the existing systems work before inventing new ones. We thought that that was a reasonable line to take, but stipulated that the UK should not insist on it if it would get in the way of a wider agreement on the substantive issues, such as the green economy.

The report stressed the importance of engaging with civil society and, more importantly, of finding creative, imaginative and innovative ways of engaging with the public. I know that the Liaison Committee is keen that Parliament should go out to the community. We are looking to hold a special event at St Martin-in-the-Fields on 21 May involving the “Hard Rain” project to express the importance of this agenda not just through the words of politicians, but through art, music and photography.

The Government’s response to our report is fine as far as it goes, but far more work on the ground is needed. That is why it is so important that we flag up the matter in today’s debate. I welcome the Government response, however, which was positive overall. As we would expect, it accepted the importance of the Rio+20 summit and the need to contribute to making it a success. I welcome the fact that the Government are fully committed to sustainable development, but we always hear a lot of warm words about the importance of mainstreaming sustainable development across all policies, and we would like to hear a little more about how that will actually be done and how the Government intend to raise the profile of Rio+20. I know that since our report was published the Secretary of State has spoken to non-governmental organisations and business groups, including on 9 February at the Guildhall. It would be helpful, though, if the Minister could set out what further action the Government will take to generate and maintain engagement on Rio+20.

Another relevant issue, that of mobilisation, was raised at a conference chaired by Nick Stern under the sponsorship of the United Nations Foundation. We need to concentrate on solutions and on leading by example, so local initiatives all over the country are important, such as the one at Keele university that I attended just last week for green week on the occasion of the inauguration of Jonathon Porritt as the university’s Chancellor. Such initiatives follow on from the “Hard Rain” project, which was a solutions exhibition showing that we need to think not about nightmare scenarios but about what we can do. We need to work together to create solutions.

The Government agreed with us that business involvement in the green economy is key. However, their response did not address the important point that we raised about the need for a fair green economy that reflects the social dimension of sustainable development.

Another detailed aspect of our report was our reference to the proposed international court for the environment. We asked for the Government’s views on the pros and cons of setting up such a court. We appreciated their thorough response describing the lack of international appetite for a court that would bind countries. We understand that, but a more modest proposal doing the rounds was a court that would make only declaratory decisions. We would appreciate an update on that from the Minister, including what further developments and discussions there have been.

In the run-up to Rio, it is important that we place our preparations in the context of UK policy. We must examine the issues that the UK should be interested in, so that we can lead by example. Our constituents should be pushing us to push the Government to get the best deal for the UK. We should never be satisfied. We need a deal that acts as a catalyst for green growth, takes account of fairness, defines what we mean by a green economy and does not use green growth as a euphemism for economic growth. It needs to take account of best practice in other legislatures, such as Wales, where there is legislation on sustainable development.

We can start now the discussions about a new framework and a new economy that invests for the long term and offers a future for humankind in which we can live within our environmental limits in a fair and just society. All Departments of our Government must lead by example at home, whether on finance, business or international development. They must consider the causes of poverty, not the symptoms, and embed sustainable development in cross-cutting policies to invest for the long term. We must have the resources to show what the UK can do at a time of transition.

Local Agenda 21 achieved a huge amount at the first Rio summit, and we need to see what equivalent outcomes we can get at this one. I wish to highlight the enormous efforts of many countries, particularly Colombia, whose ambassador is in London today not just garnering support and building consensus on the five main issues—energy, food security, water, sustainable cities and oceans—but doing all he can with other countries, including the UK, to promote the sustainable development goals.

We do not have time to go into detail about many aspects of what we need, such as on forestry. It is really important that we have a time-bound commitment to far more areas of forestry, managed by indigenous people and local communities. I hope that when today’s debate is over, Ministers will have a greater understanding of the fact that they need to keep Parliament up to date with all the initiatives that are under way, including proposals, actions, the changing positions of different countries and what can be done to address possible hurdles. The Environmental Audit Committee wants to be part of that process and actively engage in the progress that the Government make.

I also ask the Minister whether we can have regular updates on the work being done in our bloc, the European Union, in the run-up to Rio+20. How do the Government intend to take forward any commitments reached at Rio, and how will Parliament, the place that should be at the centre of the debate, be involved in debating and agreeing follow-up measures in the years ahead? Will the model be that national and regional economies follow essential components, using environmental taxes and regulations effectively to promote low-carbon industry? Can we have greater transparency in reporting, so that economic decisions reflect the value of ecosystem services and impinging planetary boundaries? In that way we could measure development progress not by gross domestic product alone but by measures that capture well-being and the health of environmental capital.

A further issue to consider is the pivotal role of business and the private sector, and the need for companies to be transparent about the sustainability of their operations, including their resource efficiency. They also need to disclose the source of the raw materials that they use, the waste that they generate and the efficiency with which they use and reuse resources.

Many people are doing what they can to show leadership and demand action, and it is vital that the UK Government engage with parliamentarians and legislators, civil society, business and people the world over on these most pressing issues. I welcome this evening’s debate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please resume your seats. Ten Members want to speak. If everybody takes 10 minutes, plus the usual injury time for interventions, everybody will get in. We may have to tweak that a bit later in the debate.

19:46

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I shall do my best to be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow colleagues time.

I first wish to put on record my appreciation of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has not only secured the debate but done extensive work with the Environmental Audit Committee. She has had an extensive career working on environmental issues, and I appreciate her efforts over a number of years.

The Government have a fine line to walk. Clearly the United Kingdom wants to be seen to be leading the world on environmental issues, and we have a moral responsibility to go to Rio and negotiate the best deal that we can for the globe. At the same time, however, we have to ensure that the rest of the world comes with us. That will be crucial as we move forward. We need to be seen to be leading the demand for improvements to protect the world in which we live, but we cannot be seen to be charging over the hill and leaving everybody else behind. We have to take people with us.

It is also worth putting on record that we have nothing to fear from a green agenda. In fact, just the opposite—the UK has everything to gain from moving towards a green economy. We have seen that in our own constituencies. My constituents have embraced solar power in their desire to put panels on their roofs and partake of free energy from the sun. It is crucial to recognise that we are pushing at an open door, because our constituents are keen to get on board as long as they can see the benefits to themselves. It is important not only that we achieve things but that we take the general public with us. They are very keen, and for the next generation—my children’s generation—having a little dial in the kitchen telling them what energy they are generating from solar panels and what energy they are consuming will be very powerful. The Government need to push such ideas.

That leads me to science and technology, which will be crucial. Science has a great deal to offer in solving some of the problems that we face on Earth, and the Government should embrace science and technology and try to find more methods of doing things more efficiently. We must ensure that new technology is brought forward.

One technology that is particularly relevant to the Sherwood constituency is carbon capture. Sherwood is a former Nottinghamshire coalfield and coal is a crucial part of my constituency, but we all recognise the global warming problems that coal causes. If we can find a solution to catching carbon from those polluting power stations, there is an opportunity to make use of the Earth’s natural resources without releasing carbon. As we open new technologies such as shale gas, as long as we do not release carbon into the atmosphere, we have a wider window for improving technologies to make them more renewable and, as it were, less traditional. That could be a great benefit not only to this country, but to the world.

At the same time, we need to recognise our nation’s energy security position and how crucial it is for us to find new sources of energy so that we are not dependent on other nations to produce energy for us. We have a great thirst for energy and power, and it is important for us to find new sources of renewable energy. Solar is a good example, but another one that I should like to flag up is anaerobic digestion, which has a great future. My constituents recognise the benefits of anaerobic digestion. Anybody who is offered the choice of an energy recovery plant, an incinerator or an anaerobic digester within their community will always go for an anaerobic digester, because it does not involve a chimney pot. Anaerobic digestion has a great deal to offer the nation, and with that method we can produce energy using biogas—I want the Government to push that.

Another issue that I want to highlight—I hope the Government take it seriously—is water. Western nations drag water around the world and pull it from water-stressed places. We are all keen to eat asparagus and strawberries in December, but as consumers, we sometimes do not give a thought to the impact that that might have globally. That links to other Departments, and I hope the Minister recognises how important it is that the whole of the Government climb on board with the Rio agenda. I am thinking of projects funded by the Department for International Development. UK taxpayers’ money could be used, for example, for a project such as building a power station in a third world country, which is an honourable project. However, it is important that that power station does not burn carbon fuels, or if it does, that it has carbon capture and storage. It is also important that UK taxpayers’ money is not used to devise water systems—for hydroelectricity or irrigation—if that will impact on a community downstream and leave it without a clean water source and unable to live a normal life. UK consumers need to be mindful of the impact we have on the global ecosystem.

I mentioned taking the world with us and keeping pace, and another issue that needs highlighting in that respect is carbon leakage. The last thing we want is for the UK Government to take firm action over energy-intensive industries only for those industries to relocate to another part of the world and for us to import its products. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is keen to see the success of the ceramics industry in the UK. It would be a tragedy if, for example, the steel, cement and ceramics industries left for other parts of the world and continued to burn enormous amounts of energy in an unenvironmental way, and if we continued to import those products. It is crucial that we move at the right pace on carbon leakage. We support those industries in reducing the amount of energy that they use, but we can do that only in a global context.

My final point is also on technology. It is almost impossible to separate the issues of food and energy. If we are to solve the problem of feeding the world and keeping it warm at the same time, we must make use of new technologies and scientific innovations. I am keen to see the introduction and use of genetic modification technologies, which are already used extensively in the US, South America and China. There is a danger that the EU will be left behind on GM technology. The Government need to lead independent research—I emphasise independence—into GM technology, so that UK consumers can be confident not only that it is a safe technology, but that it offers rewards.

Finally—I know I have said “finally” already, but this really is finally—we need to bear in mind that if we are unable to secure the support of the rest of the world and if it does not come with us, we need to look at the practical implications for the UK. That is probably the most controversial thing I have said. If we are unable to drag the rest of the world with us, the impact of global warming on the UK will be catastrophic. If other nations around that table are not supportive, our communities will be at severe risk of flooding and weather conditions. The Government must then consider how we are to mitigate the symptoms of global warming for those communities. There is a balance to strike in that situation. Do we spend taxpayers’ money on trying to reduce our carbon footprint, or do we spend it on mitigating the symptoms of the world’s inability to act to curb carbon release? That will be an enormous challenge not only for the UK, but for the rest of the world.

I thank the House for its time and look forward to the rest of the debate.

19:56

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee under the committed leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I shall pick up on some of the issues that she raised and ask how we can help to make the Earth Summit in Brazil in June a meaningful driver of sustainable development. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), a colleague on the Committee. I am not convinced that I want to look through his shale gas window, but I agree with many of the other points he made.

Twenty years after the original Rio summit, which adopted the Brundtland commission concept and established the three-pillar approach to sustainable development, which ties social and environment goals together, it is right to look back at how far we have come, or indeed to admit how far we have not come, since ’92. To paraphrase the UN Secretary-General, the trends on the three pillars of sustainable development are at best mixed. There has been significant economic growth overall, but the benefits have not been universally felt. He pointed out that income poverty remains an enormous problem in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia; large disparities between regions remain on other millennium development goals, including school enrolment, and maternal and child health; and 1 billion people are still under-nourished. Yet only half the countries with data on their millennium development goals are on track to meet their targets.

The environmental protection pillar has probably shown the least progress. The Secretary-General said that pressure on ecosystems continued to increase, as did the loss of forests and biodiversity. Sadly, the world has failed to respond to the dangers that it recognised 20 years ago, which is enormously disappointing, because in that time the scientific evidence on the consequences of failing to tackle climate change has become stronger. We have also learned a lot more about what is happening to ecosystems, biodiversity, the nitrogen cycle and the other processes that the Stockholm Resilience Centre identifies as the planetary boundaries within which humanity can operate safely.

Our Committee took evidence from a range of organisations, and the picture painted of progress was pretty well uniformly gloomy. The International Institute for Environment and Development said that

“we are currently losing the battle for sustainable development”;

Oxfam stated that progress since 1992 has been “weak”; and the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development identified

“signs of erosion in the overall global political commitment to sustainable development”.

Why then has the world failed to respond anything like as robustly as it should to the threats the planet faces? There is probably a multitude of answers, but the underlying one is that most people in the world have not been convinced of the severity and urgency of the challenge, and even if they have, they are far from sure that action at any level will be effective. A “business as usual”, or a “business more or less as usual”, scenario therefore wins by default. We need to use the run-up to Rio as an opportunity to combat that inertia and make the case for action, so that the summit can enable a renewal and more concerted response to the threats, but also the opportunities, that we face.

One option that has arisen out of discussions in the run-up to Rio has been the establishment of new international goals. Colombia submitted a proposal for the introduction of UN sustainable development goals. That seems to have been reasonably well received, albeit with two not unreasonable caveats: first, there is no time before June to draw up and agree a detailed set of such goals, and secondly, the new goals must complement, not undermine, the existing millennium development goals. Indeed, the Committee considered the establishment of sustainable development and consumption goals at Rio—even if at first in broad-brush terms—as a way of shifting effort contributions from the developing to the developed world.

The two main themes for Rio, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, are to build a green economy in the context of sustainable development, and poverty eradication. The UN Secretary-General envisages that involving a multi-track approach encompassing taxation, public procurement, public investment in sustainable infrastructure, public sector support for research and development, and reconciling social goals with economic policies. In my view, taxation has a vital role to play in incentivising more sustainable behaviour. It helps to make environmentally damaging activity less economically attractive and encourages environmental goods. One problem in this country, however, is that the Government do not have a definition of an environmental tax. They have abandoned the previous Government’s definition, which reflected the international norm—basically, if a tax has an environmentally beneficial effect, it is an environmental tax—and the Treasury is now considering a new definition. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the UK delegation will have a new definition to take to Rio to inform its negotiating position in this policy area.

The green economy debate also focuses on the valuation of ecosystems services, the role of regulation, the need to measure sustainable economic performance by a yardstick that goes beyond gross domestic product so that human well-being becomes central, and the need to ensure that the green economy is a fair economy—fair across the planet, and within regions and countries. There is every prospect of those themes being adopted at Rio as essential requirements of a green economy, and I hope that the Government will press the case.

The EAC report on carbon budgets called for the introduction of mandatory emissions reporting by business to help to tackle climate change. Various organisations and bodies have called for Rio+20 to agree a mandatory regime for sustainability reporting, and we agree with them. That sort of transparency will help the private sector to move more quickly to play its part in creating that green economy.

The other main theme for Rio is the institutional framework for sustainable development. The UK is not in as strong a position on governance issues as it was a few years ago. The Government have badly weakened the capacity for the objective assessment of their own environmental performance, with the abolition of the royal commission on environmental pollution, the withdrawal of funding from the Sustainable Development Commission and the removal of the watchdog role of Natural England and the Environment Agency. On the other hand, the UK devolved Administrations have a role in promoting sustainable development. I represent a Welsh constituency and believe that the Welsh Assembly Government have a valuable contribution to make on the governance question. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House how the Government intend to facilitate input from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before and during Rio. Furthermore, the Select Committee heard evidence in support of an international court for the environment. Although it must be recognised that that would not be universally welcomed, the idea has real merit and should be pursued.

A real danger in the run-up to Rio is that ambitions will be diminished by the global economic crisis, that we will return to the old, sterile, economy versus environment agenda, and that in practice Governments will choose to define a green economy as “full steam ahead but with a bit of environmental window dressing.” That will not do. Across the globe, it is clear that environmental protection and enhancement are too often being forced into second place by the economic imperative.

The message from our own Government and the lead party in the coalition is mixed. Good things have been done and said. I broadly welcome the green investment bank, the natural environment White Paper, the establishment of the natural capital committee and the national ecosystem assessment. I thought the Secretary of State’s speech on this very subject to environmental non-governmental organisations and industry representatives in the Guildhall on 9 February, despite a few gaps in detail, took us in exactly the right direction—the direction we need to head in if anything meaningful is to come out of Rio.

On the other hand, a rather different message is coming from parts of the Government—that environmental protection is a barrier to economic growth. We see all environmental regulations being reviewed as potential red tape, the EU habitats directive described by the Chancellor as gold-plated without any supporting evidence, the mishandling of the solar feed-in tariff issue, and strong resistance to the use of wind energy by large numbers of Government Back Benchers, resulting in the industry reconsidering major investment in renewables in the UK.

Let us be clear that uncertainty about any country’s absolute commitment to the strongest possible outcomes at Rio will help to make such beneficial outcomes less likely. One way to overcome such uncertainty is for the Prime Minister to commit himself to attending the summit with the determination to secure substantial progress in the international commitment to sustainable development.

20:06

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the previous speakers.

The Earth Summit in 1992 was a timely and significant international event that brought together 172 countries, more than 100 of which were represented by their leaders. It led to the creation of the UN conventions on biological diversity, the framework convention on climate change, the principles on sustainable forestry and Local Agenda 21, all of which were designed to tackle the unsustainable use of natural resources and reduce man’s impact on the environment. Twenty years later, however, as leaders are about to meet again in Rio, we have to be honest about where we are. The state of the environment has worsened significantly, with many of the natural resources on which we all depend under ever-increasing strain in many areas, including oceans and forests, biodiversity and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, we can all point to significant advances in parts of the world—for example, the significant decrease in deforestation in Brazil—and to political processes such as the recent outcome of the Durban climate negotiations, but all the scientific indicators are flashing red.

The question is why? It is not that we committed to the wrong policies at Rio 20 years ago and in Johannesburg 10 years later; it is that Governments have failed properly to implement their commitments. If we are to ensure that Rio+20 warrants the participation of leaders again, we need to recognise that three key parts of the Rio jigsaw were missing, so that that implementation was always likely to be difficult. First, there was a lack of domestic legislation to underpin the Rio principles and conventions; secondly, there was a lack of credible and independent international scrutiny outside the governmental processes to monitor and scrutinise governmental delivery; and thirdly, the international community failed to convert the Rio agenda into a language that would hold sway in the most powerful Ministries in each Government—namely, the Treasuries and Finance Ministries.

Perversely, we still focus on GDP as the indicator of national wealth, when clearly it is only a partial measure that does not take into account the stock of natural capital on which we all depend and all economies rely. One reason for the failure to look after and steward natural capital is the absence of effective recognition within the national accounts of what capital there is. A country can grow while becoming poorer as it destroys the natural capital on which its future prosperity depends. If Rio+20 is to be a success, we must address these three challenges. That is why I am so pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss Rio+20.

We should not leave it to Governments, who have not done a particularly strong job. As previous speakers, not least the Chairman of the Select Committee, have said, we need to step up as legislators. We need to ensure that in Chambers such as this across the world, we hold our Governments to account and ensure that they deliver on the promises they make in high-falutin’ speeches at high-falutin’ summits. As the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the formal announcement of the Rio+20 world summit of legislators:

“Parliamentarians have a profound influence. You enact legislation. You approve budgets. You are at the heart of democratic governance. And in today’s increasingly interconnected world, you are also a link between the global and local—bringing local concerns into the global arena, and translating global standards into national action.”

I am not sure that we have been good at translating global standards into national action. The international presidency of GLOBE International rests with the UK parliamentary group, and the right honourable John Gummer, now Lord Deben, is serving as the president of GLOBE. As the president of GLOBE in the House of Commons, I am delighted to say that the Government of Brazil and the United Nations Secretary-General have both recognised that a new process is required at Rio+20 to remedy the underlying weaknesses that I have mentioned. That process will be overseen by the global legislators’ organisation, GLOBE. With the support of the United Nations Secretary-General and the Government of Brazil, as well as the visionary mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes, the world summit of legislators will be launched. The summit will involve more than 300 Speakers of Parliaments, Presidents of Congresses and Senates, and senior legislators. It will mark the beginning of a new international process for legislators that is dedicated to establishing a mechanism that scrutinises and monitors Governments on the delivery of the original Rio agenda and the conventions on climate, desertification and biodiversity, as well as any further commitments made at Rio+20.

The summit will have three core objectives. The first is scrutiny. Recognising the role of legislators in monitoring and scrutinising the work of Governments, the summit will establish a mechanism at the international level to monitor the implementation by Governments of commitments made at Rio+20. The summit will develop a set of Rio scrutiny principles to strengthen legislators’ capacity to hold Governments to account. The second objective is legislation. Recognising the role of legislators in developing and passing laws, the summit will provide a platform to advance and share best legislative practice, as well as to promote a mechanism in international processes that can recognise national legislation. The third objective is on natural capital. Recognising the role of many countries’ Parliaments in approving budgets and national accounts, the summit will examine how the value of natural capital can be integrated in our national economic frameworks, to enable legislators better to monitor the use of natural capital.

Based on those objectives, the summit participants will negotiate a Rio+20 legislators’ protocol. They will be asked to make a commitment to take it back to their respective legislatures to seek support for, or formal ratification of, the protocol. Legislators will then be asked to reconvene in Rio every two years to monitor progress in implementing the Rio+20 outcomes, as well as to share best legislative practice. It is therefore with great pleasure that, on behalf of the President of the Brazilian Senate, I formally invite Mr Speaker to lead a delegation from this House to attend the summit of legislators. I shall be pleased to present the President’s invitation after the debate.

The world summit of legislators would not have been possible without the commitment of legislators from the Senate and Congress of Brazil. With the support of the President of the Brazilian Congress, Senator José Sarney, and the relentless efforts of the President of GLOBE Brazil and First Secretary of the Brazilian Senate, Senator Cicero Lucena, that process would not be taking place. Likewise, it is with the support of the mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes, that the summit will have a home in Rio.

In concluding, let me say that the UK has an extremely important role to play at Rio+20. The UK has made a series of significant commitments to incorporate the value of natural capital into its accounts—a radical step, and one that shows that the Prime Minister is delivering on his promise to lead the greenest Government ever. In fact, that step alone has the potential to be one of the most radical changes to the way in which we operate our economy. I am delighted that it is under this Chancellor that the UK natural capital committee build on this experience, which provides concrete and practical actions that can be taken at national level. That radical yet sensible agenda can be presented by our Prime Minister at Rio in person, I hope. I urge him to attend personally, following the G20 in Mexico, and I believe that the international process would benefit from his contribution. I also urge his personal support for President Dilma in that undertaking, as Brazil and the UK have the potential to be much closer allies.

I urge the Government to support the world summit of legislators and ensure that it is appropriately acknowledged and recognised in the leaders’ communiqué at Rio+20. I know that the Secretary of State has been asked to meet GLOBE to discuss the issue. If parliamentarians are properly engaged, we can deliver on our nation’s promises, give weight to the needs of future generations, not just our own, and deliver sustainable development not as a soundbite, but in reality.

20:15

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) in this important debate. Right at the outset, let me put on record my congratulations to the British Government on ensuring that issues that are important to this nation, including our agriculture, are on the agenda and will be addressed to ensure that good, sustainable husbandry and agricultural processes are pursued.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) that the Prime Minister should attend the summit. That would give it the necessary panache and provide the necessary proof that the issue is at the top of the Government’s agenda. I hope that Ministers can find a way to do that within their busy schedule. We know it is difficult to find time in what is an especially busy schedule this year for our nation, with the jubilee celebrations and of course the Olympics, but this is one of those make-or-break points, where world leaders can say either that they are on the side of some measures that will be very positive in helping to eradicate world poverty, or that they are not. That is not to diminish the role that will be played by our Secretary of State, who has done an excellent job of ensuring that British interests and the interests that the House is expressing this evening are on the agenda, but sometimes leaders have to step up to the mark too, and I hope that that happens.

I would like the Minister to take the opportunity this evening to outline the objectives and goals of our nation’s Government for the outcome of the process, because it is outcomes that are measurable. The Government have to set their own outcomes, not just for the summit generally but specifically for our country. What are we going to do? What are this Government going to do and, as the last speaker asked, what is this Parliament going to do to achieve those outcomes? We also have to ensure that our needs as a nation are not disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) made it clear that the way to ensure that those outcomes are on the agenda and are achievable is by having good communication with all regions of the UK in advance of the summit. I would welcome the Minister coming to talk to our devolved Assembly and those of Scotland and Wales, to ensure that we have a united national front for the whole nation.

Europe was previously not a good example of sustainable food production. It has obviously changed in recent years—we no longer have the vast butter mountains or wine lakes that once marked Europe. Since the decoupling, the dynamic has changed somewhat, potentially for the better, in helping to demonstrate how we can get sustainable food production and how we can set a good example. The UK and the European Community now look to security of food supply in driving forward the agri-agenda. We could introduce that agenda and that dynamic to the summit to demonstrate that changing our approach to livestock can change the flow of agriculture and production levels. Our own livestock numbers, especially suckler cows, have reduced in recent years, thus rebalancing the green economy to a degree. That ought to allow the UK to encourage the various nations of Africa to ensure that food production on their own small agri-holdings is sustainable and that they learn from our own sustainable practices.

It has already been pointed out that 1 billion people around the world are going hungry tonight—largely because of inefficient food production, because, frankly, we live in a world of plenty. We should set a goal to change that, and I hope that that will be done in Rio. I also hope that the big polluters of the world’s vast resources are made to pay. We need to see a change in how the “polluter pays” principle is driven by Governments. I welcome the moves to prioritise global water governance and to protect downstream users of water. That will be important for sustainable village life in many of the countries that would be regarded as third world, and I hope that we will be able to ensure that underground water resources will be protected for the future. The fact is that those who were the poorest 20 years ago are still the poorest now, and that 20% of the population consume 80% of the world’s resources. Furthermore, 20% of the world’s poorest people do not have a decent standard of living. I hope that that we will see change for the better in Rio.

20:21

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and all the other speakers of all parties with whom I agree on many issues. Speaking as a Liberal Democrat, as a former member of the Environmental Audit Committee and, indeed, as a former GLOBE delegate to the Cancun climate change summit, I feel as though I am speaking among friends here on many of these issues. I commend the Environmental Audit Committee for its report, for its mission to raise the profile of Rio+20 and for its role in securing this debate today.

Twenty years ago, I was involved in raising the profile of the original Earth summit. I then worked for Oxfam, and we were sending out tens of thousands of mailings to Oxfam supporters, trying to get them to lobby their MPs. I remember that a young campaigner called Caroline Lucas was working there at the same time. Whatever happened to her, Mr Deputy Speaker? Even then, we were trying to link the issues of global poverty, global justice and global sustainability, and trying to persuade people that they were absolutely inseparable. In the intervening 20 years, it has become even clearer that that is the case. The risk of climate change, and the risk that it poses to the global economy, as well as to people’s lives and livelihoods, is now even better understood. The risk of climate change accelerating beyond 2 above pre-industrial levels is also much clearer, not only from the United Nations framework convention on climate change reports but from domestic reports such as the Stern report, which catalogued in excruciating detail the risks of flooding, famine and disruption, and the challenge that they would pose to global economics as well as to people’s lives.

Even then, we predicted that the first people to suffer the most from climate change and environmental disaster would be the poor. Sadly, that has proved to be the case. With hindsight, it was probably true even then, as environments in the horn of Africa and the Sahel were beginning to change on a permanent basis. The risks to the poor in countries such as Bangladesh are even clearer now. This is also true in the UK, and even more so now. In 2007, my constituency was extremely badly flooded, and it was the uninsured and the underinsured—those on low incomes—who often suffered the most. We know that that kind of extreme weather event, even in relatively wealthy countries such as ours, will be much more frequent thanks to climate change. It is even clearer that we cannot separate climate change and environmental sustainability from issues of poverty and social justice. Only by taking concerted action across rich and poor nations, forested and deforested nations, and those nations that are the most and least vulnerable to climate change, can we tackle this global challenge. We are, as someone said a few years ago, all in this together.

Alongside carbon emissions and natural resource use, Rio+20 must tackle the issues of poverty, food, energy access and water. I do not entirely agree with the support expressed by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) for GM technology. There are other ways to tackle food production, including introducing more efficient food production, as the hon. Member for North Antrim said. Less wasted food in the richer countries would be a significant contribution, as would the fairer distribution of land and better education and training for poor farmers in many parts of the world. All those things can work together to make the whole planet more efficient at producing and distributing food.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gower (Martin Caton) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), have highlighted the many failures in development and environmental protection over the past 20 years. In the graphic phrase of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, many of the scientific indicators are still flashing red. And yet, many things that have happened during those 20 years have given cause for hope. Many people thought even 20 years ago that the UNFCCC process might run into the ground and expire very quickly, but despite some close calls, especially in Copenhagen, it is still on track. It is still a UN-led process incorporating more or less all the countries of the globe, and that in itself is an encouraging development.

Several hon. Members have said that monitoring and verification are a crucial part of the process, and we have seen significant progress in that regard. There is a significant prospect of reconciliation between China and the United States on those issues, which offers the prospect of whatever follows the Kyoto protocol being a more robust and verifiable process. We have also seen the setting of high-level millennium development goals, and the acceptance by many nations that those goals can provide a driver for international and domestic action, even though we know that many of them might be missed.

In this country, the use of domestic legislation has been important, as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said. The Climate Change Act 2008 set the 80% target, and this Government have produced the natural environment White Paper, which is a truly radical document. If the policy of valuing natural capital that it advocates were put into practice and were to make a difference to the detail of Government policy, we would be taking a massive step forward. We have also heard the promise to establish the world’s first green investment bank, and seen the prospect of the green deal making a radical difference to energy efficiency.

There have also been many other smaller, less high-profile initiatives, such as the local sustainable transport fund proposed by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and his promotion of alternatives to travel. He has done many of those things on a small scale, to make sustainable development approaches work across different Departments. However, we need to embed that right across Government to make sure that it functions right across Government. I commend my hon. Friend, too, for securing an abstention in the recent European vote on biofuels, which I think was a positive step. We have seen progress at the European level as well. The establishment of the European Commission’s emissions trading scheme may be flawed and limited, but it was a first step towards international action on limiting emissions, which has been copied worldwide.

A great deal of action has been taken by what we are nowadays supposed to call non-state actors—or people, as we used to call them. In business and, significantly, non-governmental organisations, in politics and for the Environmental Audit Committee and the media, this is an issue that has become high profile, leading to a great deal of action at the local and individual level as well as the governmental level.

What are the key messages for Rio? First, it is right for us to support the high-level goals. I strongly urge that they should include goals on resource use as well as on development and carbon emissions.

In opposition the Liberal Democrats produced a document called “Our Natural Heritage”. It highlighted the risk of things such as nickel, tin, tungsten, zinc, bauxite and oil becoming rarer in some cases and perhaps even running out in the next 50 years; or, if they did not run out, becoming much more expensive and more environmentally damaging to extract. The economic risks as well as the environmental risks were pinpointed, and we suggested introducing an anti-waste and resource efficiency Act to parallel the Climate Change Act 2008, to monitor and set objectives for sustainable resource use and reduce the associated risks. I still commend our publication to Ministers. One policy we got through from this document was the local green space designation to protect green spaces important to local communities. I can see why that was a politically attractive one to pick out, but I think our proposed resource efficiency Act would have been even more important. If the Rio high-level goals helped to contribute to promoting governmental goals on resource use and worldwide goals, that would be significant.

Other issues have been raised for Rio, including crimes against the environment, which I believe is important, as is challenging the primacy of economic growth as an indicator of the quality of success of economies.

Finally, the political message conveyed by who attends the summit is particularly important. It is welcome that the Secretary of State has committed to attend. I would love to see the Deputy Prime Minister flying the Lib Dem flag there as well, but just for once we should put party advantage aside and strongly urge the Prime Minister to attend Rio+20 if he possibly can. I think that would send out exactly the right message—that, 20 years on, we are turning youthful idealism into real leadership and tangible action at governmental and global level.

20:31

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Rio summit of 1992 represented what many people saw as a comprehensive programme of aspiration towards an international understanding of sustainability and a move towards a sustainable world economy. As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) set out, a number of important things came out of Rio 1992, which I believe was signed up to in the end by 178 Governments. It was to a large extent informed by the unsurpassed definition of sustainability from Brundtland—that it is development

“that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

That is the famous part, but the central definition refers to other things from Brundtland, such as

“the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and, the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

If anything, it is that second element of sustainability that we have let slip by over the 20 years since Rio.

As hon. Members have mentioned, Rio led among other things to an outpouring of local enthusiasm in the form of Local Agenda 21. I was an enthusiastic Local Agenda 21-er at that time, but we were probably naive about implementation and subsequently about what sustainability actually meant.

I was recently invited to an interesting seminar on sustainable aviation. There, I wondered whether the concept of sustainability might have been pushed a little to the margins. As far as the approach to Rio+20 is concerned, it is important to get clear what we mean by sustainability and what we mean in respect of the needs and the limitations that go with the sustainability concept. We must then address those matters very seriously in the Rio+20 discussions.

Things have certainly not happened since the original Rio along the lines that those who participated and lauded what happened there would have expected. Although considerable progress has been made with the millennium goals that were set at the Rio+10 summit in Johannesburg, most of them will not be met by 2015, partly because, as I think we now know, many Governments who say they will do things simply do not do them. Being clear about that at Rio+20 will be an important part of securing a realistic outcome from what it may achieve.

Rio+20 is likely to proceed on a much more sombre basis than earlier summits of this kind, but as other Members have pointed out, last year’s Durban summit on climate change demonstrated that expectations can sometimes be confounded, and I hope that we can approach this summit in that spirit. The fact that it has been demanded by the developing world rather than by developed nations makes a significant difference. It will look to the themes of Rio, but it will do so in terms of everyone’s development. It will consider the concept of a green economy in the context of sustainable development and the institutional framework that will make it possible, and I believe that it will do so in the light of the whole Brundtland report rather than just the oft-quoted first line. It must concern itself with the carrying capacity of the planet and with its concomitant—the need for global equity in the sharing of the resources that go into sustainable development.

It might be salutary to compare that starting line with what we thought obtained at Rio 20 years ago. The work of the Stockholm resilience centre at Stockholm university was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), and was examined in some detail in the Select Committee’s report. The centre asked what the planet could put up with in a number of areas before its sustainability threshold was breached. What were the planet’s sustainability boundaries? It considered 10 of them: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, global freshwater use, land system change, the rate of biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. That work made it clear that we have not only transgressed three of those boundaries—the rate of biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and, of course, climate change—but have often done so in a startlingly profligate way, and are close to doing so in three other areas: ocean acidification, the phosphorus cycle, and land system change.

Rio+20, then, is not just about how the planet can carry sustainable development, but about how can we row back and make the planet sustainable again, in terms of the carrying capacity that the Stockholm resilience centre set out so carefully. We should, however, celebrate some of our international successes. For instance, as a result of an international convention, we have returned ozone depletion to a point at which carrying capacity has been restored, and have done so through international negotiation and discussion in a way that was not thought possible a few years ago. That analysis, however, tells us only some of the tale. The reason for our transgression of the boundaries that I have mentioned is, overwhelmingly, the extent to which the developed world has hoarded its access to the planet’s carrying capacity at the expense of all other countries.

This is about sustainable development, but it is also about a worldwide green economy that is based on fairness and equity. In that context, it is clear that the proposals that Colombia and Guatemala are bringing to Rio+20—there may not be time to organise their sustainable development goals properly, but I think they understand that, and see this as a starting point—do not counter the existing millennium goals. I refer to the adoption of sustainable development goals for all, not just developing nations, relating to combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement patterns, biodiversity and forests, oceans, water resources, advancing food security, and energy sustainability. All those are sustainability goals for the whole world: they do not simply mean that the developed world is giving back some of what it took from the developing world in the first place.

I think that the promotion of global resources will inevitably have to be developed in order to promote those goals. I hope that the United Kingdom will support the idea of a global transaction tax—even if it does not support efforts to introduce such a tax at European level—with the proceeds going to the development of these sustainability goals.

[Martin Horwood]

I strongly support the hon. Gentleman in making that call. The Government may have been right to reject a financial transaction tax at an EU level, which would have meant a real risk of driving businesses to other financial centres. A global financial transaction tax would avoid that risk.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate his continuing loyalty to his adopted coalition on the issue. I thought someone had to go it alone and advance this idea, but he is right: a global transaction tax that everyone could unite around would be a far preferable way of proceeding, particularly if that tax was clearly hypothecated for the purposes of global sustainable development and global equity.

I agree with what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said about her approach to Rio in her recent speech to NGOs. Rio must be a workshop, not a talking shop. I also agree that being green is integral to sustainable economic growth and that we must put value on our carrying capacity so that it becomes an integral part of our economic transactions, not merely the fuel for them to take place. We must also add the essential ingredient of global equity in respect of resources. I hope the Secretary of State will pledge that the UK will push for that goal at Rio and call for the Colombian agenda of sustainability with global equity to be moved decisively forward.

That is the shape of the outcome I want at Rio. I do not want to be back here in 20 years talking about Rio+40 and wondering what might have been. By then it will be too late, as the Stockholm environment institute shows.

20:42

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

As this debate has shown, there is considerable scepticism about the prospect of getting much change. The hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) said that in recent evidence sessions there has been a downbeat response about what has happened over the past 20 years. The media coverage of the build-up to Rio has revealed concern about the fact that the summit will last for only three days, rather than the 14 days of the original summit. Many people are saying in insistent tones that this must not just be a talking shop, which points to the horrible possibility that it might end up being precisely that.

We must ask why we always seem to end up in such a situation when addressing these issues. We feel very optimistic and set great targets, but a few years down the line we find ourselves wringing our hands and asking why nothing has happened. I am a great believer in the UN and I think it is fantastic that we can pull countries together to discuss common challenges, but we must also be honest with ourselves about some of the UN’s limitations. It can bring people together to agree goals and targets, but it cannot take final decisions on policy or implement policies in individual countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) talked about the idea of holding a summit of global legislators. I support that, and wish him the best of luck in making it work. There is something more fundamental that we need to try to do alongside that, however: we must lead by example. We must come up with good ideas, implement them and demonstrate that they can work so that they become, as it were, contagious and spread around the world and other Governments adopt them, too.

[Mr Spencer]

One of the major challenges that we, as a western democracy, face is that some of the things that we are trying to achieve are not very popular. For example, we are addicted to consuming, but we need to reduce our consumption. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that education of the next generation to ensure that they are better than we have been in such regards will be key?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree with that, and I was going to discuss it, because we do not spend anywhere near enough time addressing these issues of our environment and biodiversity, and that is a great shame.

The green campaign groups have been so incredibly successful at highlighting the problem of climate change that there has almost been an unintended consequence that has been unhelpful to the cause: the creation of a sense of resignation among people that there is nothing that they can do, there is huge impending doom and no person on their own can make a difference. That is a dangerous thing to encourage.

The over-emphasis on climate change in the environmental debate has been in danger of eclipsing other equally important issues, such as biodiversity. I have encountered green campaigners who say, “Yes, but tackling climate change is the key to improving biodiversity. If we solve climate change, we solve a lot of other things.” That is true up to a point, because climate change is a factor in undermining biodiversity, but we must recognise that a range of other issues, such as sustainable farming and deforestation, get neglected and overlooked.

The danger of focusing too much on climate change in this debate is that it will not energise the public in a way that other things can. Fundraisers at bodies such as the WWF do not put complicated issues to do with carbon footprints on the front covers of their magazines; they use pictures of baby tigers under threat of extinction, and there is a reason for that. People care about our environment and about issues such as species extinction and biodiversity, so we are missing a trick by not broadening the debate out to engage people more.

For those reasons, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State and the Government have put the idea of valuing our natural capital front and centre in their approach to this summit, because that is the key message we should get across. There are lots of other conflicting messages, but the one thing we can do is highlight how we can place a value on our natural capital, and some marvellous ideas have been set out in the natural environment White Paper. One example cited has been that pollinators can be worth £400 million a year to our economy. As a former fruit farmer, I can vouch for that, because without the honey bees, the crop cannot be pollinated.

Emotionally, I have a slight problem with some of these ideas, as I think that we should value the intrinsic things about nature and the natural environment. An element of me thinks, “Isn’t it sad that it all has to be about bean counters trying to add up how much money a sparrow might be worth, rather than just valuing it intrinsically?” That said, when the limits of regulation have been reached and innovative solutions are needed, sophisticated ideas of offsetting and environmental plans to mitigate damage that might be caused in other areas can play an important role. There is huge potential in this area.

That is why I wish to finish by outlining one idea that tries to combine all these things. How do we demonstrate that individuals can do things, so that people can see that they can make a difference? We heard a fascinating suggestion in a Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs evidence session on the natural environment White Paper. Professor Hill, one of the leading authorities in this area, suggested that we try to link some of the ambitions of the White Paper with current proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy, because some of the criticisms of the White Paper’s objectives are that there is not really enough money to make it work on the scale required, yet there is a huge amount of money in pillar 1 of the CAP. We could have discussions about how that might be “greened” and it should not be beyond the wit of man to design a clever system—a market in environmental obligations—whereby some farmers might be able to transfer their environmental obligations to others. That may lead, in some of the more marginal land in less favoured areas, to a critical mass of wildlife and wildlife corridors. We might, thus, create the habitats that will allow wildlife to flourish in a much larger number than we will with a piecemeal approach.

We have heard some interesting ideas and I welcome the fact that the Government have put this idea of valuing capital at the heart of their proposals. The really important thing is for us to implement something that works. We will then be able to go back to other countries and not just talk about goals, but demonstrate how they can achieve those goals. That is what will be needed to move things forward.

20:49

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I too want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for her commitment to do more and more work on the environment across the whole House.

I want to focus in particular on recommendations 1 and 9 of the EAC report and the Government’s response to them. Recommendation 1 rightly observes that

“there has been inadequate progress on sustainable development since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.”

Sadly, I think that that is something of a grave understatement. Although there has certainly been some progress, it has been very slow and incremental, whereas the science demands an urgent paradigm shift. No wonder our report states:

“There is still far to travel. Some ‘planetary boundaries’ having been breached, and others approaching, make the task more urgent than ever.”

I agree very strongly with that. There is enormous urgency behind the agenda as planetary boundaries are indeed being breached. If everybody in the world lived as we do in the rich north, we would need another three planets to provide the resources and absorb the waste. I hardly need to say that we do not have three planets; we have one, and it is already looking pretty degraded.

Recommendation 9, however, claims:

“It would be unrealistic to expect the imperative for economic growth not to be high on the agenda of many countries going to Rio+20, developing and developed.”

My case is that as far as the developed countries are concerned, we need a different imperative high on our agenda. Indeed, the recommendation goes on to state:

“The Government should resist any moves there might be to use the financial situation to dilute the extent of the environmental and social aspects of the green economy discussed at Rio+20. Rather, it should emphasise…that environmental planetary boundaries will ultimately limit the room for growth.”

It is important to state in black and white that there are limits to growth. I know that that is not a popular perception or idea, but it is very clear that on a planet of finite resources with a rising population and rising expectations, infinite economic growth simply is not possible.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the economist Kenneth Boulding, who said:

“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”?

[Caroline Lucas]

I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for taking one of my best lines, but I think that that is a very important point. I am glad to see that our sources are moving in the same direction.

The source to which I want to refer is a film, “The Age of Stupid”. I do not know whether many hon. Members will have seen it, but it features Pete Postlethwaite as the sole survivor of a climate catastrophe. It is based in 2050 and he is looking back to today. He looks through all the newsreels—real, genuine newsreels with all the evidence that we have around us that climate change is happening—and he says, in words that still make the hairs on the back of my neck go up in a shiver, “Why is it, knowing what we knew then, we didn’t act when there was still time?” To me, that is just about the most important question that we could ask. Given that we have all this evidence that we must act, what is stopping us?

Part of it is to do with the fact that for too long, a shift to a green economy has been portrayed as though we were talking about shivering around a candle in a cave. It has been portrayed too often as being about hair shirts and we have assumed that if we scare the life out of people sufficiently with the terrible stories of what will happen—and it will happen if we do not get off the collision course with climate change—that, on its own, will be enough to motivate people to change their behaviour. Yet, as we have seen, the evidence shows that that is not what will motivate behaviour change.

Such change would be motivated by our painting a much better picture—a much greener, more compelling vision—of what a zero-carbon economy would look like and by our making the point that it is about a better quality of life. We should also make the point that the current economic model is not even working on its own terms, and we need look no further than the financial crash to see that. Not only that—it is not actually making those of us in the rich countries any happier beyond a certain point. There is a lot of evidence that once basic needs are met, beyond a certain point more and more economic growth does not make us happier. The stress on turbo-consumerism is not increasing our well-being. I could not put it better than Professor Tim Jackson, a professor at the university of Surrey who wrote the wonderful report, “Prosperity without growth?” He has said that we

“spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.”

To me, that sums up more or less what we are doing wrong.

We need real change. We need to recognise that the economy is a subset of the wider ecology and the environment—not the other way around. We need to recognise that, although technology and efficiency have their parts to play, they are not going to get us there on their own. In a planet with a rising population and rising expectations, to think that efficiency gains and technology alone will get us off the collision course we are on is to be in fantasy land. We need behaviour change as well and more education on population growth—an issue that no one has put on the table yet this evening. Population is a controversial issue but it has to be part of our discussions about a sustainable future. I am talking not about anything coercive, but about education and the provision of family planning for those women who still need and want it in developing countries. I am talking about recognising that the impact of different populations is different in different places. The impact of our fewer numbers in the north is far greater than that of higher numbers in the south, but population still has to be part of the discussion.

Social justice also has to be part of the discussion. The aim of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs does not apply only to the rich or those in the global north—it has to apply to every citizen. Under current trends, it looks as though there will be 9 billion people by 2050, and the real challenge we face if we are serious about a green economy is how future populations will be able to consume equally on a per capita basis and still remain within resource constraints. I suggest that that could only be feasible if we in the rich north significantly reduced our consumption patterns and our impact on the planet.

We have started to make some policies based on recognising the need for constraint, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008. I believe, and the science suggests, that we in the developed countries need to be reducing our emissions by something like 90% by 2030, so I do not agree with the targets in that Act, but the architecture in it is incredibly important. The Government could do much worse than to mark the 20th anniversary of the Rio summit by amending the Act, first, to set targets that are in line with the science and, secondly, to include traded or embedded carbon. For too long it has been too easy to outsource our responsibility for much of the carbon that is produced in order to make the products that we consume. The fact that the production happily happens over in China, with the impact going on to its balance sheet rather than on to ours, seems grossly unfair to me. If we are importing products from other countries, the carbon that is embedded in those products should be part of our calculations and audits.

There are also biodiversity constraints. Our consumption of resources has a knock-on effect for habitats, so that needs to be strictly regulated to prevent further loss of biodiversity and, where possible, to reverse the losses that have already happened.

Other hon. Members have talked about our current fixation with economic growth, which means that we over-emphasise the measure of that growth—gross domestic product—to the detriment of other measures of success. Really, our policy on growth is no more or less than a policy to increase GDP by a certain percentage each year, but as others have said, GDP measures do not differentiate the social value of different forms of economic activity or revenue and capital. A Government who use up their capital—the country’s natural resources—and treat it as national income, can boast of having delivered growth and increased GDP. We have seen that on a vast scale with the billions of pounds-worth of oil and gas from the North sea that has been treated as revenue with no thought to the fact that that income is a one-off boost to the economy. For 30 years it has made the UK economy look much healthier than it actually has been, and instead of the proceeds being invested wisely in the future—for example, on renewable energy facilities that we can use when the oil and gas run out—it has been used to fund consumer booms that have led to the inevitable busts.

Perhaps worst of all, the use of GDP as a measure does not count the full costs of production, such as the impact on our natural world and on people’s quality of life. DEFRA’s natural environment White Paper suggests that we can produce metrics of natural environmental value for transactions, but we need to be clear that simply saying that the natural environment has a value is not, in itself, sufficient to ensure that it is internalised in decision-making processes. I would also argue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was in some senses, that it is impossible to put a value on some resources. What value do we put on a liveable atmosphere? That is a public good, not a private good. Relying on the markets to offer protection is therefore insufficient. We need regulation as well.

Businesses need to be hugely involved in the project, and in some respects are far more advanced in their thinking on this agenda than Ministers. We could learn from some of the businesses that are already beginning to think about what it would mean for them to live in a steady state economy, rather than one that was based on more and more production and consumption. As others have said, it is incredibly important that we send a very clear message about the importance of the Rio Earth summit, and we would do that by ensuring that our own Secretary of State is there, but I join other hon. Members who have said strongly that the Prime Minister also needs to be there to send a strong message that this matters, that this is urgent. The time that we have in this Parliament—the next three or four years—will be critical as to whether we invest properly in getting off the collision course that we are on with the climate crisis. It falls on our generation to do that. It is a huge responsibility, but it is also an awesome opportunity.

21:00

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I shall start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for her passion, conviction and resolution in leading that Committee. I shall limit my observations to the opportunities and challenges to be faced in the transition to the green economy.

The forthcoming summit has two themes—the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development. These themes are in many respects the same as those of a conference outside Norwich that I shall be attending and speaking at this Thursday. The New Anglia local enterprise partnership is hosting a conference entitled “Norfolk and Suffolk— leading the green economy”. Its objective is to help secure a smooth transition to a green economy, which can bring significant benefits to East Anglia.

The LEP has been asked by the Government to take a UK lead in demonstrating how business can take advantage of the new markets for environmental goods and services, and to support the strong stance that the UK has taken nationally to reduce carbon and tackle climate change. The Government have given the LEP green economy pathfinder status and it is currently working up with business leaders and academics proposals that demonstrate how the green economy is vital to the UK economic recovery and to sustainable growth. In April the LEP will present to Government its manifesto, which will bring together a wide range of best practice studies, as well as some innovative thinking on how to put low carbon at the heart of business opportunity and success.

In my view, one role that the Government should be playing on the international stage at Rio is the same one as the New Anglia LEP is performing in this country. Rio provides us with the opportunity to showcase what the UK can do. We were at the forefront of the 19th- century industrial revolution. There is now the opportunity for us to play the same role in a 21st-century revolution, the transition to the green economy.

There are three advantages of green growth, the three Es—enhancing the environment, achieving a secure and stable energy supply, and creating new employment opportunities. First, on the environmental front, it is vital that we manage our natural resources in a prudent and responsible manner and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Given the vast offshore renewable resources and extensive maritime engineering expertise in the North sea off the East Anglian coast, the UK can be a prime beneficiary of clean energy projects.

Secondly, it is important that we have a secure supply of energy, and that we are in control of our own destiny and not reliant on fossil fuel imports. Thirdly, the move to the green economy creates significant employment opportunities. At present clean energy employs 250,000 people in the UK. With conducive Government policies this can grow to 500,000 by 2020. Moreover, retrofitting our houses through the forthcoming green deal provides the opportunity not only to make the country’s housing stock more energy efficient and to drive down utility bills, but to help rejuvenate our dormant manufacturing and construction industries.

Since May 2010 the Government have done much to promote the green economy. First, they have supported research and development through the proposed technology and innovation centre for renewable energy and the proposed five renewable obligation certificates that support and encourage wave and tidal technology.

Secondly, they have provided a new streamlined planning process for determining applications for large infrastructure projects, which so far appears to be working well, based on the feedback I have received from Scottish and Southern on its Galloper wind farm application and from East Anglia Offshore Wind on East Anglia ONE.

Thirdly, there have been important developments in investment in sustainable infrastructure, with regard to rail and the roll-out of superfast broadband across the country by 2015, and in encouraging proposals for investment in electricity infrastructure so that the demand for energy can be better managed through a smart grid, smart metering and, in due course, the development of a European super grid.

Fourthly, working with the private sector is vital if we are successfully to realise the opportunities presented by the green economy. On the East Anglian coast, the enterprise zone due to start in April in my constituency—in Lowestoft and adjoining Great Yarmouth—and the designation of the two ports as centres for offshore renewable engineering will provide businesses with much-needed support and will help to reinvigorate supply chains. Moreover, the green investment bank can act as a catalyst for private sector investment.

Fifthly, and most importantly, on skills and advancing education, the most important thing we can do is invest in people. It is vital that people have the necessary skills to take up the jobs that will be created in the green economy. The further education and apprenticeship policies that are being enthusiastically promoted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning provide an ideal foundation on which to build. We also need to promote the teaching of science, technology, engineering and maths in our schools.

The Rio summit presents the UK with an opportunity to showcase what we have been doing to promote the green economy. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should fly down to Rio, hopefully with the Prime Minister on the wing, to boast and to swank about the Government’s achievements. However, in a measured and constructive way she, with the Prime Minister by her side, can promote the green economy and show how a framework for sustainable development can be laid down. I also ask that she supports the UN Secretary-General’s “Sustainable Energy for All by 2030” initiative, which will be launched at the conference.

On the home front, the Government must finish the work they have started. There might be a temptation to water down the approach to sustainable development by adopting a “slightly green but business as usual” approach. This temptation must be resisted. Over the past 20 months the Government have successfully set out their stall, showing how they intend to move towards a green economy. The private sector has accepted the invitation to work with them to achieve that goal. The Government must not let the private sector down and must continue to work with it to bring to fruition the three objectives: nurturing and looking after the environment in a sustainable and responsible manner; achieving a low-carbon and secure energy supply with less price volatility; and creating new and exciting jobs that can play an important role in leading the economic recovery.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is using the terms “green economy” and “renewables” as though they were the same as decarbonisation. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) explained, we have to cut our carbon emissions by 80%, or even 90%, by 2050. Currently, about 2.5% of our energy comes from renewables. Does my hon. Friend accept that other forms of low-carbon energy have a major part to play, because he has not mentioned them so far in his remarks? I of course mean nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

[Peter Aldous]

The Government’s policy is a mixed-energy approach—that is, nuclear, renewables and carbon capture, as my hon. Friend said. I support that policy. I was concentrating my comments on the green economy, but I agree with him.

21:09

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I share in the compliments that many Members on both sides of the House have paid to the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has done an excellent job in that role over the past year. I also apologise to her and to the Front Benchers for missing the opening speeches. I am afraid I was delayed elsewhere, so I welcome the opportunity, nevertheless, to make a few points in the debate.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that prior to his contribution the debate had been pessimistic in terms of the seriousness of the situation that people had portrayed, but I feel that people were being a little optimistic, because there is a danger of striking the wrong balance—between on the one hand not being so pessimistic that people are discouraged from taking action, and on the other not recognising the seriousness of the position that we all face. I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that seriousness, but, although we must always try to be positive and see a way forward, we should also look at the underlying realities, particularly when discussing what has happened since the conference 20 years ago, when an agenda was set out on how the world might address its many environmental challenges.

Members have already said that although there has been progress things have, in many ways, gone backwards very badly over the past 20 years. The examples of climate change, deforestation, water shortages, melting ice caps and biodiversity have been mentioned, and in most respects things have become a lot worse, rather than better, over the past 20 years, so it is worth understanding where we are if we are going to think about how we move forward.

That point needs to be made before, dangerously, we forget the pessimism because we want to be positive. I understand that that is important politically, but we must consider the underlying reality, because we have to work out how we get the world community back on the path to making the fundamental changes and securing the fundamental international agreements that are essential if we are to address the challenges faced by our environment.

We know that Rio is not going to end with any massive, great, super plans, or with any great international agreements. Since the failure to secure comprehensive and legally binding agreements in Copenhagen, the world community has undoubtedly gone backwards, and Rio is not going to reverse that movement, but what Rio can do—and not just Rio, but the other meetings that take place over the next few months, of which Rio is just a part—is to go for relatively modest objectives and to set out future pathways that, at the same time, put back on the agenda our attempts to secure the wider international agreements that we need.

Rio can, for example, address the food and agriculture issues to which Members have referred, and encourage the exchange of technologies and ideas on the green economy worldwide, an issue on which we in the UK have an opportunity to set an agenda from which other countries can benefit. We can try to ensure that the climate finance funds that were promised at Copenhagen, at Cancun and then at Durban are delivered, and we can look for progress on deforestation. Some progress has been made, but in many areas matters are going backwards not forwards, and we certainly need to push action on deforestation much higher up the international agenda.

We should not, however, delude ourselves into thinking that such changes and progress are going to be enough. Pathways, road maps and signposts are all important, but at the end of the day we need to secure the type of internationally binding agreements that were sought at Copenhagen on climate change, on tackling deforestation, on food, on agriculture and on land use.

These kinds of changes are essential. It is not going to happen this year—it may not happen for some years to come—but we must try to get the world to move in the right direction if we want to save the planet from irreversible degradation. Rio can point us in that direction. If we can start to move forward after a few years of delay and backward movement internationally—not because of this Government, who have played a fairly good role in these issues following the work of the previous Government—then at least Rio will have done something. I hope that we can approach the negotiations at Rio and the other international events over the next few months in that spirit.

21:15

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I apologise for missing some of this excellent debate, but it was for a good reason. I was meeting representatives of Christian Aid, who are very interested in the debate having been much engaged in this issue; indeed, a briefing was sent to hon. Members. They reminded me that this week the high-level UN Commission on Sustainable Development published a report that set the parameters for April’s G20 meeting of Ministers on sustainable energy. That is a very important meeting that will set the ground for the Rio summit. I invite the Minister to respond positively in seeing Rio as a practical way of following up the meeting to ensure that there is genuine progress.

As we approach Rio—we all say this in grand terms, but it is true—we have the opportunity to shape the future of not just one generation but several generations, and they are growing generations. We now have 7 billion people on the planet. In 1992, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, so there has been an increase of 1.5 billion in just 19 years—an increase equivalent to the total global population in 1900. That is the amazing level of growth that is taking place. Those 7 billion people are affected by the global economic crisis, in many cases very much so, but also by the environmental crisis facing this generation and future generations. This Government, and other Governments, have an excellent opportunity to make the case that we can tackle these economic and environmental challenges. The dramatically increasing population means that our natural resources cannot cope. There has been an increase of nearly 150% in real-terms commodity prices, and each year 44 million people are driven into poverty by rising food prices, with food and water scarcity causing civil unrest and war.

The Government, together with non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid, are rightly taking the lead on this, and civil society is very active. More significant, and more sustainable in some ways, is the lead taken by businesses, including British businesses. Unilever wants within 10 years to double its size, halve its carbon footprint for production and source all raw materials sustainably. Rolls-Royce is reducing carbon emissions and saving £26 million per year. I understand from DEFRA that UK businesses could save £23 billion per year by using raw materials, energy and water more efficiently.

While we undoubtedly see great challenges in the increasing global population, we also see great opportunities in the global market for low-carbon and environmental goods and services, which are worth some £3 trillion and growing at 5% per year. Green issues and economic issues are not divorcees but marrieds, with the foundation of their marriage being natural capital. We need to put the value of nature at the heart of the marriage between the economy and the environment. The Government are right to promote green accounting and the auditing of the nation’s rivers, forests and other landscapes. The ecosystems analysis started under the previous Government and followed up under this Government is one of the best pieces of literature to come out of Government, and it is of wonderful value. It is a useful tool for us domestically and a model that can be adopted by other countries that recognise its value—indeed, its financial value. We all know the cost of ignoring nature, and it is therefore important to put a price on nature. I hope that that will be followed through at the Rio summit.

We are debating the resources that we want to invest in preparation for the Rio summit. Those resources are important and they must go to the right place. They must lead to action, not just talk. Other hon. Members have spoken about that.

The proposals for sustainable development goals that came out of Colombia and Guatemala have been commended and adopted. They are an important way forward. They are practical and will lead to action, rather than just to more talk about targets and goals. They mirror the millennium development goals. That approach is important, because it means that at Rio there is the prospect not just of fine-sounding statements and communiqués and green-sounding rhetoric, which we saw a lot of in 1992 as well as the international agreements, but of action. The sustainable development goals align properly with practical realities and priorities at national level and will drive things forward.

We must also put out some warning signals. In 2000, seven millennium development goals came out of the process and suddenly people said, “What about the environment as a goal?” They then went back into the conference and came up with an eighth development goal. We need to ensure that we align the sustainable development goals with the millennium development goals. They need to coalesce. More than that, the sustainable development goals that come out of Rio should act as a catalyst to ensure that the millennium development goals are achieved. We do not want a parallel universe with different development goals. They need to work together properly.

To put it in a straightforward way, we need to improve the situation for the poorest communities across the globe. We must banish the need for young people to go miles and miles to forage for firewood in forests. We must ensure that there is sustainable energy so that young people do not need to do that, but can instead go into education and help to meet the millennium development goals.

I welcome the Government’s approach of bringing in business, which has been mentioned by hon. Members. As I have said, businesses are taking the lead. The Secretary of State has invited businesses to put forward their ideas. The businesses that are doing things such as sustainable accounting and that are taking the lead in this country should also be invited to take the lead in Rio and to make the case. If we make the case, together with business, for a green and sustainable economy, we can be optimistic that Rio will lead to action for the benefit of the world’s children, and indeed their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

21:22

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), not only for initiating this important debate, but for chairing the Environmental Audit Committee so expertly and brilliantly for the two years since the election. She has done extraordinary things with the Committee.

Every single environmental indicator that matters is heading in the wrong direction. It does not matter which area one looks at. A number of Members have spoken about what is happening to our forests, so I will not dwell on that but simply say that since 2000, just 12 years ago, the equivalent of the land space of Germany has been lost. That should not have been so difficult to say. [Laughter.] I should not be laughing, because it is a staggering and appallingly depressing statistic. We have also learned that 80% of the world’s fish stocks have either collapsed or are on the brink of collapse. That is 15 of the world’s 17 major fisheries. We know that most if not all of the world’s bread baskets are shrinking rapidly. The Gobi desert is growing by roughly 10,000 sq km every year—I could go on and on.

All that results from a growth model that effectively involves cashing in the planet and the natural world for short-term consumer goods. What is that actually achieving? In the 20 years since 1992, the year of the first Rio summit, we have seen a 162% rise in world GDP, but apart from the devastation that that has caused to the natural world around us, what has it actually delivered for the world?

According to the UN, 1 billion people live in urban squalor and more than 1 billion are described as living in conditions in which they are chronically undernourished —that is a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation figure. Between a quarter and a third of the world’s population live in a state of persistent deprivation. Just last week, KPMG produced a brilliant report—I wish I could remember the title—predicting among other things that food prices will rise by up to 90% by 2030. For most people in this country that would not necessarily be a disaster, because if we spend 5% to 10% of our budget on food, even a 100% increase would still allow some wiggle room; but for somebody living in a country where people spend 60% of their income on food, such an increase would be absolutely devastating.

I will not dwell on climate change, other than to say that even if it is not happening, those other trends are real. They are mathematical observations, and there is no doubting them. If even the most conservative predictions about climate change are accurate, those problems will be massively compounded. One has to wonder what is the purpose of an economy that is so utterly divorced from basic reality that it is still growing even as it is eroding the very basis of life. We know that change is going to happen. The current trends clearly cannot continue for ever—primary level mathematics tells us that they have to end at some point, and it is unlikely to be a happy ending. Change is going to happen either through our choice or because it is forced upon us.

I accept that if we were to ask people to list their top priorities and concerns nowadays, the environment would not feature at the top for many or even most of them. Someone at the bottom of the pecking order in this country worries about food, shelter and what school to send their children to—concerns that, unfortunately, are affecting more and more people in this country as a result of the economic conditions in which we find ourselves. However, that does not take away from the fact that, logically, the environment is still the biggest priority of all. Environmental concerns are neither a luxury nor a frivolity.

I believe that we are going to have a debate on Greece tomorrow, and the Chamber will be packed. I will be here myself, and I certainly do not want to imply that what is happening in Greece is not a disaster on a significant scale, but it does not compare to the problems that we face in our relationship with the natural world. Future generations, perhaps our own children, will live with an enormous cloud of incredible uncertainty hovering over them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) listed a number of concerns—I believe he was citing research by Christian Aid. I will not repeat them, but I will say that they are not abstract concerns for people around the world. We would do well to take note of that.

In questions to Foreign Office Ministers today, a number of Members discussed Somalia. They talked about action on pirates, what we are going to do to police the borders and how we are going to prevent the problems from recurring. What is too often left out is the unavoidable correlation between the emergence of pirates and the exhaustion of the oceans around the coast of Somalia—the hoovering up of the very last fish, unfortunately by European trawlers. Fishing communities lost their access to fish and their livelihoods and took to an activity that, unfortunately, is so much more financially attractive that we are unlikely to get them out of it without the use of police. That is one illustration of what happens when we undermine basic ecological systems and destroy ecosystems. The world’s poorest are the first in line to suffer, because they are the most likely to depend on the free services provided by nature.

What are we to do? Resource scarcity will define the world from now on. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of basic mathematical fact and there is no avoiding it. Businesses will have to design out of their business model waste, pollution and the use of scarce resources. We will have to rearrange our economy and break the link between economic growth and environmental devastation. We will have to learn to live within our means. Like others, I hope that Rio will, among other things, provide an opportunity for real solutions to be showcased.

No country in the world is doing all the things that are necessary to drive us towards a sustainable future, but there are shining examples in most countries. Japan, for example, has an enormous amount to teach us about waste. It is much closer to achieving zero-waste status than we are. Costa Rica has done extraordinary things with marine protected areas to boost the viability of its fishing communities, and it is succeeding. Denmark has done extraordinary things with its decentralised energy infrastructure. The list goes on.

I shall not dwell on the natural capital work that the Government in this country have done, other than to say that it is pioneering. That work puts us in front with, strangely enough, South Korea which has done a lot of work on valuing natural capital. I hope that we can take that work to Rio and showcase it as an area in which Britain is taking the lead.

The Government are not just valuing natural capital. They have been bullish in trying to ensure that within the Rio agenda there is proper discussion of the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The International Energy Agency figure for how much we spent subsidising the consumption of fossil fuels last year is $409 billion. Clearly, the world cannot become less dependent on fossil fuels without our tackling those subsidies.

Finally—this relates to the Minister’s work—I hope we can ensure that marine issues feature heavily in the discussions at Rio. I believe we are responsible, through our overseas territories, for around 10% of the world’s oceans. There is an amazing opportunity for us to create a network, as I know we are already doing, of marine protected areas and vast nature reserves that will benefit not only biodiversity, but coastal fishing communities, who are running out of fish and things to catch. That will probably entail taking on vested interests and some of the industrial mega-trawlers, but those types of organisation and operations are not compatible with a sustainable future.

Not only are countries showing us what can be done, but companies are also doing so. Companies in the most polluting sectors, such as construction, are showing what can be done. Uponor, based in London, has become a zero-waste company. Construction is responsible for about a third of this country’s waste, so if that company has managed to become a zero-waste company, the hope must be that other companies will do the same. We must take the best practice today and roll it into the norm tomorrow. We do that only by looking at what others are achieving.

Big energy companies—I cannot bear to name them—have shown that they can buy tens of times more solution per £1 by saving energy than by making energy. I will name E.ON, which spent £250 million as part of its energy company obligation and saved the equivalent of 2.3 Kingsnorth power plants. What would it have cost the company to build 2.3 Kingsnorths—20, 30, 40 or even 50 times more? That is the rate of return for investing in energy efficiency—I can see the shadow Minister doing the maths, so I have probably got it wrong, but we cannot argue that energy efficiency does not pay.

21:32

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

May I reassure the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that I was more concerned that he may be a tenant of Dolphin square, where E.ON is the only provider of energy?

I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), on her excellent contribution and on her Committee’s work scrutinising the Government’s environmental policy. She is an environmental giant, and I have been pleased to sit in her shadow. Absolutely in character, she took an understanding approach to the absence of the Secretary of State. I shall follow her example, but I want to put it on record that I find it deeply disappointing that the Secretary of State is not present. Will the Minister indicate when she will be in the House so that she can engage in debate? I understand the importance of engaging with business, NGOs and the public, and that her speech in London’s Guildhall is an important part of that. A Government Member quoted Ban Ki-moon on the role of politicians in this debate, so it is only fair to ask that the Secretary of State, as the lead person on Rio+20, comes to the House at some point to give us a chance to debate the issues with her.

I welcome the Committee’s report on the preparations for the Rio+20 summit in June, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the report and the many questions raised by Members on both sides in their informed and passionate contributions. The tone of the debate has been very positive, although many Members have spoken about the dire challenges that we face. I congratulate the Government Whips for keeping their climate change deniers off their Benches.

Rio+20 is the biggest global gathering on sustainable development since the original summit in 1992. It is crucial that it delivers outcomes and sets down some serious policy milestones for 2015 and beyond. The previous Labour Government were the first on the planet to enshrine climate change targets in law. Given the UK’s global leadership on environmental issues, we want to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to give that same leadership at Rio+20.

I have to tell the Minister that part of that support involves talking about the Government’s record at home. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said that this is a test for all nations, so let us look at the Government’s record. They have a poor record on protecting our forests and woodlands. More than half a million people signed a national petition against the plan to sell off the public forestry estate last year, forcing the Minister and Secretary of State to perform an embarrassing U-turn. However, the sell-off has merely been put on hold until the report from the independent panel is published in May. The panel is due to report before Rio. Will the Minister guarantee that while the Secretary of State is waxing lyrical on the international stage about reforestation, she will not return to a fire sale of our forest assets back home?

The previous Labour Government committed the UK to establishing an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones by 2012. The Government’s decision to delay their implementation is a bitter blow for the 1 million stakeholders who took part in the consultation process. How can the Government provide leadership on the global stage on marine conservation when they have failed to meet their own deadline for designating marine conservation zones? The EU is in the process of radically reforming the common fisheries policy to provide a sustainable and profitable future for UK fishermen. That reform might pose serious challenges for the UK fleet on issues such as maximum sustainable yields, discards and capacity.

I was hugely impressed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, although his reputation preceded him, when he spoke about the need to protect developing countries. What proposals will the Minister bring to the table to ensure that the EU fleet will not resort to unsustainable fishing off the coast of developing countries to offset the conservation of stocks closer to home? What about marine protection in overseas territories, which the hon. Gentleman also spoke about? Some 90% of our marine biodiversity is in overseas territories. Labour designated the Chagos islands as a marine reserve. What plans does the Minister have to protect biodiversity in these areas?

The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke about the record of some companies in reducing their carbon footprint, but again I want to turn to the Government’s record at home. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State said that she would join the call for Rio to drive uptake of sustainable businesses practices

“in particular transparent and coherent sustainability reporting”.—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 44WS.]

Carbon reporting is a vital connection in driving up standards in green jobs and growth, yet when it comes to carbon reporting at home, the Government are dragging their feet. Will the Minister guarantee that his Government keep their promise and make it mandatory for UK companies to report their carbon emissions before Rio? The deadline in the Climate Change Act 2008 is April 2012. Will the Department meet that deadline—yes or no?

One of the Government’s first acts was to abolish the Sustainable Development Commission, their own green watchdog. This Government have invented their very own approach to sustainable development at home, and that is before we even mention the influence of the Chancellor on this debate. He sees the environment as a barrier to growth and thinks that the green agenda is bad for business and jobs. In his autumn statement, he said that burdening British business with environmental goals would mean that

“businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807.]

Yet the reality is that this could not be further from the truth. The UK is falling behind because of this Government’s policies and their lack of environmental ambition. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about the growth in green jobs, but since this Government came to power, the UK has slipped from third in the world for investment in green growth to 13th, behind such countries as Brazil and India. In 2009, investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached £7 billion. That fell by more than 70% the year this Government were elected. The latest figures for last year seem to suggest that if there was any pick-up, it was very modest. Investment levels are still considerably below what they were in 2009.

It is quite an achievement that in less than two years the Government have alienated businesses over green investment, along with the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and The Daily Telegraph, because of their plans to rip up the planning rules that have protected our environment for 60 years. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office wants to do to the planning system what the Chancellor has done to environmental regulations, tearing up best practice and replacing it with a 50-page document. When asked by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the Cabinet Office’s intentions, the Secretary of State replied:

“I am not in a position to confirm or deny”

the story, adding:

“I was not at such a meeting.”

That is exactly the problem with this Secretary of State: she is always outside the room when the big boys are making the decisions.

I want to try to strike a positive note, so let me move on to what Labour sees as the key priorities and opportunities at Rio. Our leadership at home is key to our credibility on the global stage, and if Government Members do not get that, we have a problem. When it comes to food poverty at home, we see rising food prices and families forced to rely on charities and food banks. Last year the Trussell Trust, one of the largest food charities, opened a food bank every week. The amazing charity FareShare, which I visited yesterday, works with other charities to feed 35,000 people a day in the UK. Rio rightly places food security and ensuring a sustainable, healthy and safe food supply for the world’s population at the top of its agenda. The hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) both have a history with Oxfam. As Oxfam has highlighted in its Grow campaign, we need to tackle the structural causes of food crises, addressing the effects of speculation on food prices, the impact of biofuels and land grabs. The answer is not producing more food alone, but producing more food with less impact. We need to mitigate the impact of climate change and invest in agricultural practices and sustainable livelihoods in developing countries.

As the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Richmond Park both said, resource scarcity is the biggest challenge facing the planet. With the population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, Rio is an opportunity to reach a global agreement on how we can ensure access to water, food and energy for all, alongside the long-term challenges of climate change and eco-system management. The interconnected nature of resource scarcity means that political leadership is vital. On this side of the House, we are taking a joined-up approach, working across shadow Departments to reflect the broad range of issues that will be discussed in June. Will the Minister tell us when he last met with his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for International Development, and what discussions they had about their priorities for Rio?

As many Members have said, GDP alone is a limited measure of growth and does not take into account the other pillars of sustainable development—the social and environmental costs. Labour agrees that one of the key priorities for Rio should be to develop sustainable development goals and set down serious policy milestones for 2015 and beyond. The Committee recommends that the Government should engage with European countries to ensure that the EU pushes strongly for sustainable development goals ahead of Rio+20. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) spoke of the need for countries to work together. With just over four months until the conference, will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with other EU member states, and what progress has been made?

The Secretary of State claims that she is ambitious. However, on forests, marine conservation zones, carbon reporting, sustainable development and food poverty, the ambition of this Government has not been matched at home. We need an ambitious Government who will lead the world on sustainable development. The Secretary of State said that Rio+20 had to be

“a workshop, not a talking shop”.

If the Government are to have any credibility, it will not be enough for them to talk the talk; they will have to walk the walk, too.

21:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for securing this timely debate, and by welcoming the contributions from both sides of the House. These discussions, and the strong parliamentary interest in them, are an important part of informing our approach to the negotiations. The hon. Lady led the debate with real knowledge and power. With the exception of the final speech, there has been fantastic cross-party support today. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) really read the mood of the House wrongly tonight, and she should reflect on that.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, articulated a concept that is considered irrelevant and old fashioned in some quarters, but it is one that I believe to be totally relevant to the debate on Rio and on sustainability. It is the concept of stewardship. When we talk about the stewardship of our planet, we are talking about the future for our children and grandchildren—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) made particularly well. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) also made that point. This is the time to get this right. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) raised the prospect of Rio+40, and said that it would be a tragedy if we did not put in place the measures that we hope will come from this conference, and did not hold politicians of this generation to their commitments.

Our understanding of the need to green our economy and promote sustainable development has improved dramatically over the past 20 years. It is no longer something that we should do, but something that we need to do for future prosperity. It has been pointed out tonight that more than 1 billion people are living in poverty, that two thirds of the world’s ecosystems are in decline and that climate change will cost up to a quarter of global gross domestic product.

We are well aware of what is at stake here. This has been well articulated by the hon. Members for Gower (Martin Caton) and for Brighton, Pavilion and by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), for Sherwood and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), among many others. The key point is that the UK must and will take a leading role to secure a successful outcome in Rio.

Since our response to the Committee’s report, we have—as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said—received the zero draft that will act as the basis of negotiations until June. We also have recommendations from the Secretary-General’s high-level panel on global sustainability, which was launched in London this week. With just four months to go, momentum is building and we are getting a clearer idea of what countries, NGOs and businesses are calling for. I should therefore like to make clear the UK priorities for Rio, which will go some way to addressing concerns raised here today, although I will of course pick up any further points.

I want to see Governments stand up at Rio and make a clear statement—a political declaration—that sustainable development is the only way forward. We need to make it absolutely clear that long-term, sustainable, climate-resilient growth is possible only if we use natural resources sustainably and tackle poverty. In the UK, we have shown our commitment to green growth through a raft of policies and initiatives, including our publication “Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy”, which provides businesses with the certainty and clarity to innovate, invest and grow in a green way.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I want to make a bit of progress, if the hon. Lady will allow me.

We have established the green investment bank with £3 billion-worth of funding. Together with the green deal, it will accelerate green investment by businesses and households. We have introduced a carbon floor price that will come into force from April next year. We have published the natural environment White Paper—the Government’s vision of how to protect and improve the natural environment over the next 50 years—with 92 recommendations for action.

Yesterday morning I stood at the top of the Wiltshire downs with a really enthusiastic group of farmers and people from the local community as we launched one of the nature improvement areas—a really exciting prospect. At Rio, we must ensure that the commitment to green growth is secured at the international level—it needs tangible outcomes—which will help all countries move to a sustainable growth path.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot come to this House singing the praises of his Department and then not expect us to hold it accountable for its record at home. Will he give a commitment now to mandatory reporting of carbon emissions?

[Richard Benyon]

I will come on to that. I said a little earlier that the hon. Lady had misread the mood of the House—and she still seems to be doing so. I will answer her points later.

A key part of Rio will be an agreement on the sustainable development goals—a priority for the UK, on which we are working closely with our EU and international partners. There is a lot to do on fleshing out SDGs, but we want to lead the way in helping to develop this thinking. The Secretary of State met a group of Ministers in Nairobi last week and the Colombian Environment Minister here today. We need a renewed focus on tackling the major sustainability issues of access to food, sustainable energy and water.

We need to focus on global challenges. Agriculture, water and energy are fundamental to our economy, and provide livelihoods for the world’s poorest people. By 2030, the world will need at least 50% more food, 45% more energy and 30% more water. These are massive issues. We have tried to do our bit in government by reflecting the concerns that we know future generations will face—for example in our water White Paper published just before Christmas, which set out how we will approach the resilience of our economy and natural environment to provide the water we need in the future.

We need a clear course of action on food security and sustainable agriculture, which is climate smart, reduces waste and takes into account water resources. We need to be clear that access to clean and safe water is a prerequisite for green growth. Just last week, we were discussing drought here in the UK—a country famous for its rainfall. In China, which has 20% of the world’s population but only 6% of its water resources, half of which are undrinkable, access to water resources will only become more important. The UN Secretary-General's “Sustainable Energy for All” initiative is an important step towards increasing sustainable energy, energy efficiency and the use of renewables.

We want to see outcomes that will put sustainability at the heart of decision making. This includes a commitment to go beyond gross domestic product so as to account for natural and social values, too. Many hon. Members touched on this issue. It is vital that we articulate it not just in the high-level conversations—or high-falutin’ ones, as one hon. Member put it—but at the local level. Several hon. Members stressed that we have to carry people with us in these arguments. I was particularly impressed with how my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood brought the argument down to the household level, as it is crucial to impact on households now and in the future.

The UK has a lot to share at Rio: through our national ecosystems assessment, through the Prime Minister’s work on well-being and through work stemming from our natural environment White Paper, we can begin to put natural value at the heart of decision making. A number of Members referred to the Government’s agenda in that regard. I was particularly taken by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. We are trying to value natural capital in the context of our economic well-being, of which it is a vital element, and we will shortly announce the membership of the natural capital committee. However, it is impossible to value a view: there must still be an element of the spiritual and uplifting benefits of nature that we all experience, and it is important that we articulate that.

The natural capital committee will advise the Government on our natural capital, and our work with the Office for National Statistics will embed it in our environmental accounts by 2020. Our guidance entitled “Accounting for Environmental Impacts” will help Departments to reflect the value of nature in decision making. Our ecosystems market taskforce—led by Ian Cheshire, chief executive of the Kingfisher group—will look at opportunities for businesses in new green goods and services, which form a vital part of our work in the future. Our work with the World Bank on its “Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services” will pilot new approaches to wealth accounting in developing countries.

As has been said we also need greater resource efficiency and a commitment to reducing inefficient and environmentally harmful subsidies, including fossil fuel subsidies. In the UK alone, resource efficiency could provide £23 billion-worth of savings, or £2.9 trillion globally per annum, and the EU is well placed to lead on that through its “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe”.

As the Government have noted, action by Governments alone will not be enough. Rio needs to engage the private sector actively so that it plays its part in delivering a greener economy through trade, innovation and investment. However, a Government can facilitate the transition by, for instance, reducing environmentally harmful subsidies. A number of Members mentioned fishing. Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park that the Government’s agenda on fisheries partnership agreements is right up there in terms of reform of the common fisheries policy. It is entirely wrong that, having failed to put our own house in order, we are now inflicting bad management on some of the people in this world who can least afford it, and I assure my hon. Friend that dealing with that is an absolute priority for me.

We will be able to assist by incentivising research and development and innovation, by increasing resource efficiency, to which we have referred in the context of the water White Paper, by getting price signals right—I have mentioned the carbon floor in that connection—by valuing and accounting for natural resources, by making the best use of standards and voluntary approaches such as labelling and procurement, and by developing indicators of green growth. We have been engaging businesses in relation to possible outcomes from Rio, for example through the Green Economy Council.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I am sorry; I cannot give way.

We know that UK businesses are world leaders in green growth. Marks and Spencer saved more than £70 million last year through a combination of efficiency savings and new business. That compares with £50 million the year before.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I have only a minute left, but I must give way to the hon. Lady.

[Joan Walley]

I hoped that, before our time ran out, the Minister would tell us whether the Prime Minister would be going to the summit, and when we could expect an announcement about that.

[Richard Benyon]

A very strong message has been conveyed by this debate. The hon. Lady knows that I cannot give an absolute commitment one way or the other. As was made clear to her Committee, the Prime Minister thinks that this is an absolute priority. The Secretary of State will be going, and whether or not the Prime Minister can go will be announced in the near future.

As I was saying and as was said earlier, businesses are leading the way, and to an extent Government must follow. We know that the Brazilians are planning to bring non-governmental organisations and the private sector together before the ministerial segment, and I hope that a range of UK businesses and NGOs will help to shape the negotiations that follow. We have also encouraged the Brazilians to hold a trade fair to showcase the opportunities that the transition to a green economy can offer. It is important to note that politicians will not just be talking to each other: there will be engagement with business, the voluntary sector, NGOs and, of course, Governments.

These are our high-level priorities for Rio. The areas where we think we can make a real difference include the sustainable development goals, agriculture and energy, valuing natural capital and corporate sustainability. Rio is above all a negotiation, and we will be working hard with the EU Commissioner and member states to ensure that Europe has a strong voice. We will also need to work with our international—

22:00

Debate interrupted, and Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54).

Estimates, Vote on Account, 2012-13

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—

(1) resources, not exceeding £2,705,167,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,

(2) resources, not exceeding £390,871,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £2,660,065,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Supplementary Estimates, 2011-12

Home Office

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Home Office—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £66,029,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1755,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £4,421,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £173,266,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Vote on Account, 2012-13

Department for Transport

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—

(1) resources, not exceeding £3,413,771,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,

(2) resources, not exceeding £3,478,411,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £5,850,719,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

(1) resources, not exceeding £1,079,958,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,

(2) resources, not exceeding £172,643,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £1,106,539,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

The Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

Estimates, 2011-12 (Navy) Vote A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2012, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2011-12, HC 1745, be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.—(Mr Dunne.)

Estimates, 2011-12 (Army) Vote A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2012, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2011-12, HC 1745, be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.—(Mr Dunne.)

Estimates, 2012-13 (Navy) Vote A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, a number not exceeding 39,350 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2012-13, HC 1735.—(Mr Dunne.)

Estimates, 2012-13 (army) vote a

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, a number not exceeding 121,540 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2012-13, HC 1735.—(Mr Dunne.)

estimates, 2012-13 (air) vote a

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, a number not exceeding 42,210 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Air Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2012-13, HC 1735.—(Mr Dunne.)

estimates, excesses, 2010-11

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011—

(1) a sum, not exceeding £347,072,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services as set out in Statement of Excesses 2010-11, HC 1757.—(Mr Dunne.)

supplementary estimates, 2011-12

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £16,430,760,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1748, HC 1755, HC 1772 and HC 1783.

(2) resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £4,397,816,000, as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £7,170,139,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Dunne.)

estimates, vote on account, 2012-13

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013—

(1) resources, not exceeding £205,575,869,000 be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756, HC 1784, HC 1785, HC 1804, HC 1840 and HC 1848.

(2) resources, not exceeding £16,331,213,000 be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £195,629,897,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Dunne.)

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, Excesses, 2010-11, Supplementary Estimates, 2011-12, and Estimates, 2012-13 (Vote on Account).

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Miss Chloe Smith, Mr David Gauke, and Mr Mark Hoban bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading

Mr Mark Hoban accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for those years and for the year ending with 31 March 2011; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2011 and 31 March 2012.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 310).

Business without Debate

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Michael Fabricant.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Financial Instruments for the Period 2014-20

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16301/11, relating to a Commission Communication: A framework for the next generation of innovative financial instruments-the EU equity and debt platforms; notes that the Commission’s proposals increase resources available to the EU; agrees that the maximum acceptable expenditure increase through the next Financial Perspective is a real-terms freeze in payments; and supports the view that Innovative Financial Instruments in the next Financial Perspective, 2014–2020, should only be used to deliver a smaller EU Budget and not to supplement existing funding.—(Mr. Hoban.)

Question agreed to.

Supermarkets And Public Land (Scotland)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) to speak, I should note that he has written to me to ask that I waive the sub judice rule in respect of a statutory appeal to the Court of Session against the decision of a planning reporter, to which a number of companies, Scottish Ministers and South Lanarkshire council are parties. This is to enable him to raise the matter of a particular planning issue in his constituency in this Adjournment debate. Given the technical nature of the proceedings, which are before judges only, and the fact that no date for a hearing has yet been set, I have agreed to waive the rule so far as is necessary for this debate to take place. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to exercise this freedom with discretion.

22:04

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Competition among supermarkets in our country is at times a cut-throat business. A desire for dominance and market share has meant that in different parts of the UK competing supermarket chains are knocking seven bells out of each other to secure new stores. That is all perfectly legitimate if no laws are being broken. However, if we add to the mix the ingredient of public land, we change the dynamic completely. Tactics felt to be legitimate in private sector supermarket wars cannot necessarily be used when the deal, or part of the deal, involves our public assets. My Adjournment debate is about a veritable supermarket car crash in my constituency involving public land, where it would appear that perspective and common sense were replaced by avarice and intransigence. The net result is a situation where an agency of Government charged with creating economic wealth became so detached and consumed by a flawed land sale that it prevented jobs from being created in my constituency.

In this debate I seek to draw attention to the unacceptable behaviour of Dawn Developments and Scottish Enterprise in a land deal in the heart of my constituency, the unacceptable behaviour of a senior Scottish Enterprise executive and the failures of the civil service to investigate my evidenced complaints. I have advised the Minister of the contents of my speech, and, as you mentioned, Mr Speaker, I have sought and taken advice from the Table Office and your office on what I intend to say to ensure that I remain inside the rules of parliamentary privilege.

Let me deal first with the nature of the deal constructed between Dawn Developments and Scottish Enterprise. The story begins in 2004. Scottish Enterprise—or, more precisely, the public—owns land in an industrial estate in East Kilbride in my constituency. The site was marketed and five bids were received, ranging in value from £2.5 million to £15 million. A bid from Dawn Developments was accepted which, to reach the agreed price, would have required the local authority to re-zone the land from industrial to retail use and grant permission for a supermarket development. The Dawn Developments bid was £15 million and it, in turn, expected to sell the land to Asda for a minimum of £22 million, with a cool £7 million profit.

Scottish Enterprise and Dawn Developments had no discussions with South Lanarkshire council on the viability of that proposal, nor did they submit a request for the site to be re-zoned for retail use through the established local plan process. Missives were concluded on 25 October 2007. Around that same time Alan MacDonald, the chairman of the Dawn Group, met South Lanarkshire council officials and was told that the site was not suitable for a supermarket development. Undeterred, Dawn Developments submitted a planning application in October 2008 for the creation of a class 1 retail food superstore. The application was processed and South Lanarkshire council’s planning department produced a recommendation that the application be refused, and those documents are a matter of public record.

With the prospect of a refusal in the offing, Dawn Developments decided to withdraw its application before the planning meeting took place. That presented Scottish Enterprise with an opportunity to withdraw from the deal, as the conditions stipulated that parties were released from their obligations once the planning process concluded. Despite this natural break, Scottish Enterprise inexplicably entered into a new deal with Dawn Developments on precisely the same terms.

In mid-2009, South Lanarkshire council received a planning application for a supermarket on a different site from a different consortium. A short time later, Dawn Developments resubmitted a planning application for the Scottish Enterprise site. The new application was identical to the application that had been processed and recommended for refusal. That marked the start of the supermarket war. The council approved the new, rival application and Dawn Developments withdrew its planning application from the local authority on the grounds of non-determination and then sent it to the Scottish Government.

The application was independently assessed by a Scottish Government reporter and again rejected. Simultaneously, Dawn Developments also legally challenged the rival supermarket proposals that had been cleared, accusing the local authority of behaving improperly. Scottish Enterprise, by dint of its relationship with Dawn Developments, was party to that legal move. The case was taken to the Court of Session in Scotland and lost.

These tactics would be immaterial to the public interest if they involved two private companies slugging it out for the right to build a supermarket in my constituency, but that is not the case when one side is partnered with Scotland’s economic development agency. Myriad questions arise. If this was such a good deal, why was the application not promoted by Scottish Enterprise to maximise the return for the taxpayer? Why did Scottish Enterprise not carry out an independent assessment of whether the site was suitable for a supermarket? Did Dawn Developments inform Scottish Enterprise that in private discussions with South Lanarkshire council it was told that the site was not suitable for a supermarket development? Why did Scottish Enterprise re-sign a deal that had already been through the planning process and recommended for rejection? Did Scottish Enterprise agree to a strategy which saw its partner, Dawn Developments, challenge the integrity of the well-respected local council and take the Scottish Government to court? All those questions remain unanswered.

The chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Lena Wilson, appears to be oblivious to the fact that the organisation she commands is a partner in a deal that has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds, has prevented a legitimate application that could create hundreds of jobs in my constituency from proceeding and, going back to the original deal, has secured no capital receipt for the taxpayer.

Let me now move to the actions of Scottish Enterprise executive Mr Stephen Gallagher. On 31 March 2010 Stephen Gallagher, the managing director of Scottish Enterprise Commercial, wrote to the chief executive of South Lanarkshire council, Archie Strang, offering a share of the capital receipt for the West Mains road site if planning permission for the supermarket was granted. In plain language, Stephen Gallagher offered South Lanarkshire council money to pass a planning application.

On 14 April 2010, Archie Strang wrote to Lena Wilson, Scottish Enterprise’s chief executive, making it clear that Stephen Gallagher’s actions could be perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of a planning application. On 16 April 2010, Archie Strang received a response to his letter from Jim McFarlane, Scottish Enterprise managing director of operations, which stated:

“Can I first of all apologise unreservedly that this letter has been received by your Council at this present time? This simply should not have happened.”

It further transpired that Stephen Gallagher had also written to the council’s planning department on two separate occasions, objecting to the rival supermarket application and asking the council to favour the Dawn Developments-Scottish Enterprise deal. That led to Archie Strang writing again on 19 April 2010 to Lena Wilson, chief executive, about the letters the council had received from Stephen Gallagher dated 6 and 8 April, both of which objected to the rival supermarket bid.

Archie Strang said in his letter:

“My main purpose in writing to you...is to express concern at the apparent attempts by Scottish Enterprise to influence the Council to resist this application, and to support SE’s own proposal, with Dawn Developments, at West Mains Road.  This concern arises from the comments made in the letter, dated 6 April, where the Council is effectively threatened with a legal challenge if it is not seen to have ‘properly addressed’ all issues associated with the Redwood Drive submission. This is wholly inappropriate as it appears to cast doubt on the Council’s ability to deal with planning applications in an impartial manner and questions the professionalism and integrity of planning officers.”

In a response dated 23 April 2010, Jim McFarlane stated:

“Until your letter of 19 April was received, I was not aware that further letters of 6 April and 8 April had been submitted to your Council. In my view these letters were ill advised and should not have been sent.”

I take the view that at best Stephen Gallagher’s behaviour should have been viewed as gross misconduct. I further take the view that the thread running through Mr Gallagher’s behaviour was consistent with a reckless attempt to allow the Dawn application to proceed, whatever the cost, but what beggars belief is that Mr Gallagher was not subjected to any disciplinary procedure by Scottish Enterprise and was allowed to leave the organisation with a taxpayer-funded severance package.

Once again Scottish Enterprise chief executive, Lena Wilson, has refused to answer any questions on the matter. For example, was Stephen Gallagher acting independently when he issued the official Scottish Enterprise letters dated 31 March, 6 April and 8 April? Did Scottish Enterprise’s management believe that Stephen Gallagher behaved in an acceptable fashion by offering cash to a local authority in return for a planning consent? If not, why was he not disciplined? What discussions took place between Stephen Gallagher and Dawn Developments on these matters? What internal investigations took place in Scottish Enterprise to determine Stephen Gallagher’s motivation for writing these letters? Why was Stephen Gallagher allowed to leave Scottish Enterprise with a substantial package funded by taxpayers?

That brings me to the final issue I want to address—the abject failure of the civil service to investigate my evidenced complaints. Having hit a communications brick wall at Scottish Enterprise I sought answers from what I concluded was the United Kingdom civil service chain of command. I first wrote to Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, who, sadly, is fast building a reputation as the Scottish National party’s cheerleader in Scotland. I asked him to investigate these matters, but he refused to do so. He accepted Scottish Enterprise’s position without, it appears, carrying out even a perfunctory examination of the facts. Undeterred, I then wrote to his boss, Sir Gus O’Donnell. I assumed that the head of the civil service would not resile from his obligations to ensure that the service’s staff behave according to its code, which states that it must be accountable to the public and should meet the highest possible standards in all it does. Sadly, he did not. Instead, he merely wrote to the Scottish Government and replied to me reaffirming their original assessment of the matter. So, we have a procedure in which each complaint I have made has been rejected not on the basis of an investigation but because each part of the civil service hierarchy involved has reaffirmed their subordinate’s position. That simply is not good enough.

What does all this mean for my constituents? We know that the development opportunities that were available in 2004 when the land was first marketed no longer exist. The world has moved on. We also know that the decision of Scottish Enterprise to enter a joint venture in pursuit of a larger capital receipt was a blunder, and the resulting loss of perspective has dragged it into a totally inappropriate legal battle that has challenged the integrity of one of Scotland’s leading local authorities.

Mr Speaker, I sought your advice on the next matter that I wanted to raise and you agreed that the sub judice rule could be waived. I will heed your advice to be careful. I am grateful for your decision because it allows me to advise the House that Dawn Developments continues to take legal action against the Scottish Government’s decision to refuse planning permission at the publicly owned site. The madness continues but there is a train of thought that, given the collapse of every legal action thus far, the action is merely a device to put off the fateful day when Scottish Enterprise will be fully exposed on all these matters and held to account. The reputation of Scottish Enterprise has been tarnished by the actions of its partner Dawn Developments and it should apologise unreservedly for its lack of judgment on this matter and the damage it has done in my constituency, where the employment opportunities that would have been created for the many people who find themselves unemployed have not been created. I have not worked out whether what has happened is a result of conspiracy, incompetence or a combination of both, because the questions I have asked have not been answered. However, I do know that Stephen Gallagher’s behaviour was, without doubt, wholly unacceptable, and that Scottish Enterprise did nothing about it. The question I ask is, why?

In conclusion, I put the following points to the Minister. We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that each component part of the UK is economically successful, and I ask the Minister to enter into a dialogue with Scottish Ministers to ensure that steps are taken to allow a proper investigation to take place, to ensure that those responsible are held to account and to ensure that lessons are learned. Most importantly, an exit strategy should be devised for this whole sorry mess. Will the Minister also agree to engage with his ministerial colleagues in the Cabinet Office to examine new methods of working to ensure that an elected Member’s legitimate complaints are properly investigated and not simply paper-shuffled from one part of the civil service to another?

22:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), my neighbouring MP in south Lanarkshire, on securing debating time tonight. Adjournment debates are an important opportunity for Members to put matters of concern on the record, and the hon. Gentleman has been able to do that.

The issues that have been set out have already been the subject of a great deal of investigation by the relevant authorities. I am conscious that a number of the issues raised are still under consideration by both the procurator fiscal and the civil courts, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those. The issues raised also relate closely to the decision-making process for planning applications in Scotland and to economic development policy in Scotland. It is important to recognise that these matters in Scotland are devolved and are properly for the relevant local authorities, the Scottish Government and their agencies. I can therefore offer no comment on the merits or otherwise of the applications in question.

With regard to the responsibilities and accountability of civil servants, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. However, there are proper processes in place. The civil service code, first published in 1996, sets out the core civil service values and the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants in upholding these values. A Scottish Executive version of the civil service code was first published in 2006.

On 11 November 2010, the civil service provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 came into force, placing the civil service values on a statutory footing. Under the terms of the 2010 Act, a revised civil service code was laid before the UK Parliament on 11 November 2010 and is available on the Cabinet Office website, and a revised separate code of conduct governing civil servants who serve the Scottish Executive was laid before the UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament on 11 November 2010.

As the hon. Gentleman said, he pursued the matter also with the then head of the civil service, who fully investigated the matter.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Having worked in the property industry, I know that Mr Gallagher has something of a reputation for being what in Moffat would be called a wide boy. Is the Minister satisfied that the code covers the culture of behaviour, as well as the actions?

[David Mundell]

I am satisfied that the terms of the code are appropriate and are appropriately administered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, complaints regarding the Scottish Government and their agencies which have gone through those organisations’ own formal complaints procedure can also be raised with the Scottish public services ombudsman. It is for the public services ombudsman to deal with these matters, and it is right that the appropriate avenues are used. The Scotland Office does not have any locus in such matters and it would not be appropriate for us to take on any investigatory role in relation to these matters.

[Mr McCann]

Having served for a considerable time in my career as a full-time trade union official in the civil service, and having represented people who work in Scottish Enterprise, I know how the procedures operate. In the situation that I described, I made a formal complaint to the head of the civil service that someone, as I set out in my opening address, committed a serious disciplinary offence. No action was taken whatsoever, and he was allowed to leave the service with a handsome package paid for by the taxpayer. Those questions have never been answered. Therefore the question that I must put to the Minister is how am I to pursue such questions to a logical conclusion when all I got from the civil service was a brick wall constructed in front of me and my questions not being answered?

[David Mundell]

As I set out in my opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity this evening to place all his concerns on the record. I undertake to ensure that a transcript of tonight’s proceedings is conveyed to all the relevant parties that have been discussed, including Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government, Sir Peter Housden, the Information Commissioner, and the current head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, so that everyone who has an interest in the matter can read the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, the Scotland Office is unable to take forward further investigations. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to do so while a criminal investigation and civil court proceedings are taking place. As I have said, he has used the important opportunity of an Adjournment debate to place his concerns on the record.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the Minister has concluded his speech.

Question put and agreed to.

22:25

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 28 February 2012

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Women in the Church of England

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Dunne.)

00:00

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate in the first instance. It is an important and timely debate and has attracted a lot of interest. My hon. Friend sends her apologies for being unable to attend, but as someone who has been asking questions of the representative of the Church Commissioners on the Floor of the House of Commons on the issue of women bishops for some time, I am very pleased to be deputising for her today, with Mr Speaker’s permission.

I pay tribute again to the women and men who have been fighting for justice and equality in the Church of England for many years: first with the movement for the ordination of women, and now with the organisation called WATCH—Women and the Church. In particular, I have had a number of dealings with Sally Barnes, who is very involved in WATCH. It is a great pity that we are still having battles in the Church of England about equality in 2012. Many people might be quite shocked to realise that the established Church of this country has been allowed to opt out of equality legislation. It has been able to opt out of its duties under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and under the Equality Act 2010. I believe that if we have an established Church of England, that Church should have regard to and follow the laws of the land as well.

It is good that we are having this debate close to international women’s day on 8 March and at a time when we are looking back to the suffragette campaign, which was reaching its peak 100 years ago. The campaign for women bishops follows the campaign for women priests, which reached a successful conclusion in 1992. I have been reflecting on that, because before the legislation was passed, I was involved in the campaign. I was a student and very involved in my chaplaincy. I remember that one morning my dad, who did not share my politics, rang me in a rather irate state. He had opened his morning copy of The Daily Telegraph to find a big picture of the scene outside Church House as the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, was going into Synod. A group of women was standing there with placards saying “How long?” and “We’re waiting,” and my dad realised that one of them was me. He was quite taken aback that his daughter was in the Telegraph to start with—I did not share its politics; but he then got the picture from the Telegraph and I have it framed in my office as a reminder of one of the things with which I am very proud to have been associated.

The legislation in relation to women priests went through in November 1992, but it specifically said that women could not become bishops. The reform of 1992 has been a huge success. There are now 3,000 women priests. The talents and abilities of both women and men are now being recognised and utilised by the Church. There are four female deans of cathedrals and many others in senior roles. Despite many predictions to the contrary, that has not led to the collapse of the established Church or to any other existential disaster befalling mankind—or even womankind.

The same would be true, I believe, of moving forward to having women bishops. Women priests have entered the mainstream culture of our country, far beyond just spawning “The Vicar of Dibley”. Like many great progressive reforms, it has put new wine into old bottles. I want to celebrate and build on that success. We know that being a bishop is a very difficult job to undertake and the Church needs to choose bishops with a wide range of gifts, skills and experience. It is inconceivable that those gifts and skills and that experience will be found just in the male sex. The Church could benefit greatly from having the opportunity to select from both men and women. That is right and fair.

The argument, the theological debate, about women bishops is as it was for women priests. It concerns the interpretation of women’s role in the great Christian teachings. Those against equality believe that God created the man to lead and that the woman was there to be his helper. Some hold that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. They believe that women should not be in a leadership role over men. Therefore women are somehow seen as secondary to men. Those in favour of women bishops more commonly draw inspiration from the arguments that both men and women were created equal in God’s image.

When I was looking at the arguments, I found a familiar theme about the God-given role of certain individuals or groups. I read carefully the debates on the abolition of the slave trade and I shall explain why. William Wilberforce fought very hard in the House of Commons to champion that cause. The discussion at that time was about how a Christian could defend slavery. There is symmetry with the idea that there are preordained roles that people have to play. It is striking when we look back and then look at the issues of equality and justice that the Church of England should be at the forefront of championing today.

The role of women in the history of Christianity, from the time of Jesus, has often been painted out of the picture, just as happened with black people and the tremendous role that they have played in our history. However, if we look at the Bible, we know that Jesus treated women fairly. He spoke to them as equals, and of course it is always recognised that Mary Magdalene was the first witness to the resurrection. In the early Christian Church, until about 400 AD, female priests and congregation leaders were very common.

Those who draw on the literal interpretation of the Bible apply it word for word to the modern world. That can be dangerous, but they also do it based on a selective interpretation of the text—one that I think is based on worldly interests and prejudice. Whatever happens in the politics and obscure committees of the Church of England, the real world and the United Kingdom have changed enormously, especially during the past century. The real world looks like leaving the Church of England behind. Women are now far more educated, are more likely to have a job outside the home, can vote equally with men and are no longer the property of their fathers and passed to their husbands on marrying.

There is much further to go on equality issues. There is a need for more women in Parliament—as I am sure all hon. Members recognise—in our local authorities, at the Bar and in the boardroom. However, women have broken through as leaders in society. We are no longer there just to make the tea. In 1979, we had the first woman Prime Minister; and Margaret Thatcher duly proved that a woman could do the job of leader in society as badly as any man.

We are looking at a process of change. God was said to have created the earth in seven days. It is taking a great deal longer for the tortuous internal machinery of the Church of England to introduce the simple reform for women bishops. The draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure is currently in its final legislative stages. It was considered at the February General Synod after recent consultation among the 44 dioceses saw 42 come out in favour of women bishops. Only two—London and Chichester—narrowly voted against. Thirty-three voted explicitly against any provisions for those who did not accept women bishops. Nine voted for some provisions.

I want to concentrate on the Manchester motion, as it has become known. Synod debated the motion, which asked the House of Bishops to use its powers to amend the Measure by incorporating co-ordinate jurisdiction—there are a variety of interpretations as to how that would work in practice—in clause 2 and removing the words “by way of delegation”. That was the substance of the Archbishops’ proposed amendment of July 2010, which Synod rejected by a small margin in one house, but this time, after a thorough debate, all three houses of the Synod clearly voted not to ask the bishops to take such a course.

In an earlier debate on the results of the diocesan Synod voting, however, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened to ask Synod to allow the bishops one last look at the Measure. It was unclear whether he meant he wanted Synod to support the Manchester motion, and members interpreted his words in both directions. Essentially, however, he has paved the way for the bishops to amend the Measure slightly.

Almost all members of Synod, including both archbishops, are convinced that the Measure must be passed in July for the sake of the credibility of the Church of England. An unknown factor is whether there is a sufficient majority in the House of Laity, and in the light of that the Archbishop of Canterbury is keen to see whether there is a way through that will enable more laity to support the Measure, while not alienating those on the pro-women bishop side, who already find the Measure a huge compromise.

A known factor, however, is that if the bishops amend the Measure, shifting it towards the views of opponents, all the indications are that it will lose support in the House of Clergy and will not gain a sufficient majority there in July. It would also be somewhat peculiar if the House of Bishops used its powers to change a draft Measure about its own reform in the face of the overwhelming support given to that Measure by the wider Church membership through diocesan Synod voting.

As I said, the draft Measure goes to the House of Bishops in May, and it can amend the reforms as it sees fit. If it does, that would be unacceptable to WATCH and most senior women, because it would change the episcopacy in ways that would undermine the Church’s integrity and mission, as well as limiting female bishops’ ministry too far.

When I looked at this issue, I was struck by the fact that women have actively engaged with the bishops in the discussions that have been held so far. In June 2008, senior lay and clergywomen attended a meeting of the College of Bishops to discuss proposals for women bishops. Since then, no women have been part of the discussions in the House of Bishops. It is inconceivable to anyone engaged in equality and diversity work in other contexts that the Church would make the decision about consecrating women as bishops without seriously engaging during this last phase with those who will be most directly affected by that decision.

That is where we are at the moment. If the changes the bishops make to the Measure are small, it will come back to General Synod in July for final approval, which will involve further debate and voting. If the changes are major—I have explained how the Measure could be changed in a major way—the whole process will go backwards, with another consultation among the dioceses and more debates and voting.

If we get to the stage of final approval, it will require a two-thirds majority in each house—the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. That sounds a bit like Labour’s electoral college for electing leaders, which is complicated and rather challenging, with the constituency Labour parties, unions and MPs all having to have their say. The process around the Measure certainly seems to be more about worldly politics than about the great doctrinal principles that opponents of modernisation argue over.

If the two-thirds majority is achieved, and the interests of the minority who can scupper it are overcome, that is still not the end of the process. The Measure then goes before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, which can refer it to both Houses of Parliament for a vote. In that respect, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who will be responsible for taking the proposals through the House of Commons, was quoted in July 2010 as saying,

“be under no illusion about one thing. A difficult task could well become impossible if I had to steer through the House of Commons any measure which left a scintilla of a suggestion that woman bishops were in some way to be second class bishops.”

That is a helpful quote.

We now know that only a tiny minority of parishes oppose women bishops. Under the current legislation, only 3% have asked to be looked after by provincial episcopal visitors, commonly known as “flying bishops”, which is quite a challenging idea. The idea of someone swooping in to provide whatever people need sounds like the Church of England’s version of “The Sweeney”—the attitude to women that underlies that certainly belongs more to the world of “Life on Mars” than to 2012.

People who know change is coming are now looking at any way of delaying it. They are looking at whether there can be more restrictions and at possible ways of avoiding change. Obviously, some members of the Church of England—some priests—have accepted the Pope’s invitation to join the Roman Catholic Church.

However, more than enough has been done to cater for those who have rather challenging attitudes, shall we say, to the world we live in and to the commitment the Church of England and Christianity have always shown, and should always show, to equality, justice and fairness. That group perhaps sees the Church as a monument, rather than as the movement it really should be. To bend any further to the opponents of progress would mean stopping change. Indeed, they would like to reverse the progress that has been made so far.

There is an idea that we are moving far too fast. There are those who claim to support the cause of women bishops, but who believe that we should not proceed too far or too fast. With them, the decision always has to be taken in the future, and decisive moves forward always seem to be a few years ahead.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

As the campaign started in 1909, and we are now in 2012, does the hon. Lady think that even opponents of the change would think that 103 years was going too fast?

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. St Augustine established the Church in England in 597 AD—1,415 years ago. Discussions about women’s ordination have been going on since the Church of England’s Lambeth conference in 1920. The issue of women bishops was first raised in the Church Assembly in 1966. There is, therefore, quite a background to the issue, and no one could say we are rushing into making this change. It has been formally debated in Synod since 2000, so the accusation that we are moving too far and too fast on gender equality really does not hold water.

The Church of England is a broad Church, and we want it to go forward as a broad Church. I certainly want it to be relevant to the society we live in. I want it to promote faith, decency and good work in the wider community. It is obviously important to respect its past, but we should not live in the past; we should look to how the Church can develop and serve the needs of the community now. We need to serve the people of today and tomorrow, but we are perhaps being held back a little by some of yesterday’s people. A broad Church should not be held back by narrow interests, and there is now broad support for the Measure to go through all its stages.

I hope we will see the first woman bishop very soon. I will certainly persist in putting my questions to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury, to ensure that progress continues to be made. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does; he is a real champion of equality and fairness in the Church.

09:49

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Chope. I commend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who set out carefully and clearly the reasons for the debate, and what, perhaps, should come out of it. It was pleasing to hear, for once, that on the issue in question we are not moving too far and too fast, although clearly the Opposition think that we are doing that with many other issues.

Faith matters have been prominent in recent weeks, with debates about prayers in council meetings and Parliament, and about same sex civil marriage. My view on prayers in council meetings or Parliament is that it is not right for them to be an integral part of the proceedings. I have no objection to their happening immediately prior to the meeting or proceedings, but those who do not participate should not suffer any detriment for that.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In this world.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that semi-serious intervention.

The Government are consulting on how to introduce same sex civil marriages, and I hope that eventually we will introduce legislation to allow those faiths that want to celebrate same sex religious marriage to do so. Clearly, however, we are not at that point. The Government’s consultation is about same sex civil, not religious, marriages. If in the future same sex religious marriage is considered, as with previous measures, compulsion would not operate, but there would be flexibility and scope for faiths that wanted to proceed down that route.

I am not convinced that, as a man and an atheist, I am the best placed person to comment on the issue of women bishops. Indeed, as I walked up the steps to this debate, I tripped quite dramatically, as if there were some sort of intervention, seeking to restrict my comments. However, I welcome interventions from Church leaders on political matters, and I think it is therefore legitimate for politicians to comment on faith matters.

On 8 February the Synod voted clearly for women bishops to have full autonomy, without co-bishops. I welcome that—it is not a party position. However, I recognise that it will send shock waves through some sections of the Church of England. It is a brave decision, which—if it is ultimately passed—would not leave women bishops as second-class citizens in the Church. My view is that it will happen in the near future anyway. Given that 290 women and 273 men were ordained in 2010, at some point this decision will be taken. The Church of England is at a crossroads. It can go down a more liberal route, with the risk, highlighted by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, that that will lead more followers of the faith to leave. However, there is an inevitability about these things. Following a traditional route will lead to the same sorts of challenges, and as more and more women are ordained, pressure will grow for women bishops to be able to operate independently and in exactly the same way as male bishops, and it will happen eventually.

I welcome the decision taken at the Synod and hope that the House of Bishops, the clergy and the laity will accept that there was a strong vote in favour of allowing women bishops into the Church as equal partners with their male colleagues.

09:54

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

First, I apologise for intervening in both the speeches made by my colleagues. I came here with a self-denying ordinance, during Lent, not to intervene in others’ speeches, but I failed.

The first thing to remember is that the Church of England has got this matter sorted. It is now a question for the Government, which is why my hon. Friend the Minister is here, and for Parliament. As a member, still, of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I look forward to a debate, when the matter comes to us, in which the Committee will look as if it is on the side of the Church of England and Parliament, rather than confronting the Church. There has been a tendency in the past 10 years or so, for too many people to say that anything that comes from the Church of England must be suspect and treated with disrespect. We should treat the efforts of the Synod with respect, and remember that our present system is a change from when ecclesiastical canon law had to go through all stages of Parliament, with First, Second and Third Readings. We now have an abbreviated system, which is to be preferred.

Our responsibilities to the Church of England are perhaps the reverse of what happened in 1297, when there was a declaration that Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest had to be read out twice a year in all cathedral churches. Anyone who did not do that was excommunicated. The penalties were rather greater in those days than they are now.

I went through my shelves this morning to see what I had on this subject. I will not read everything out, but it is worth trying to set a context. In a book called “Women of the Bible” by H. V. Morton, which was published in 1940, the author talks about a female gallery unmatched in the world of literature, starting, obviously, with Eve, and working through the women of the Old and New Testaments; but not as ministers. That is something that I found covered rather better in the 1981 PhD thesis of Ben Witherington, which became the book “Women in the Ministry of Jesus”. I have got the paperback copy from 1987. He sensibly takes the reader through how we should view women in the context of their roles in Palestine—in marriage and the family, in religion and as witnesses, teachers and leaders. He goes on to describe women in the teaching of Jesus, in chapters about the physical family, women in the parables of Jesus, women in female imagery in the judgment sayings, and Jesus’s attitudes towards women, reflected in his words. There are then two more substantive chapters, “Women and the Deeds of Jesus”, including “Stories of Help and Healing” and “Jesus’ Attitude Toward Women Reflected in his Actions”; and “Women in the Ministry of Jesus”, including “Mother Mary, Jesus’ Disciple”, “Mary and Martha”, “Women Who Followed Jesus” and “The Place of Women in Jesus’ Ministry”. Then the book goes on to conclusions.

It is clear from what Ben Witherington has to say, and from what is known by scholars, as well as the campaigners, that Jesus had a rare view, for his time, of what women could and should do. We should keep that in mind. Most of what we have began, I think, with the western version of St Luke’s Gospel, in which the translator toned down much of what Luke directly said. There has been a natural tendency, including among some of my friends in both Houses of Parliament, to suggest that everything must suffer from the historic negative: things cannot be done in a new way, because they have never been done that way before. The old law of custom is also rolled out. In the Old Testament, as we know from some of the Bedouin histories, even though someone had done something terribly wrong, if it was customary to do it, they could get away with it. Whether it was murder, taking others’ goods, or slaughtering members of another tribe, custom was a sufficient defence. I think that we should look for challenge, and say that custom is no longer a sufficient defence for perpetuating what is clearly ineffective, and in many senses unjust.

I want briefly to consider the relationship of Church and state. F.D. Bruce’s book, “The Legal and Constitutional Relationship Between Church and State in England”, published in 1910, sets out clearly the role of establishment. It is not the Church of England propping up Parliament; it is Parliament’s role in making sure that the Church serves the nation. That applies to the UK Parliament as it is now just as much as it applied to the English Parliament, before the unions that created Great Britain and the United Kingdom. A rather good book that is relevant is from the Royal Historical Society “Studies in History”: “Representatives of the Lower Clergy in Parliament, 1295-1340” by J. H. Denton and J. P. Dooley.

Let me now turn to “Women and Holy Orders”. In 1928, Charles E. Raven, who was Canon at Liverpool and Chaplain to the King and later became the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge university, wrote a book that effectively epitomised what the suffrage movement meant in the Church of England in terms of getting the vote, which was established when Royal Assent was given to the suffrage Act—the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. It was then that the League of Church Militant, which had offices at Church House, Westminster, was dissolved because it was thought that the job had been basically done. However, from 1928 to now, we have had arguments over the ordination of women as deacons rather than deaconesses and the decision, eventually, to ordain women as priests. Now we come to the decision—this could have been taken at the same time as the decision to ordain women as priests, but out of kindness to the last ditchers it was deferred—about women being ordained as bishops.

My hon. Friend the Minister may say that this matter does not have a great deal to do with the Government, but, to the extent that Government determine parliamentary time, it does. The matter of the ordination of women as bishops should not be left to the Backbench Business Committee. I hope that the Government will accept that they have responsibility for providing parliamentary time if the Ecclesiastical Committee decides that it is expedient to put the Synod’s Measure to both Houses of Parliament.

I pay tribute to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) who in his first series of questions in that role uttered words equivalent to the ones that he later gave in public and to the Synod. He said that Parliament will not stand for backsliding, significant delay and discrimination, and that is right. I also pay tribute to the Synod for the decisions that it has made, even though it did not follow what the archbishops had indicated that they would find expedient.

Lastly, let me reflect on Margaret Hebblethwaite’s “Six New Gospels” in which, in a fictional way, she has New Testament women telling their stories. We have an image of Jesus through the eyes of six different women. She says that this can be looked at metaphorically and literally. The metaphorical question about whether women are fully capable of doing anything that a man can do has been settled for two millennia. The question of whether we can translate that into practice will, in the end, come down to whether the Church of England can act by itself or whether it has to wait for more of Christendom to join us.

One of the great things about the Church of England, for whatever reason it was established, is that it actually has the freedom to make its own decisions and we are part of that process. It is about time that we took that decision. Please, Synod, pass this legislation on women bishops to us. I hope that the Ecclesiastical Committee will not make a fool of itself: I trust it to do what is right. When it comes to being debated and decided on in the House of Commons—I cannot speak for the House of Lords; I leave that to my wife, because a woman’s place is in the House…of Lords—I hope that we will make a decision that will allow women bishops to join the House of Lords and then help decide what the future of that institution will be as well.

10:03

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I start with an apology: I am due to chair the Committee that is considering the Civil Aviation Bill very shortly. That may take me 50,000 feet closer to God, but it will not allow me to hear the winding-up speeches in this debate, and for that I apologise to colleagues.

I am a fully paid-up reactionary. This is not part of the debate, but it has been raised, so I will make my own comment. I happen to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and anything else is a partnership and should remain as such.

On the issue that we are debating this morning, I have a very strong view indeed. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and others have referred to equality. However, this is about not equality, but the right person for the job. As with the House of Commons, so with the Church of England and others; we need the best people in the job. Simply, ladies who have been ordained have proved that they are very good. There may be some bad women vicars, but I can think of one or two bad male vicars as well. In whatever walk of life—whether in the House of Commons, the Church of England, industry, medicine or education—we need the best people in the job. Some of those best people will be men and some will be women. If there are more best women than there are best men, there should be more women bishops than there are male bishops. If that is a counter-reactionary point of view, I apologise to my hon. Friends who might expect me to take an alternative view.

To conclude, in the final line of “Saint Joan”—I know this because as a schoolboy I was required to utter the words—George Bernard Shaw said:

“How long, Oh Lord, how long?”

This has been going on for far too long. The moment is not with us; it is way past and the decision should have been taken by now. The bishops will be doing the Church, of which I am proud to be a member, no service whatever if they duck this issue. It is time to move forward, and I hope very much indeed that we in the House of Commons and our colleagues in the upper House will be given the opportunity to vote for this Measure and to see women enjoying the episcopacy as soon as possible.

10:06

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

I hope that it will be of some help to the House if I am allowed to make a contribution in my capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. If I read this debate correctly, it will not miss the point. The debate, which was introduced excellently by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), has had contributions from an avowed atheist, the churchwarden of St Margaret’s and a resolute reactionary, and they all supported the Measure to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England and want it passed as soon as possible.

We have a Church of England that is subject to parliamentary statute, and has been ever since the first Act of Supremacy, when we broke with Rome. However, in 1919, Parliament decided that the Church of England should have its own legislature, the Church Assembly then and the General Synod now.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, the General Synod is made up of three houses: the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. Resolutions from the General Synod—Measures—have to come to Parliament.

May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that I hope that the General Synod will agree to adopt this Measure in July? In anticipation of that, I have met Lord Lloyd, the Chair of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is made up of a number of Members of this House and a number of Members of the House of Lords, to discuss the Committee meeting in October to consider and approve the Measure.

Leaving nothing to chance, I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons. Using the precedent of what happened in respect of the Measures for ordaining women as deacons and priests, it is deemed to be appropriate to consider this Measure on the Floor of the House, rather than upstairs in Committee. The understanding that I have reached with the Leader of the House is that we will set aside half a day—we hope, some time in November—to approve the Measure in this House. It has to be approved separately in the House of Lords, and I hope that it will do similarly. If the Measure is approved by General Synod in July, it is my ambition to do everything possible to have it pass all its legislative stages before the end of this year. We would therefore hope to see the first women bishops appointed as early as 2014. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) that that would be significant in terms of the timetable relating to reform of the House of Lords.

The other day, the Queen was at Lambeth palace to meet faith representatives, and at the conclusion of her visit she made a short but very powerful speech. With the leave of the House, I will just quote two paragraphs from that speech. Her Majesty said:

“Our religions provide critical guidance for the way we live our lives and for the way in which we treat each other. Many of the values and ideas we take for granted in this and other countries originate in the ancient wisdom of our traditions. Even the concept of a Jubilee is rooted in the Bible… We should remind ourselves of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life. The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

It certainly provides an identity and spiritual dimension for its own many adherents. But also, gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society—more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths.”

It is always important to remember that the Church of England is, as Her Majesty pointed out, the established Church and as such it has very specific responsibilities to be a national Church. This year, we celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Book of Common Prayer, but it is worth recalling that the Book of Common Prayer is itself an annexe to the Act of Uniformity. Indeed, later this year, the Parliamentary Archives will display the original Act of Uniformity, with the original Book of Common Prayer, which, as I say, was attached to the Act as an annexe. So Parliament has always had an important role in the life of the Church of England and the Church of England has had a responsibility in our nation’s life to be a national Church.

Regarding the concerns that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North expressed about the Equality Act 2010, it is important to recognise that any Measure from the General Synod must come to both Houses of Parliament to be approved. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for quoting my comments at the General Synod shortly after I was appointed as the Second Church Estates Commissioner in July 2010, when I made it very clear to the General Synod that I did not think there was any prospect of getting through Parliament any Measure that gave the impression that women bishops were second-class bishops. I have made it very clear that if the Church of England is to have bishops, women bishops must be just like male bishops, regarded and respected as male bishops are, and with the same roles, responsibilities and rights.

It is also important to remember that we are dealing with a Church and that, as is set out in the Preface to the Declaration of Assent:

“The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”

Therefore, the General Synod and the whole Church have been grappling with issues that are of genuine concern—indeed, heartfelt concern—for large numbers of individuals, and the General Synod and the whole Church are absolutely right to have taken time to ensure that those issues are thoroughly debated and resolved. It is a fact that every deanery in every diocese in England has had the opportunity to debate them at length and, as the hon. Lady pointed out in her opening comments, 42 out of 44 of the dioceses have voted firmly in support of the Measure to enable women to become bishops.

I very much hope that, when the House of Bishops considers the resolution from the February Synod, it gives it careful consideration. However, given that a majority of the members of the February Synod voted in favour of women becoming bishops—in other words, they supported those resolutions that enable that prospect to move forward—I would be extremely surprised if the House of Bishops did anything other than to enable the Measure to move forward, and I have every confidence in the good sense and good judgment of the House of Bishops.

When we come to the Church of England’s General Synod in July, I very much hope that even those who have been opposed to women becoming bishops will recognise the overwhelming support within the Church of England for the Measure to go forward. In fact, if 42 out of 44 dioceses have voted in favour of women becoming bishops, it would look very perverse—indeed, it would look ridiculous—if the General Synod in July was to use its convoluted voting mechanisms not to allow that Measure to move forward. Between now and July, I hope that everyone will search their soul and I also hope that, if people are opposed to the Measure, they will recognise that there comes a point when it is necessary to acknowledge that, in the interests and well-being of the Church of England, the Measure must make progress.

We have always wished to continue to be a broad Church, maintaining space for all those who wish to remain within the Church of England. However, there must be a recognition that this issue has been deliberated for a long time and that it has been considered carefully, with everyone in the Church of England having had the opportunity to make a thoughtful and deliberative contribution to the debate, and that—as demonstrated by the votes in the dioceses during the last year—the views of the members of the Church of England are very clear.

I hope, therefore, that by the end of this year Parliament will have passed a Measure that will enable women to become bishops. Of course, although that parliamentary business would be dealt with in Government time, it would not be capable of being whipped business. Consequently, I will look to all those who have urged and exhorted me on this issue during Church Commissioners questions and elsewhere to be in the main Chamber to support the Measure when it comes to the Floor of the House. Wherever that support comes from—whether from atheists or resolved reactionaries—it is very important that the House of Commons demonstrates its support for women bishops. In due course, I hope that I and others here will be able to be at Westminster abbey or St Paul’s cathedral when the archbishops consecrate the first woman bishop.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We know precisely what my hon. Friend means by that, but it is worth spelling out for the record that there are women bishops in other parts of the Anglican communion.

[Tony Baldry]

There are of course women bishops elsewhere in the Anglican communion. I am glad to say that some of them were present at the February Synod, and I was very glad to be able to entertain two of them, the Bishop of Rhode Island and the Bishop of Nova Scotia, here in the House while they were at General Synod in February. It was interesting to hear them talk about their experiences as women bishops and how quickly they had become fully recognised in their leadership role as bishops within their own provinces, countries and communities. And why not?

As has been said, we now have women in leadership roles throughout the Church of England in every position other than as bishops. There are now as many women as there are men coming forward to be ordained as priests. I am sure that it will be the same in other hon. Members’ constituencies. In my own constituency, the vicar of Banbury is a woman. The vicar of Bicester is a woman. The vicar in my own parish, from whom I take communion each Sunday, is a woman. They are all excellent examples of leadership within the Church, but my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West makes a good and important point. I hope that I will be present when the archbishops consecrate the first woman bishop within the Church of England.

[Diana Johnson]

When does the hon. Gentleman think that might be? In light of the timetable that he thinks we might complete this year in Parliament, when does he think we might see the first woman bishop?

[Tony Baldry]

Sorry, I hoped that I had made that clear. If General Synod approves the Measure in July, with God’s good grace and the help of Members of Parliament, I hope that we can get it through by the end of this year and that we will see the first women consecrated as bishops in 2014. Obviously, that depends on a whole number of variables, including the work of the Crown Nominations Commission and so forth, but I hope that we will see such a timetable.

At the consecration service, the archbishop addresses the ordinands. I will conclude with a piece of text, because it is a beautiful piece, but it is also worth reminding ourselves what function the bishops actually perform. If one considers this text, there is absolutely no reason why women should not perform any of these responsibilities just as well as men:

“Bishops are called to serve and care for the flock of Christ. Mindful of the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep, they are to love and pray for those committed to their charge, knowing their people and being known by them. As principal ministers of word and sacrament, stewards of the mysteries of God, they are to preside at the Lord’s table and to lead the offering of prayer and praise. They are to feed God’s pilgrim people, and so build up the Body of Christ. They are to baptize and confirm, nurturing God’s people in the life of the Spirit and leading them in the way of holiness. They are to discern and foster the gifts of the Spirit in all who follow Christ, commissioning them to minister in his name. They are to preside over the ordination of deacons and priests, and join together in the ordination of bishops. As chief pastors, it is their duty to share with their fellow presbyters the oversight of the Church, speaking in the name of God and expounding the gospel of salvation. With the Shepherd’s love, they are to be merciful, but with firmness; to minister discipline, but with compassion. They are to have a special care for the poor, the outcast, and those who are in need. They are to seek out those who are lost and lead them home with rejoicing, declaring the absolution and forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Christ. Following the example of the prophets and the teaching of the apostles, they are to proclaim the gospel boldly, confront injustice, and work for righteousness and peace in all the world.”

10:25

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on taking up the baton after our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), was unable to start the debate today. She has done it admirably. I think I am the only ordained person in the Church of England speaking today, unless anyone is hiding something from us. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) sounded remarkably ordained as he delivered his final intonations.

I remember going to Ripon College Cuddesdon in the 1980s. I arrived in 1983. The year before, there had been one woman in training at Cuddesdon, which was generally known as the bishop-making college. In the year I arrived, there were 13 women. It was the first time that the college had had to make real accommodation for women. Cuddesdon was a strange place, with 72 people living in the same space: eating, drinking, worshipping and studying. It was very intense, and I think it was difficult for many women. Frankly, they were given a hell of a time by some of the men. I have to confess that, in some regards, I think that was because some of the men were gay and did not want women intruding in their world. That is not true of the vast majority of gay men in the Church, who are supportive of women’s ordination and ministry, but it was certainly true at the time. Indeed, the Church was going through a difficult period because it did not know what to do about inclusive—or not inclusive—language. Should it refer to “all men” or “all men and women”, especially in the creed and much of the liturgy? Some of us ostentatiously refused to say just the word “men”. In retrospect, some of that feels a little childish, but the role of women was hardly respected or honoured at all in the Church, and there was a real conflict for many women. There still is in many parts of the Church, where the role model for a woman is as a virgin and a mother at the same time. Not many will be able to achieve that.

In the Church hierarchy, which had the vicar and curate, both of them men at the time, few women were allowed to be lay readers, and some churches refused to allow them to give communion. It felt as though women were fine for making cups of tea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned. They were fine for ironing the linen for the altar and for mending the cassocks, the albs and the humeral veils and so on. They were even fine for polishing the silver, and obviously for arranging the flowers, but when it came to the serious business of running the Church, that had to be reserved for men. I know that this has changed in many places, but it feels as though the work is not yet complete. As people were talking about the time that the change is taking, I was reminded of Longfellow’s brief poem:

“Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;

Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.”

In other words, I think we will get there, but it is taking a long time. It feels as though those who are not prepared to step outside the Church because they are frightened are none the less trying to die in the ditch of dilatoriness. They are just trying to delay, making it far more difficult for the Church to embrace its historic mission.

There is a sad history of some people in the Church, including senior leaders, not understanding how grossly offensive they have been at times. Graham Leonard, the former Bishop of London, said that a woman was no more ordainable than a potato. That was a man who was meant to be providing spiritual leadership, not just to the men in his diocese but to everybody else as well.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I once asked Graham Leonard why he did not oppose the ordination of women as deacons, although he opposed their ordination as priests and bishops. I asked, “Does it come down to the fact that you believe women were ordained as deacons before, but not as priests or bishops?” He said yes. That is a plain example of the historical negative, let alone his other remarks.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. It rather reminds me of Cardinal Martini—a fine name—who was asked in 1998 or 1999 whether there would ever be women priests in the Roman Catholic Church. He said, “Not in this millennium.” Obviously, the millennium was about to come to an end, so I hope that he was anticipating change swiftly, and not within 1,000 years.

Senior clerics have sometimes not realised what bruises their supposedly theological utterings have inflicted on many women in the Church who have felt seriously called to work for God, but have not been allowed to due to some flippant remark by a bishop or an archbishop. When it seems to be solely about manoeuvring and whether there are two votes above two thirds in each of the three houses, it feels as if humanity has been lost and it has become a political game rather than anything else. That is when the Church loses adherents, members and the passionate, loving support of those who want to be there with it.

A key argument that many people advance against the ordination of women, particularly as bishops, relates to the fact that Jesus supposedly chose no female disciples. We do not actually know that. If asked how many disciples there were, most people would probably say 12, but we have no idea how many there were. In Luke 10, Jesus sends out 70 in pairs, but the chapter does not say whether they were men or women. It says that there was a large crowd, and that the group was in addition to others that he had already sent out.

People say, “All right, but there were only 12 apostles. We must know that.” Again, it is difficult. In Romans 16:7, St Paul refers to two apostles, Andronicus and Junia. There is only one instance in the whole of classical history where Junia is a man, and I suspect that it is not this one. Those two people, probably husband and wife, were in prison with Paul, and he described them as apostles.

Likewise, in Matthew 10, Jesus appoints 12 apostles and sends them out. I suspect that there were 12 in Matthew’s account in particular because he wanted to say that they were going to the lost sheep of Israel; it is about the 12 tribes of Israel as much as anything else. However, if hearty adherents of the Church were asked to name the 12 apostles, I bet that most would not be able to. It is also difficult to be precise about who the apostles were. The gospel of St John names Nathaniel, who is not included in Matthew, Mark or Luke. Mark and Matthew both name Thaddeus, who does not appear in Luke. Instead, Luke names Jude the son of James, often referred to as Jude the obscure—as opposed to Jude the extremely not obscure: Iscariot—yet Jude the obscure is one of the apostles most frequently cited.

My only point about all that quibbling is that I do not think the whole decision whether women should be bishops can rest on the idea that Jesus supposedly called only men. He undoubtedly had many women followers, who certainly considered themselves disciples. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred to the scene in the garden on Easter Sunday morning, where it was a woman who first experienced the resurrection, and women undoubtedly played a significant role in the early Church.

People sometimes have too light an understanding of the Bible and use it flippantly. I remember, many years ago, somebody complaining to me in a letter that we kept producing new Bibles. He said, “King James wrote the Bible in the 17th century, and I don’t see why we have to keep on translating it.” King James was an interesting person, but I do not think that he wrote the Bible.

People often refer to the story in Genesis. Genesis does not tell a creation story; it tells at least two stories. In the first, in Genesis 1:27, man and woman are created at the same time:

“So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.”

It is absolutely, point-blank clear that it was all done in one fell swoop.

Genesis 2 gives a completely different story. Interestingly, God decides that man is on his own, so He first decides to give him the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky, then creates woman out of man’s rib, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North said. I do not think that anyone thought when those stories were initially recounted that someone would be standing in Parliament today saying, “You cannot ordain women bishops because God decided it,” and that that was a historically accurate version of events. I leave aside the tiny point that in the Bible, Adam and Eve had two sons. How that could lead to the rest of humanity, I do not understand.

Interestingly, of course, in nearly all the Old Testament creation narrative, the word used for the Holy Spirit is “ruach”, a feminine word. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is clearly female. In many interpretations in the later history of spirituality, beautifully recounted in Rowan Williams’s splendid first book “The Wound of Knowledge”, the spirit is female. The overlay of history has often made spirituality seem extremely masculine—martyrs and all the rest of it, and an authority structure left in the hands of men—but the spiritual insights of women in our history have been every bit as significant as those of men. Our own country gave us Dame Julian of Norwich, although a lot of people think that Julian of Norwich was a man. Her spiritual insights are profound, and one need not look far, to Teresa of Avila and many others around the world, to see the same thing.

The hon. Member for Banbury, who should at least be right hon. by now—it must be imminent; I feel grace falling upon him—asked whether the Church of England can do it alone. For a start, it is not doing it alone. Other Churches have had women as bishops and in prominent roles for many decades, particularly some Lutheran Churches, to which we are allied. In addition, as has been said, every single diocese in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America now has women priests, and ECUSA has had a woman primate—“primate” is always an odd word in the Anglican communion. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the Anglican communion in Cuba have had women suffragan bishops. We are not on our own.

Secondly, I thought that one of the fundamental teachings of the Anglican and Catholic Churches and, for that matter, the whole Orthodox communion, is that the sacrament does not depend on the person. That is to say that even if the person who is giving communion, who has stood up and recited, “who, in the same night that He was betrayed, took bread” and all the rest of it, is a filthy, evil, horrible and nasty person—indeed, many of them in the history of the Christian Church have been so—that does not mean that the sacrament does not work. That is absolutely essential. Anyone who believes that the personality of an ordained woman somehow means that the sacrament that she presents does not work is living in theological cloud cuckoo land.

When I was at theological college, I remember clearly that Michael Ramsey, perhaps one of the greatest archbishops, was asked a question by a high Church Anglican trainee ordinand at St Stephen’s house in Oxford—the very high Church college. What should someone in a poor parish do if they had just bought an expensive new altar carpet costing several thousands of pounds, and some consecrated communion wine was spilt over it? I think the high Anglican lad thought that the correct answer would be that since the wine had been consecrated, the carpet would have to be burned. Michael Ramsey said, “Well, first of all, why a church in a poor parish would buy an expensive carpet, I do not understand. Secondly, and much more importantly, I am sure that if God knows how to get into it, He knows how to get back out of it.” I am absolutely sure that if we were to make a mistake with the consecration of woman bishops, God would none the less somehow know how to make sure that we were all still receiving valid sacraments through them.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The reverend, learned hon. Gentleman could have reminded us about number 26 of the articles of religion, which says that things done by evil men can still be sacramental. It refers to evil men, but not to evil women.

[Chris Bryant]

Several articles need a little bit of reform. When I was a curate, my cassock had 28 buttons, and I did not do them all up for that very reason, but I have always been a little heterodox. I feel a bit disturbed when the hon. Gentleman refers to me as reverend; I think that is over.

The Church of England surely offers something different. Plenty of other Churches do not have women bishops or allow women to perform a full ministry, but I believe that the Church of England developed not just because of Henry VIII’s licentiousness, but because it had something genuine to offer—a middle ground between Protestantism and Catholicism, and a belief that the rational can inform the spiritual and that disciplinary autonomy in this country was important if there was to be a mission to everyone in this country, regardless of whatever the Pope might say, do or insist upon from over the seas. That was an important mission, and I think it survives today. I have a terrible fear that some people want the Church of England to become a sect and not be a Church at all, and I hope that that will be put behind us.

A bishop has to be the centre of unity in the diocese. That is why all the proposals, including those from the two archbishops, have completely misunderstood the theology of episcopacy. If someone is not the centre of unity, surely they cannot be the bishop. Any proposal that parishes should be able to opt out of a bishop because the bishop is a woman is not only fundamentally offensive and demeaning to the ministry of women—we should either do it or not do it—but will simply create a new style of wholly inappropriate schism in the Church. We were wrong to have flying bishops, and we would be wrong to advance similar proposals.

I hope that when the bishops meet, soon, they do not make any changes at all—certainly no changes of substance. I also hope that the Government will not shilly-shally about providing time for us to get on with it. The Ecclesiastical Committee should not have to wait until October. I am sure that it will take just one day. Why can it not meet in July, during the Olympics, or whenever?

[Tony Baldry]

We will make all speed, but the reason is simply that various pieces of legislative drafting have to be done. General Synod does not meet until mid-July, and the House rises quite early this year because of the Olympics, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the work will be done with all possible speed.

[Chris Bryant]

It did not sound like it. I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman—he has said some sensible things on the matter and I know that he is on the side of the angels—but please do not use all that language; just get on with it.

In the end, the only words on the issue that matter to me are in Galatians 3:28, which I am sure all the people down the other end of the Chamber could repeat verbatim with me, but we might be using different translations of the Bible, so let us not try:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

10:46

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (James Duddridge)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Sadly, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) cannot be here today, as she is on other important ministerial duties at the United Nations in New York, but she would have very much liked to reply in person. I hope that you will find me an agreeable alternative.

I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for originally securing the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on taking up the baton, as has been pointed out. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has given a lot of clarity on the Church of England’s case. It has been enlightening to hear about the parliamentary process that we may see in the future.

The Church forms a vital part of our culture and heritage, and the fabric of our nation. Today’s debate is about women in the Church of England. Women already play a vital role at a number of levels, from the top to the bottom. Some of the best vicars in the UK are women. Taking a totally random example—from Southend—Louise Williams, the vicar of St Andrew’s church, does an excellent and inspirational job, not because she is a woman, but because she is good at her job. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) described himself as a reactionary, but went on to say that the issue is about getting the right person for the job. That does not sound reactionary to me. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury say that 50% of people in training now are women.

Moving from Southend, another, somewhat different, example is that of Her Majesty the Queen—a woman at the head of the Church of England. From top to bottom, there are already women operating successfully in the Church of England.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Just to give an anecdote, when the Lord Bishop of London took up his post in November 1995, he was presented to the head of the Church—the Queen—by the Secretary of State, who was also a woman. Of those three, the only one who was allowed to be a bishop in those days, if otherwise qualified, was Richard Chartres, because of his chromosomes. It seems absurd that he could be presented by one woman to another woman for a job that both women were disqualified from.

[James Duddridge]

We are in Lent, and my hon. Friend has his own self-imposed rule. I am rather glad he broke it again; that was a good intervention. He also talked about history. If we look back at the decision-making process, it will seem even more ridiculous than it does now.

I would like to pay tribute to all the men and women in the Church who have been involved in invaluable work. The Church of England and those who serve in it have a special place in this country and in this Parliament, particularly through the representation in Parliament of the 26 senior bishops and archbishops. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) worried me a bit by turning up with a book on the period 1295-1340. That is not something the Minister for Equalities had familiarised me with in my briefing. I will speak to her about that on her return from New York.

As a consequence of the special relationship between the Church and the state, all our citizens, whether members of the Church or not, have a legitimate interest in what the Church says and does. Therefore, it is very appropriate for us to debate such issues here in this Parliament. It is good that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has contributed to the debate, because that demonstrates the issue is not only about the Church of England and Christianity; it is about people of all faiths, and people of no faith or no defined faith.

One of the key issues surrounding the place of women in the Church today is the question of women bishops, which we have discussed significantly. Although I want to say something on that specific question, I would like to point out that just because we have a special place for the Church within the state, it does not mean that the state should on a daily basis be quick or eager to involve itself in every single internal debate of the Church—or, indeed, that it should comment on its doctrines and practices. That very much applies to the question of who should or should not be bishops, and the associated questions of pastoral care for those who take a contrary view to that the Synod appears to be taking.

As we have heard, the direction of travel seems to be one way. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that we will get there in the end. The debate is about the timing of that travel, not the direction. As we have heard, the Church of England is moving forward and away from a position whereby only men can be appointed bishops. I understand and appreciate that the Church wants to consider the feelings of those who disagree strongly with that move, including those who consider it is not possible as a matter of doctrine for a woman to be made a bishop.

That question—how best to provide the appropriate support and pastoral care for those in the Church who cannot accept or are having problems accepting this change—is vital. I recognise that dealing with it is a difficult and sensitive task, but it is not one on which it is beneficial for the Government to intervene. It is for the Church itself to decide whether it will appoint women bishops. We have been given examples by various hon. Members of women bishops elsewhere—Nova Scotia, Rhode Island and, indeed, Cuba. We need to consider what arrangements should be put in place to support those who cannot accept the change.

As has been explained, once the General Synod has finished its work, the matter will come before the Ecclesiastical Committee and then the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for explaining the conversations he has had with the Leader of the House about providing time when necessary on the Floor of the House to deal with the matter appropriately. I will do anything I can to facilitate that process, both from the Leader of the House’s perspective, the Whips’ perspective and the perspective of the Government Equalities Office. We will provide any assistance we can to ensure that things are not unnecessarily delayed.

[Tony Baldry]

It would be very helpful if, immediately after the business relating to the Measure, the Government could schedule a piece of Government business that necessitates a three-line Whip.

[James Duddridge]

I will pass that request to the Chief Whip, who I am sure will take full account of it.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Duddridge]

I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

She is not a gentleman.

[James Duddridge]

Apologies.

[Diana Johnson]

People keep calling me a gentleman. I assume that the Queen’s Speech will be in a few months’ time. Will the Measure be in the Queen’s Speech? Do the Government expect to announce it as part of their legislative programme for the year ahead?

[James Duddridge]

I do not think that it is a Government Bill in that sense, so I would not expect it to be mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. However, I am not privy to that speech.

I shall turn to the specific points that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made so ably in picking up this brief. She drew comparisons with the Labour electoral college. I genuinely hope that she is wrong in that comparison, given the problems that there have been.

[Chris Bryant]

Be nice.

[James Duddridge]

I am genuinely sympathetic and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always nice.

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, he used his own words to repeat the underlying point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made: if there is a scintilla of deviation from what originally went through the General Synod, it might be slightly more challenging to get things through Parliament. A number of people involved in the process—the Synod, the bishops and the laity—will listen very carefully to the words he has chosen today and the words the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North chose. They will reflect very carefully on that because it is my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who will take the Measure through. My hon. Friend has been in detailed discussions with everyone about the subject, whether they are a reactionary, as he mentioned, or they are on the other side of the argument. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that my hon. Friend will be held to account because parliamentary questions will be tabled to the Second Church Estates Commissioner. That is pretty much a polite parliamentary threat—his card is marked.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West failed to give up making interventions for Lent, although I am somewhat surprised he did it so early. I hope that he has more success later. He raised a number of very interesting points. He will have to invite me to his library because it must be incredibly extensive if he has such a detailed knowledge on the subject.

I will not predict when the first woman bishop of the Church of England will be appointed. However, I was interested to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was firm in his view that it could be as early as 2014. I, too, hope to attend such an event; it would be a great privilege.

The hon. Member for Rhondda was very entertaining in his speech. I think we would agree that my biblical knowledge is not as good as his. However, I think I can go out on a limb—although it does not say so in my briefing—and say that the King James Bible was not written by King James. We do have some commonality. His speeches are always amusing, but I was worried when he mentioned Cardinal Martini because I thought we might have a seedy “any place, any time, any where” joke. I am glad that he steered us clear of such things. I think my local priest who took me through Sunday school and the confirmation process would be somewhat shocked to know that I am responding on this matter for the Government. If I had known when I was 14 that I would be responding—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman would have paid attention.

[James Duddridge]

As the hon. Lady said, I would have paid an awful lot more attention.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for not probing me on a number of deeply theological questions because that may be a slight chink in my armour. Given I have a young family, on Sundays, I occasionally do things other than attend church. He gave us a very interesting tour de force on the apostles and, at times, I found that I was engaging in the debate and listening, which is always an unwise thing to do as a Minister and will no doubt worry the civil servants. He will have to explain to me at some point his rebellious streak. He is always very entertaining in the House of Commons, but not doing up one of his 28 buttons is not as rebellious as he has been on a number of other things.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman has been provoked. I apologise; it was probably unwise.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not an unknown fact that a lot of clergy in the Church of England do not subscribe to all the articles of religion that we are meant to sign up to when we are ordained. In fact, on the night before I was ordained, when I had to give my oath of allegiance, the bishop who ordained me said, “It’s all right; I crossed my fingers as well.”

[James Duddridge]

I note that with interest. It was fascinating to understand the issues surrounding training, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in some detail. I look forward to finding out more. In conclusion, I genuinely wish the General Synod and the Church every success in their endeavours to sort out this very sensitive issue. I will follow the progress of the matter very carefully.

Media Regulation

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

From the sublime to the corrupt. First, I draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I believe that a free press, a free Parliament and a free society are intrinsic to one another. Investigative journalism, campaigning journalism and, yes, even on occasion mischievous journalism are absolutely vital. They are the best medication for our political sanity, both in the Palace of Westminster and in society generally. Of course, the press and the media entertain, but they also shine a light into the darker caves of modern life. We should never be naive—if we shine a light into the darker caves, we sometimes get wrapped up in the darkness ourselves.

Many people have told me in the past two years that I have become a bit obsessed with News International and that surely this cannot possibly have gone on only at News International. I am absolutely sure that the problems that we have seen at The Sun and the News of the World may well have been replicated at the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror—all the national newspapers, in particular those trying to pursue what I call celebrity gossip, which was often where this kind of journalism was going on.

There are three distinctive things about News International’s contribution. First, there is hard evidence of what went on at News International. If there were to be hard evidence on any of the other newspapers, I hope the police would investigate with the full thoroughness with which they are now investigating News International. Secondly, there was a major cover-up at News International, which stretched right up to the very highest levels of the company—as we know, even up to James Murdoch. In the end, I suspect that that will prove to have been the biggest crime. Thirdly, News International is owned by News Corporation, which has the largest holding in BSkyB. That makes it quantifiably and qualitatively different from any of the other newspaper holdings in this country.

It is important to remember some of the background to the debate. Some 10 journalists at The Sun, and, as I understand it, 24 employees of the News of the World, have been arrested. They are all on police bail. Police and other public servants have also been arrested. The culture of mass corruption was intrinsic to The Sun’s modus operandi. One public employee received bribes of more than £80,000. One journalist at The Sun had more than £150,000 to disburse in illegal cash payments. So far as we have been told, they were not for grand projects of investigative journalism, but to pursue salacious gossip. A series of private investigators were used, probably not as private investigators, but as paid informants. For example, Philip Campbell Smith was sent to jail yesterday for obtaining private information for cash—another person caught up in this saga.

For a long time, News International maintained that there was one rogue reporter at the News of the World. We now know that that was a lie told on several occasions to Parliament. In an attempt to protect Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, News International said that the hacking started in 2004 and not before then. However, Charlotte Church’s phone was hacked in 2002, as were many others—another lie repeatedly told to Parliament.

News International also maintained that the contagion was just about one newspaper. It had to keep on maintaining that, because otherwise there was a danger that the whole thing would collapse around its ears. Now we know that it was not. The Sun on Monday, The Sun on Tuesday, The Sun on Wednesday, The Sun on Thursday, The Sun on Friday and The Sun on Saturday were in it up to their necks just as much as the News of the World, now renamed The Sun on Sunday.

There is then the illegal cover-up. We know for sure that senior figures at News International ordered the mass destruction of evidence—the clear, incontrovertible evidence of corrupt payments to police that News International garnered together, gave to lawyers and squirreled away, and revealed to the public only very recently. The authorities in the US should be investigating that, because I do not believe that a single member of the board of directors of News Corp took their responsibilities in this regard seriously enough to prevent the payment of corrupt officials.

Yesterday, it was revealed, though I have known for some time, that some of the people who were targeted by the News of the World were on the witness protection scheme—people absolutely vital to securing convictions against very dangerous people in society. They rely absolutely on the state to protect them, so that they can deliver justice for others. The only people who could have given those names and telephone numbers to the News of the World are the Metropolitan police, who are meant to be the there to defend us. That single fact—it is not helpful to know the names—is one of the most destructive of all.

We know from yesterday that Tom Crone, the News of the World’s head of legal affairs, wrote to the then News of the World editor Andy Coulson on 15 September 2006 outlining what Rebekah Wade, now Brooks, told him about the information relayed to her by the cops. That is like the FBI going to Don Corleone and telling him that it has a bit of information on what his family has been up to—an extraordinary thing for us to witness. I suspect that people are so punch drunk with all the different stories in the past two years that they almost fail recognise its significance. The e-mail states:

“They suggested that they were not widening the case to include other NoW people, but would do so if they got direct evidence, say NoW journos directly accessing the voicemails (this is what did for Clive).”

In other words, people right at the top of the News of the World knew in 2006 exactly what had gone on, and everything that they have said since has been a pack of lies. In total, I believe—my poor old researcher has had to count them—there have been 486 lies to Parliament between News International, the police and other organisations. The police effectively became a partly owned subsidiary of News International, with some people working at News International then going on to work for the Met and some people working at the Met then going on to work for News International.

We know also that the Met, in its strategy to deal with victims of Glenn Mulcaire’s activities, bizarrely got in contact with The Mail on Sunday to tell it that its journalists’ phones had been hacked—an irony there; clearly, there is no honour among thieves. However, the Met did not contact all the other victims, including the then Deputy Prime Minister. The Met was saying, right up until February last year, that his phone had not been hacked. We now know that Metropolitan police officers knew for certain that his phone had been hacked in 2007.

This is a problem for politicians, because every element of the regulatory regime failed. The directors of the company did not exercise their fiduciary responsibility, either in the UK or in the US. The Press Complaints Commission failed completely in its duty. The Metropolitan police were suborned. The courts provided justice only very slowly and at great expense and financial risk to those involved. Parliament failed to do its full duty. Let me start with the PCC.

The PCC, throughout all this, has proved to be a toothless gaggle of incompetent crones. At every turn, it has tried to defend the idea of self-regulation. Sir Christopher Meyer, whose period in charge of the PCC was probably one of the most dismal records of public service yet seen, has defended what went on during his time. He has even defended the PCC against the accusations relating to what the press did regarding Christopher Jefferies. Why the PCC did not intervene to say, “I’m sorry folks, it is quite clear what you are doing; you are compromising the course of justice. You must desist,” I cannot understand.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. As weak, appalling and hopeless as the PCC has been, does he acknowledge that the PCC only applies to those newspapers that voluntarily opt in? Other newspapers do not opt in, which puts a big question mark over the self-regulation process.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman, whom I count as a friend in these matters, is right. That issue needs to be addressed and is one reason why the answer that the PCC is coming up with at the moment—a contractual arrangement—will not do the trick, because by definition a contract can only be entered into by two willing volunteers. I do not see how we can proceed in that way.

Let us not forget that Baroness Buscombe, when she was PCC chair, was so fatally compromised by having been appointed by her cronies in the newspapers and by the editors of the major newspapers that she far too readily leapt to the defence of the News of the World and News International, condemned The Guardian and ended up having to pay damages to a Guardian journalist and a lawyer because of how she conducted herself. I do not think that she did due diligence. She is now blaming the News of the World, saying that it lied to her. I do not think that she ever asked the serious questions that needed to be asked.

The new PCC chairman regularly criticises politicians for being politicians. I merely say to him that he is a politician. He is in the legislature and was a Minister and a Member of Parliament; he takes the Conservative Whip. He was questioned at the Leveson inquiry:

“Do you think that Parliament might seek to use any form of legislation, however it was cast, as a way of controlling the press?”

He said:

“Yes, and they have told me so, many of them in both houses.”

His comments are untrue. I do not believe that Members of either House of Parliament want to control the press. That should never be our business. He is making that up and should withdraw the comment. I note that he has gone native, because he is already using unattributed comments, which is of course what most newspaper articles these days seem to consist of.

I say to the PCC chairman that I have no desire to control, muzzle, undermine or enfeeble the press. I want a robust, even scabrous, press to hold the powerful to account and to probe and bring the truth to light with courage and determination, within the bounds of the law and common decency and without hubris. It is hubris, in the end, that has done for News International.

We need a new body—not the PCC dressed up in a new fur coat—imbued with different principles and on a different standing. It is clear that it must be independent of the Government, but it must also be independent of the newspapers, because otherwise it will not command the respect of the British people. It must have statutory teeth provided to it in statute law, so that it can enforce its decisions. It must have an independent chairman, not a member of the legislature and certainly not a journalist or someone who takes a party political Whip. It must have the power to enforce redress and, if necessary, to fine. For instance, it should be able to say, “If you’ve published a story on the front page attacking somebody and it proves completely libellous, the response—the retraction—must be on the front page, if the victim of that libel wants.” The new body, whatever it is called, needs to have that power. Ofcom is not that bad a model for us to pursue.

The Minister said on “Question Time” last week that a new body still had to be self-regulating. He slipped that in rather quietly. It is not the view of the Prime Minister, who has made it clear that the body needs to be independent of the Government and the press. The Minister is obviously on the edge of his political career at the moment in respect of that disagreement. Self-regulation is long past the last chance saloon; it has had its last gin and tonic. It is time for a new body that is completely independent.

I have some suggestions on how to deal with the problem in other areas. For me, the biggest problem relates to ownership. At one point, News International had nearly 40% of the newspaper share and the largest part of the single biggest broadcaster in this country. BSkyB is often not referred to as a broadcaster these days, because in most people’s minds it is the platform on which broadcasts are provided. The Communications Act 2003 needs radical surgery in this regard and must be amended to catch up and include platforms, which are often the most anti-competitive element of the business, in the ownership structure.

At the moment, the only restriction on ownership is that if someone owns 20% of the newspaper share they are not allowed to have more than 20% of ITV. We need to be far more radical and say, first, that there is a cap on the amount of the whole of the media world that people can have and, secondly, if they are to own newspapers and broadcasters there has to be a lower cap on how much of that they can enjoy. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has asked Ofcom to consider this matter in relation to news only. We need to consider that market, but we also need to consider the whole. We need to reform the language on the fit and proper person, on which Ofcom has to adjudicate.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no matter what regulation or self-regulation emerges from the Leveson process, as long as individuals and individual corporations control such a large percentage of the news, it is inevitable—unavoidable—that Parliament and the democratic process itself will always bend beneath those interests?

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely spot on. I agree. In addition, it is inevitable that political parties, craven as we are, will seek to influence somebody with so much concentration of media ownership and the relationship will become too close. Tidying this up is for the good of us all. It is not just for those of us who take a particular view about News International; it is about any potential conglomeration in future.

In relation to the fit and proper person test, one danger is that because so many members of the BSkyB board have been there for way in excess of the eight years that is now considered to be the maximum time that people can be considered as an independent director, to all intents and purposes none of that board’s members is now an independent director. That is bad for BSkyB. I could go on at great length about why BSkyB operates on a monopolistic basis. It uses its application programming interface, its operating system and its hoovering up of rights, in a way, to crowd out any new entrants to the market. Broadcasting is always intrinsically prone to monopoly, because it costs a lot to make a programme and relatively little to give it to 1,000 people, rather than to 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000. That is why statutory intervention is needed.

We need reform in relation to seeking redress. I have already mentioned the powers that a new body might have, but we also need legal redress through the courts that is cheaper than the present arrangements. Let me give figures in relation to myself. I was awarded £30,000 in a settlement. My legal costs came to some £300,000 and are being paid by News International because of the settlement. That is the normal proportion in such situations. The maximum that has ever been awarded in a privacy case by the courts is £60,000, yet if people go to court in a privacy case their costs will be between £300,000 and £500,000 and they may have to meet the costs of the other side as well, which might be in excess of that.

For the sake of both newspapers and ordinary members of the public, we need a cheaper way of doing this. We should set up some form of small claims court, perhaps limiting awards to £20,000 or £25,000. Such a process would not be heavy on lawyers—people would not need legal representation—and cases would be fairly simply and straightforwardly adjudicated, but they would go through the court system, which has true independence built into it.

We need to change some elements of the law. First, in relation to interception, it is clear in the law that if people listen to a voicemail message after the person for whom it was intended they are still intercepting it. Some believe that this matter is not quite as clear as crystal. Perhaps we should clarify that position. That is not to resile from the existing state of the law, which is perfectly adequate, but for the sake of clarity.

Similarly, we should take away the public interest defence for blagging. If someone is obtaining private information about someone else by deception, there should be no public interest. The corollary is that, just as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service always have to decide, first, whether they are likely to obtain a conviction and, secondly, whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute, so we should give a specific power to the DPP to decide not to prosecute in media cases.

There will be times when a journalist will rightly break the law because there is greater criminality to be detected. I suspect that the journalists in the United States of America who revealed Watergate broke the law on many occasions, but no one prosecuted—wisely, because they were revealing greater criminality and levels of corruption. Such an option should, manifestly, be available to the DPP and CPS.

Let me say something about the public interest test. The PCC has its own test:

“The public interest includes, but is not confined to…Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety…Protecting public health and safety…Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation”,

and, secondly:

“There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.”

That test, frankly, is riddled with holes. To say that there is a public interest in freedom of expression itself is a circular argument—that, basically, it is better to reveal whatever it is even if there is no other public interest at all. That idea is mistaken; we should not look at the public interest but at the public good. Many people—many editors—confuse the public interest with what the public are interested in, but the public can be made to be interested in absolutely anything.

One of the ironies of the past 20 years is that the tabloid newspapers in particular, seeing the collapse of their circulation, have ended up pursuing titillating, salacious stories about who is sleeping with whom and all the rest of it, thinking that celebrity would maintain their circulation. They have tended to do that in a pejorative, condemnatory and judgmental way, but we cannot have prurience and judgmentalism together—they just do not fit. If we are going to be prurient, we have to give up on the judgmentalism, which in practice is what has happened.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am listening with great interest, and he has brought up many relevant points. To dip my foot in the water a little, can we look further than newspapers and expand the discussion to all forms of media, including social media? I have worked in the media for 14 years and know how they shapeshift and move into different areas. Does he agree that regulation must capture that as well, because social media are currently more or less free from control? Anyone can go or could have gone in there to collect data, photographs and conversations, which could be used for the same purposes, but without redress because we are not dealing with giant organisations that we can have a Leveson inquiry into.

[Chris Bryant]

Social media are a vital part of news now. I sometimes say to people who worry about the future of the media in Wales that I get most of my news about my constituency not from the Rhondda Leader, the Western Mail—it was never from there, actually—or the South Wales Echo but from Twitter, which is by far the fastest newsfeed. I certainly learn things before they are announced by Ministers in Parliament, and that is true for most newspapers. I know that half of what I read on Twitter will be untrue, so it is fine for me to dismiss it, but something in a newspaper, supposedly, has the authoritative seal of truth.

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman might know that 50% of what he reads is untrue, but when data are collected, added online and someone does a form of Google check on people and their history, anything found is taken as definitive. Does he agree that that, too, should come under the same form of scrutiny and exacting regulation?

[Chris Bryant]

Social media should not have the same regulation, but they should have the same exacting scrutiny so, yes, of course I agree. There is no point in us legislating for a world that died five years ago, which is almost always what happens with communications Acts, by definition. I remember one debate in the House of Lords on the Communications Bill in 2002, when two supposed experts talked about black and white television licences, which I think had already been discontinued. There is no point in having legislation that does not meet the future as well as today.

I wish to finish on the issue of lying to Parliament. Members will know that it is available to Parliament, through the Speaker or the Chairman of a Select Committee, under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, which was added to by the Perjury Act 1911, to insist that a witness providing evidence to the Commons do so on oath. It is difficult, if doing an investigation that goes on for six months, to decide suddenly that the one witness who is coming before the Committee on a particular day needs to give evidence on oath, because that would imply that they are the one person who cannot be trusted. I would prefer us to move to a model in which every person who gives evidence to a Select Committee does so on oath.

I am concerned that the Government want to introduce a new parliamentary privilege Bill which, as I understand it, will put into statute provision on oaths. The danger with that is that if someone lied to Parliament, the case would be decided in the courts, but the courts would almost certainly ask whether the Committee had the right to ask the question, as a judge in a court might ask whether a question was inappropriate and rule that it need not be answered. Was the witness being bullied? Was the witness having a question sprung on them to which they could not possibly know the answer? Were they being ganged up on, and so on? The danger is that we would lose control of our own proceedings.

We should act robustly in relation to those who have lied to us; they should be summoned to the Bar of the House and, as in the 1950s, we should not be frightened of telling people where to get off when they have manifestly, in effect, put two fingers up to Parliament. I am not convinced, however, that that element needs to be in statute law.

Many people think that we have heard the last bit of this story, but I suspect that we have just crept into act IV, scene ii, after being in act III, scene ii, for a long time. I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind that although we might be punch drunk about the story, there are a lot more punches to come. So far, Leveson has completely avoided touching anything of a criminal nature—rightly, because no one wants to compromise the ongoing criminal investigations or the prosecutions that I suspect may follow. In the end, however, I think we will find that this has been the single largest corporate corruption case in this country for more than 250 years.

11:28

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

People in Westminster Hall have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I come with a slightly different perspective. I should declare that I have taken successful defamation actions against a number of newspapers, but they are not relevant to what I will say. I put on the record that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has a media self-regulation guide that I commend to all. It takes a perspective beyond this country.

Media regulation can be seen as what the media themselves should be doing, or as what people do to the media. On the whole, I am more interested in what the media choose to do themselves. I regret that the ways of holding print journalism to account basically disappeared when the Hard News programme with Ray Snoddy was dropped. We ought to be able to justify a weekly serious news television programme looking at what the media do. I recognise that the media pages of the broadsheet newspapers include serious coverage by people who have had a great deal of experience in the media, but the ability to use the power of broadcasting to hold people to account and to make available to all what is known to a few would be useful.

I do not stand here as a supporter of News Corp, or News International, or the papers to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred, but I am not antagonistic to them in general. However, I recollect that when John Biffen was Secretary of State for Trade he did not refer to the Monopolies Commission the takeover of The Sunday Times and The Times, when The Sunday Times was profitable but The Times certainly was not. Two Government Back Benchers voted against the Government. One was Jonathan Aitken, and I was the other. I am not suggesting that the takeover would not have been cleared, but it should have been referred. Before that debate and vote, I asked Harold Evans whether he would let me have some information. He said he would, but he did not. When he later fell out with his proprietor, he asked me to join his campaign to expose the wrong that had been done, and I said, “You’re a bit late, mate.”

A programme this morning—I forget whether it was on BBC 1 or Sky News—had an excerpt on elements of the independent media in Russia, where some proprietors of independent television and radio channels are having great pressure put on them by powerful people. We should know more about what is going on around the world when people suffer such pressure, and there should be a way of providing international interest and pressure so that the sort of media dominance that former President Berlusconi developed in Italy can be challenged. If what is happening in the media in one country cannot be challenged, persistent and reasonably consistent international pressure and interest is necessary.

The only profitable paper that Rupert Murdoch and his media took over in Britain was The Sunday Times. The Times was not profitable, and what became The Sun was not profitable. He started his satellite television service from scratch, and it is arguable that by choosing analogue he stopped us having a world lead. Robert Maxwell’s competitor satellite service, which was digital, could have taken us further ahead, but one was commercially successful and one was not. That is the way the market goes.

I realise that the hon. Member for Rhondda and our current media have a great interest in what the News of the World and perhaps some of its fellow papers did, but we should not believe that they are the only ones to have caused casualties in some of their ways of operation. Mostly, they gather news and entertainment, putting it all together, and sell it commercially. There are times when it is possible to apply pressure. I remember being asked to go on Radio 4’s “Today” programme when The Sun had published a photograph of one of the Queen’s children, taken 16 years ago when he and various friends in Canada were jumping into a lake without clothes on. Crowns were drawn across their middles in the photograph. The deputy editor of The Sun was asked about that before I was interviewed, and he explained why he thought that was legitimate. I was then asked what I thought, and I said that if anyone was looking for naked bodies in the papers, there were more in The Guardian, but in the arts pages rather than the so-called news pages. I said that anyone who is frightfully worried about naked bodies should never have a bath, because all of us have one. I also said that if anyone thought that The Sun had made a mistake in publishing the photograph, there was no point telling it because it had explained why it thought it was all right. I suggested going to a branch of one of the 10 named advertisers who had full-page advertisements in The Sun and saying, “I’m not going to boycott you; I’m not even going to boycott The Sun, but if you talk to The Sun could you please say that I think it made a mistake.” Within 36 hours, The Sun had apologised. There was similar pressure when The Sun published the Queen’s Christmas message in advance, and it apologised for that.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a powerful case on retraction? At the moment, when there is misrepresentation or a deliberate lie, it does not matter much to the people who perpetrate it because if they are eventually told that they must publish a retraction, they can do so, comfortable in the knowledge that it will be on page 36, somewhere between the crossword and the horoscope. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as my hon. Friend said, we should have like with like, and that we need teeth to do so?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am not sure that we should be doing that; I think they should be doing that. As I understand it, the proposals for a revised system for the Press Complaints Commission, or whoever its successor might be, will require that any retractions and apologies that are negotiated or ordered will have to have agreed prominence, and not be tucked away in the middle or on the back pages. That problem is in hand.

I am not suggesting that we can have a perfect system. When my wife was a Minister, a senior person in another news group, not News International, said that if it was not allowed to have a significant share in a television company, it would get us. Fourteen days after she made the decision that it would not get what it wanted, it put a 14-year-old member of our family on the front page of its paper. I am not saying that the two were necessarily connected, but it seemed suspicious at the time. There will be casualties in an open society, and we must accept that people make mistakes and that people suffer.

There is value in the press undertaking investigations that others choose not to, and publishing information that the powerful do not want published, and on balance we gain far more by reducing the amount of externally imposed regulation. Most of us get most of our news from the BBC. Its news coverage and transmissions, from Radio 1 to Radio 4 and the amount of news and current affairs on BBC 1 particularly—copied well by commercial television and Sky News—are important. I do not envy editors who are responsible for judgments on how to obtain and check information, and then decide what to broadcast and how to broadcast it. The question then arises of how to regulate, how to control, and how to obtain redress, and those are the matters that we should keep in mind. If anyone asked me to vote for externally imposed regulation, which would reduce the opportunity for people knowing what journalists and other media workers believe should be made available, I would do so with great reluctance, if at all.

The regulation system for the BBC is wrong, but it is not enormously wrong. The BBC should have a chairman. Having a chairman of the trust who is not officially the chairman to whom the director-general is responsible as an individual is wrong, but that is what Parliament decided, and it may take another cycle of change at the BBC for that to change. Ofcom has done pretty well, but we should provide a forum where people who work in the media and feel that they cannot get important stories broadcast or published could put such information so that we know what is cut out. Too often, the inhibitions on editors and journalists are greater than we know from outside.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman said in his introduction to the debate. I do not believe that the Government necessarily have the answers to all the questions, and I do not believe that they should have. It is often for the public will or the public mood in which there are many activists. I commend to those who are interested Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression, which has a rather more balanced approach than we have necessarily heard this morning.

11:38

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. The issue is important, and as ever he made an excellent speech and a compelling case. I want to make an undeclaration, and to make it absolutely clear that I am not related to Clive Goodman.

Her Majesty’s Opposition are basing their perspective of the issue on two principles. The first is the importance of free speech, which is guaranteed in the European convention on human rights, and the Human Rights Act. From that flows the free press, which is essential in our open democracy.

The second critical perspective is that of the ordinary citizen. The phone hacking of the abducted and subsequently murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, led to public horror and was why the Leader of the Opposition called for a public inquiry. We were pleased to support the Prime Minister in establishing the Leveson inquiry and agreeing the terms of reference. My hon. Friend described the horrors of the phone hacking that have emerged before the Leveson inquiry, but I suggest, as everybody in the Chamber will know, that the issues run wider than that.

I have heard from a number of ordinary constituents who have been abused by the press. Such cases seem to have become a common occurrence, and I want to tell one story—although I have others—about a woman who had a double-page spread written about her and photographs taken inside her home. She was described as a person who could not keep a house—in truth, her house was a tip; the Aggie programme would have had a field day—or control her children. The newspaper did not say, however, that the woman was a victim of domestic violence, which was crucial to understanding her situation. This woman was extremely alarmed, hurt and upset by the coverage that she received, but she was the sort of person who did not know that she had any rights and would not begin to understand the notion of redress. We want a system that works for people like her: we do not have such a system at the moment.

The press is already subject to a vast number of laws. For example, on matters of content such as racial incitement, the press is subject to the same laws as everybody else, and as my hon. Friend said, there are also laws that relate to the process by which stories are acquired. The big issue currently under discussion around the country is whether the press should have any special legal privileges.

Before Christmas, the managing editor of The Sun argued that the press should have an exemption from the Bribery Act 2010. Following yesterday’s evidence to the Leveson inquiry, however, we are bound to think that such an argument may have something to do with The Sun’s business model. I do not think that the press should have special legal exemptions. I agree with the Lord Chancellor: everybody should be subject to the law. The Attorney-General has made a number of sensible statements to say that although a free press and free speech are vital, the press must respect people’s other rights, such as the right to a fair trial.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of whether the press should have a public interest defence when acquiring stories, and we look forward with interest to the guidance that the Director of Public Prosecutions has promised to produce. At the moment, the public interest test is applied by the DPP when deciding whether to prosecute a journalist.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Does the hon. Lady agree that a legal definition of the public interest would provide the flexibility that commentators in the press are asking for? Most of the corruption and the abuses that we heard about yesterday, and over the past few months, do not amount to the noble pursuit of truth but are actually pretty squalid. There are exceptions, however; Watergate, which was cited by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is an example in which laws may have been broken in the pursuit of something valuable. A legal definition of the public interest would provide the flexibility that we need to ensure proper, genuine and useful journalism, and help to weed out the rubbish and abuse that we have seen over the past few years.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and we must distinguish between occasions when the press pursues the public interest or public good, and occasions when it does not. When the DPP produces his guidance, however, I do not think that he will define the public interest. If, for example, I were to say that the public interest includes uncovering crime and corruption, or demonstrating hypocrisy by people in high office, the problem is that it would be difficult to encapsulate everything. Therefore, if we were to go down that path, we would have to think about including everything else as well. I am not convinced that the public interest itself needs to be defined, although we do need greater clarity in the way that the test is applied.

The problem is that the press has ignored the law and the police have not enforced it. Another major problem concerns the inequity that exists in this country when people deal with the press. A person on a low income can go to the Press Complaints Commission, but it can offer them only a published apology or perhaps a letter. Wealthy people, however, can go to court, which is why we have seen them receiving big payouts. People have said, “There seem to be an awful lot of celebs at the Leveson inquiry”, but that is because celebs can afford to pursue their cases, and those are the stories that we know about. We do not know about the victim of domestic violence whom I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, or about the child involved in the criminal justice system, because they have not been able to pursue their cases.

[Chris Bryant]

People who do not have a lot of money—I do not have a lot of money—have been helped by the conditional fee agreement, which many would refer to as the no win, no fee arrangement. Such agreements worked particularly in cases of privacy and defamation because the amount that a person might eventually receive would be so low—£60,000 at most, and in many cases £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000—that they could not possibly pay all their legal fees. The danger with the Government’s changes to conditional fee agreements is that it will be the poor who are unable to get justice. Would it not make sense to have an exemption for privacy and libel cases?

[Helen Goodman]

I was going to ask the Minister whether he will go back to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and address the clauses in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently before Parliament. It would be good if Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport took seriously their responsibilities and got Ministers from the Ministry of Justice to shift their position.

We have briefly discussed the fact that we need a free press that pursues the public interest. Just like books and magazines, newspapers have a VAT exemption which, I understand from questions that I have asked of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is worth £150 million. It seems to me that the public expect to get something for their £150 million—namely a responsible newspaper industry.

Everybody who contributes to this morning’s debate will say that they favour press freedom. There is, however, sometimes confusion about what we mean by that. I just want to tease out some distinctions in relation to that small phrase. Of course, everyone agrees that we need freedom of expression in a free society. If, after this debate is over, people want to say, “The Member for Bishop Auckland made a terrible speech and I didn’t agree with a word of it,” that is fine by me; they are free to do that. However, I do not think that that freedom of expression extends to a licence to ride roughshod over both the law and ethical considerations in order to pursue stories.

We need to be very clear about the distinction between freedom with respect to the content of what is written and freedom in terms of the process that the media use to acquire stories. If we take seriously that distinction between process and content—Onora O’Neill wrote a very interesting essay on this before Christmas—we will find it very helpful. I say that because when we look at the systems that apply—the PCC and whatever we would like to succeed the PCC—we are looking at systems that address the processes, not at systems that control what people write. No Opposition Member and, I am sure, no Government Member has any interest in standing in a newsroom with a big red pen. That is not what we are talking about.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

indicated assent.

[Helen Goodman]

I am glad that the Minister is nodding; we clearly have a consensus on that. However, if there is to be more discipline in relation to processes, that obviously requires the institutions, organisations and corporations themselves to have some proper internal management control.

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

I am pleased to welcome you to the Chair, Ms Osborne.

I have to say that it was pathetic to hear James Murdoch before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport saying that he did not know in answer to all the questions that the Committee was putting to him. I am leaving to one side the question whether all those answers were, strictly speaking, accurate and truthful. He seemed to think that not knowing was some kind of excuse, but in a well run organisation, the people at the top should know what is going on. It is not an excuse not to know. I have written about that in more detail, and people can see what I have written on my website. I now want to talk about the move to a new system and the criteria that a new system must fulfil.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made a speech in Oxford last month, in which she highlighted three criteria. A new system must be independent, must be citizen-centric and must have 100% coverage of all newspapers. At the same conference shortly afterwards, and very helpfully, Ed Richards, the head of Ofcom, spelt out the meaning of independence. Independence means independent of political influence and independent of those who are regulated. The system needs to be independent of those who are regulated with respect to the decisions that are taken, the governance and the budgetary control.

Mr Richards went on to set out other qualities that a good system should have. He mentioned clear objectives, an investigative capacity, transparency of process, power to sanction and public accountability—something that we have not looked at enough in relation to the PCC, which is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act or all the usual accountability mechanisms of bodies that are pursuing public interests. The system must also be accessible to complainants.

In the light of what has happened, I would like to add four further points. No one should be above the law. The financial compensation that people receive should be related to the wrong that they have suffered, not the depth of their own back pocket. We need to see competent management systems and proper audit trails in the media industries. As the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) said, we need to look across to the new media as well, because otherwise we could simply set up a system or see a system set up that made traditional newspapers completely uneconomic, with everything migrating to the net. We would then have the wild west on the net, which would not be acceptable, so the hon. Lady was right to raise that point.

Obviously, this is a difficult and complex area, and it would be good if the industry could produce some solutions that met the criteria that have been outlined. So far, we have seen some very positive and interesting ideas put forward to Lord Justice Leveson by Alan Rusbridger in relation to the Reynolds defence and the Omand principles, which show what The Guardian has done and how it has kept ahead of the PCC code.

We have also seen proposals from the current chair of the PCC, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda reminded the Chamber, takes the Tory Whip in the House of Lords. Lord Hunt seems to be putting forward a convoluted construction of commercial contracts between press and regulator. I would like to ask a number of questions about that proposal. First, is it not the institutionalisation of agency capture? Secondly, if it is based on contracts between the regulator and the regulated, how can the regulator be truly independent? Will not the regulator always be looking over his or her shoulder to see whether membership or income might be lost? That does not seem to meet the criteria for independence set out by Ed Richards in his speech.

My next question is how the proposal can guarantee 100% coverage. Of course, it might guarantee 100% coverage in the short term. It might be that Lord Hunt, who is an extremely persuasive and plausible man, can get people to sign up now, but what guarantee is there that people will not subsequently want to leave such a system? Is it not really designed to maintain the existing “cosy club” style of regulation? Do other hon. Members really believe that those commercial contracts will satisfy the public, given everything that they have seen come out in the Leveson inquiry?

On Sunday, on the television, Lord Hunt claimed that he had the support of political parties for the proposal. I have to say that he does not have the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition for the proposal. Has the Minister met Lord Hunt? Has the Minister agreed the proposal? I believe that we should wait for Lord Justice Leveson to fulfil the inquiry that the whole House agreed it wanted him to undertake. We all agreed that that was important—that we needed the independence of a senior judge. I hope that the Minister will say that he, too, agrees that we should wait for Lord Justice Leveson to report, and that he does not accept the hysterical criticisms that were made of Lord Justice Leveson by the Secretary of State for Education.

11:58

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to finish the debate under your chairmanship, Ms Osborne, it having begun under the chairmanship of Mr Chope, whose name still appears in front of you, which could confuse—well, it certainly should not confuse anyone who is watching the debate either on television or in this Chamber this morning, which is about to become this afternoon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on calling this timely debate on a subject that I think it is safe to say has been in the news for many months. He may or not may recall that I praised him—perhaps presciently—in my maiden speech in 2005 as a fine Back Bencher. I do not think that anyone gets bored with praise and I am sure that he is aware that many people in the House have admired the way he has fought his corner on this issue over the last few months and, indeed, years.

Each week, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be aware, seems to bring fresh reports of questionable, and possibly illegal, activities at some newspapers, and witnesses’ statements at Leveson have further stoked the fires. That was why the Prime Minister announced an inquiry into phone hacking on 13 July last year, following revelations that the News of the World may have routinely paid private investigators to hack into the voicemail messages of celebrities and other people involved in high-profile news stories. I certainly welcome the support for the Leveson inquiry from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is the spokesman for the official Opposition.

We all need to know what journalists and their agents were up to hacking into phone messages. We also need to know what the police knew when, what they did about it and how we might learn lessons for the future. However, it is worth noting, as we have been reminded this week, that the inquiry is not purely about phone hacking. It will also look into allegations that the Metropolitan Police Service’s earlier inquiries, although they resulted in two convictions, were not sufficiently thorough. That raised questions about the relationship between senior Metropolitan Police Service officers and News International.

The ongoing police investigations, which are being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the Metropolitan police, are making good progress, and they are thorough and well resourced. As all hon. Members will agree, we must let those investigations, which may lead to criminal charges, run their course. About 120 members of staff are working on Operation Weeting, which, as hon. Members will recall, is focused on phone hacking. Operation Elvedon is the investigation into allegations of corrupt payments to police by journalists, and it is supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. So far, those operations have seen 17 and 21 arrests respectively.

[Chris Bryant]

As the Minister may know, I asked Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson on 11 March 2003 whether they had ever paid police officers for information. They said that they had, but only within the law, even though such payments are obviously a criminal offence, and it is not possible to make them within the law. My anxiety, however, is this. Although there is an investigation into these issues in the Metropolitan police, I am pretty certain they have happened fairly extensively around the country. We only have to see how regularly the press turn up for the arrest of some famous person, having mysteriously guessed when it would happen. Will the Minister make sure that Operation Elvedon is not restricted and that each of our police forces cleans up its act?

[Mr Vaizey]

Police operations are, of course, independent of the Government, as indeed is the Leveson inquiry, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s point will have been heard and taken on board by the respective police forces.

The Government are clear that we need to get to the bottom of this issue. We need to restore public trust in the regulation and activities of all our newspapers, and only an independent inquiry can do that. Let me also emphasise, however, that that should not be characterised as an attack on the press. As I said, the Government are equally clear about the importance of a free press and media that can challenge the Government and others.

To pick up one of the themes in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), more than a third of the world’s people live in countries where there is no press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders. In all the criticism we have seen of the press in the past year, it is easy to forget just how fortunate we are to live in a country where the media are not subjected to Government regulation and where the right to freedom of speech means that people can voice views that may be critical of, or offensive to, others. That independence from state intervention is fundamental to our democratic way of life.

Just a week after war reporter Marie Colvin was killed in Syria, it is worth reminding the House and ourselves that, although she was American, many journalists working in Britain also deserve our respect and thanks for the work they do.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I say through the Minister that any Member who gets a chance to go to the Amnesty media awards, which are held each year, will come away with the most incredible regard for the courage and suffering of many journalists in the countries they cover?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure those listening to the debate will take note of those awards and attend them or look at what is produced.

With press freedom comes responsibility, however, and we have consistently heard reports that certain parts of the press have not lived up to their responsibilities. It will be for Lord Leveson’s inquiry to make specific recommendations on future regulation. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, we will not prejudge what those recommendations might be. We are satisfied that, with this inquiry, we are putting in place the means of establishing the correct regulatory regime.

[Chris Bryant]

If that is true, why did the Minister say on “Question Time” that the answer had to be self-regulation?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that my remark, albeit in shorthand, echoed the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend said:

“I don’t know whether legislation would form part of the solution or not…I would love the industry to come to me with their proposed solution, but what I would say to them is that whatever you propose must have the confidence of the public, because the public are not happy with what’s been going on.”

We all agree that we do not want statutory regulation of the content of the press. We want to hear what proposals the press have for regulation, and we have not ruled out statutory backing for a regulatory system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently noted in the same interview, there is more agreement than expected on the tougher form of newspaper regulation that will emerge in the light of the phone hacking scandal. It is no secret that we would like a regime for regulating the press that is independent, but which has credible sanctions to deal with transgressors, to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. It must also cover all the press.

Our preference is that there should be no direct statutory regulation of press content and that the press should be able to come forward with a new regime that is credible to the public. The press have already begun that process with the appointment of a new chair of the Press Complaints Commission—Lord Hunt. We wish him well in tackling the challenges he and the industry face. However, we have ruled nothing out at this stage, and we are certainly not in the business of pre-empting Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased the Minister has said he does not intend to prejudge Lord Leveson’s inquiry, and that is helpful, but does he have any thoughts about the ideas put forward by Lord Hunt?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what Lord Hunt has to say, and my understanding is that he wants everyone to be members of the new body. He wants credible sanctions, he wants the body to be independent of the Government and the industry, and he wants the industry to come forward with credible proposals. As I say, however, it would be wrong for me to comment on the specific elements he is putting forward for debate ahead of the Leveson inquiry’s findings.

Let me talk a little about the Leveson process before I make the other point I was about to make. The inquiry will have two parts. As everyone knows, the first part looks at media ethics and will make recommendations for a regulatory regime to ensure we have ethical media. It is important to note that that part of the inquiry will report in October 2012. The second part will look at the extent of illegal behaviour by News International and other media organisations and at the police inquiry into that behaviour. That part of the inquiry is necessarily longer because of the difficulties of operating around live criminal investigations, as the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned.

The first part of the inquiry is made up of four modules. Module 1 dealt with the press and the public, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the extensive media coverage of the witness hearings at the royal courts of justice. The evidence given has helped to raise the inquiry’s profile, and the continued coverage serves only to highlight the intense importance the public attach to the regulation of the press and to the inquiry’s outcome.

Hon. Members may have noticed that the hearings for module 2, which focuses on the press and the police, started yesterday. They will be followed by module 3, which focuses on the press and politicians. It is obvious, therefore, that media interest will continue right up until Lord Justice Leveson reports and that there is still a huge amount of evidence to be gathered and considered. Let me therefore repeat—I have said this almost ad nauseam—that it is important to wait for Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

There is, however, another opportunity to look at these issues. We will publish a Green Paper focusing, if I can put this in shorthand, on how to bring the Communications Act 2003 up to date. We hope the Green Paper will lead to a White Paper and then to a communications Bill. I say that in all sincerity because of the work the hon. Member for Rhondda has done on the issue and the position he has taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues this morning, and I hope that he does not feel I am being too much of a politician when I say it would be wrong for me to give a view on each of his points about a small claims court or amendments to interception rules, or, indeed, his concerns about the proposed parliamentary privilege Bill, which is still very much in the drafting stage, the fit and proper person test or the need to amend the Communications Act 2003. I hope that he will, perhaps in a personal capacity, submit evidence to the Green Paper.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think he is being a bit too much of a politician, and not even a very good one, because his boss has already said that he will look at the idea of a small claims court; so I have got further with his boss than I have with him. The draft parliamentary privilege Bill is meant to be published in the next few weeks. I think the Minister could get a bit more up to speed with what is going on in the rest of the Department.

[Mr Vaizey]

It is sad that our relationship has reached this stage, when the hon. Gentleman deliberately mischaracterises what I have said. If he is honest he will say that the Secretary of State has not reached a conclusion on whether the small claims court is the right way forward. My right hon. Friend said merely that it is an idea that should be considered, which is exactly what I said about two minutes ago: the hon. Gentleman put forward some interesting ideas and I would welcome it if he—I am treating him with a lot more respect than he is giving me—would put those ideas into the Green Paper. Is that all right?

I am sorry, Ms Osborne; I got slightly carried away, but it is a bit unfair when all we are saying is that the arguments being put across are perfectly valid and deserve consideration in a process that is being undertaken by the Leveson inquiry and the Green Paper.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous with his time. We were expecting the Green Paper to be published before the end of January, and it is now almost March. Does he have any idea about the timetable for the process, for which he is in fact responsible? [Interruption.]

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is an experienced politician, says that the conventional answer is “Soon”. As a Minister I have come up with a new conventional answer to any question like that, which is “in the spring”, because I have discovered that in Whitehall the spring season runs from February to November. Therefore, to say that something will be published in the spring covers all the bases. However, to be more accurate, and feeling the vibes of pressure about my performance coming from the hon. Member for Rhondda, I can say that the timing has changed from spring to imminent, which means that we hope to publish the Green Paper in the next few weeks. We wanted to tighten up a number of issues, not related to what we are discussing today, but on a wholly separate matter.

[Helen Goodman]

We know about that.

[Mr Vaizey]

That is the reason for the delay, and I gather that the hon. Lady knows about it.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope that the Minister will not get wound up—it seems awfully easy to wind him up. Is it possible that some of the issues that we have been discussing will not be addressed at all in the Green Paper, and there may just be a great big hole? Is that the Government’s intention—a kind of hole, labelled “Please insert Leveson here”? Alternatively will there be an exploratory consultation as part of the Green Paper?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is that the document is a Green Paper, not a White Paper. It is not a precursor to the legislation. The Green Paper is a consultation document, and it will raise a number of issues. It will, in some areas, give a clear view of the Government’s direction of travel, and in others it will simply raise an issue and invite comments. However, it is important to emphasise that a Green Paper is a precursor to a White Paper and is therefore not necessarily so detailed. It is designed to invite comment, ideas, thoughts and proposals. In that sense it is much more open minded, and is effectively a call for further evidence.

The hon. Member for Rhondda has raised a number of points during the debate, which although its title is “Media Regulation” focused on the issue that has exercised us for the past few months: the future of press regulation.

[Helen Goodman]

I intuit that the Minister may be about to sit down. Before he does I want to remind him of another issue raised in the debate: whether he has put any further pressure on his Ministry of Justice colleagues to amend the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

[Mr Vaizey]

It is worth making the point that the conditional fee arrangements could be interpreted as a restriction on press freedom. I hear what the hon. Lady has said about the Opposition’s case for a clear exemption in the relevant areas; but there is certainly an argument that conditional fee arrangements put the press under undue pressure. I hear what the hon. Member for Rhondda says about the sums of money involved, but there is evidence that newspapers might settle cases that they would otherwise be prepared to fight, on the basis of the legal costs that they are likely to rack up against a litigant. I will happily write to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda, setting out the position on that issue.

[Chris Bryant]

Some newspapers have advanced the argument that under the proposals they would not write things that they would otherwise write; but if the result is that they choose not to write things that infringe people’s privacy or libel them, that is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there is a chilling effect that means that they do not write lies, that is good, not bad. It is difficult enough, even if conditional fee agreements are allowed for privacy and libel cases, for ordinary people to gain access to lawyers. They just do not know how to go through the process. However, it will be infinitely more difficult, or almost impossible, for someone from, say, Soham to get justice, as it would be for someone involved in any of the big criminal investigations where the victims of crime have ended up in the newspapers unnecessarily and incorrectly, with their privacy traduced.

[Mr Vaizey]

rose—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I add to that intervention, and contradict it? The Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill has produced a report, to which we expect the Government to respond at some stage; perhaps it is as much for the Ministry of Justice as it is for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Anyone who has listened to the editors of Nature or the British Medical Journal, or the campaign “Sense about Science” or who has heard the saga of Simon Singh or Dr Peter Wilmshurst, would say that what matters to the public interest is to get more information out, especially if it challenges what other people are saying, or if what is claimed is incontrovertible.

[Mr Vaizey]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

I should like to take up both those last two points, although that was not originally why I wanted to intervene.

I edited The Ecologist for about 10 years. We were threatened every month with litigation. Were it not for the fact that I personally had deep pockets and could defend the magazine in a way an ordinary editor or owner could not, the magazine would have been thrown against the rocks, so I take my hon. Friend’s point; but that is entirely different from the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda was making.

There is a clear public interest in the issues that Nature, for example, wanted to explore. There is no public interest in the kind of industrial-scale but nevertheless schoolyard bullying that people such as Charlotte Church faced, and which served no public interest. A 16-year-old girl was mercilessly torn apart by newspapers, and I do not believe any decent person in this country would defend what the newspapers did to her. The fact that she is a celebrity is neither here nor there. What they did was inhuman, and there is no public interest defence.

I challenge any of the newspapers following the debate to come up with one example of a genuine public interest story that has not been published as a result of the so-called chilling effect of the Leveson inquiry. I ask the Minister to reassure people who are afraid of a chilling effect resulting from it—several people have made that point—by saying that none of the ideas being put forward in response to the crisis that we face would jeopardise a free press.

Index on Censorship, which has campaigned harder than anyone else for the kind of reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West wants, has teamed up with Hacked Off, which focuses entirely on the kind of abuse we have been discussing. The fact that they have joined forces to come up with a solution shows that the proposed solutions are not designed to jeopardise a proper free press.

I ask the Minister to make that point and to add, finally, that even if a crazy idea were put forward—if Leveson lost his head and came up with a lunatic idea, which is highly unlikely—the ideas are just recommendations, and Parliament will take a view. There is no reason at all for anyone to fear the Leveson process. I hope that the Minister will echo those sentiments and make that very clear.

[Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)]

Order. Could we have short interventions, please?

[Mr Vaizey]

rose—

[Helen Goodman]

I just want to comment on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Worthing West. There are many things in the draft defamation Bill that will free the press, which the Opposition support. However, the Joint Committee report makes the point that the Jackson proposals should have been introduced rather than the things in the Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

[Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)]

Minister?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hesitated for a moment, Ms Osborne, in case anyone wanted to make a further intervention. Perhaps members of the audience might wish to participate in this debate, which is, funnily enough, beginning to resemble “Question Time”. I was glad not to raise a point of order with you, Ms Osborne, during the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Although it was a lengthy intervention, it was full of passion. He is another Member of the House who has taken a great interest in recent activities.

My hon. Friend said that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West was making a separate point, but what that illustrates is the fact that there are arguments on both sides—whether that in protecting the interests of a litigant, we are restricting press freedom, or whether we are protecting the interests of a litigant against the press. Inadvertently perhaps, he made an interesting point. It is not always the big media organisations to which we turn to expose corruption or wrongdoing. Often it is small media magazines or publications, which do not have large-scale resources to defend themselves against litigation, that can be silenced when the balance is tipped the other way. The hon. Member for Rhondda made a passionate point about conditional fees, and clearly he will want those points taken on board and responded to fully in the light of the legislation that is currently being considered. As has been said time and again, it is interesting that it is the Ministry of Justice that is taking forward those important pieces of legislation, which are nevertheless having an impact on this debate.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I think that he will remind us to keep in mind that there are issues of libel or defamation and of privacy. There are also issues relating to people who are not journalists who may want to speak at some professional conference where reports of what they have said can occasionally and wrongly suffer challenge in the court on the grounds of privacy, but more often of defamation. That needs protecting. In terms of the media responsibility, I hope that my hon. Friend and his Department will engage with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that such points are not forgotten.

[Mr Vaizey]

Certainly, we engage with the Ministry of Justice at length on many of these issues. Going back to the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, his thesis was that the regulatory regime failed across the board, whether it be the directors of the company, the Press Complaints Commission, the Metropolitan police, the courts or Parliament. However, it is also worth remembering that where there was wrongdoing, there were mechanisms to stop it, such as a proper criminal investigation or a criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, we have quite rightly set up an independent inquiry into the future of press regulation. It seems that there is general agreement that whatever recommendations emerge from that, we need a system of press regulation that is independent both of Government and of newspapers.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister correctly characterised my argument, but there is one other vital element to it that Leveson is probably not considering, which is ownership. Part of my argument is that it was actually the whole pattern of owning BSkyB and 40% of the newspapers that was the problem. It was what led to the sense of hubris about how News International and News Corp owned the Metropolitan police, the British Government, Parliament and politicians and could do what they wanted.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He has obviously raised the issue of the fit and proper test and it is frequently referred to in this context. As he knows, Ofcom, an independent regulator for which I have the highest regard, has an ongoing duty to ensure that anyone who owns a broadcasting licence is, and remains, a fit and proper person. It is frequently suggested by the hon. Gentleman and others that the revelations at News International mean that the owner of News Corporation is not a fit and proper person and hence BSkyB is not fit and proper to continue to hold its broadcast licences. I again emphasise that the regulation is independent of Government and is a matter for Ofcom. I understand that Ofcom has contacted the relevant authorities and asked to be kept informed of any information that might assist it in assessing whether BSkyB is, and remains, fit and proper to continue to hold its broadcast licences.

In the last five minutes, I wish to raise the issue of technology, which has not come up so far in this debate. It is worth looking at other systems of regulation. We now have the Authority for Television on Demand, which regulates broadcast-style services over the internet. It is interesting to see how that system of co-regulation is working; we have already had references to self-regulation, independent regulation and Government regulation. It will be interesting to see whether something emerges from Leveson and from our Green Paper about how to join up those different elements of regulation. Newspapers on the web do not currently fall under the regime of ATVOD because they are not pursuing broadcast-like services. That is an interesting matter for genuine debate about the future of press regulation.

We have had an entertaining and interesting debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda has put his case with the clarity and force for which he has become renowned in the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for reminding the House about the importance of press freedom not just in this country but around the world where perhaps more oppressive regimes may exist. I am grateful for the support from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for the Leveson inquiry and for her pertinent comments about the position of the official Opposition. The common position is that we must wait for the Leveson inquiry to reach its conclusions. I hope that people, including hon. Members with a particular interest in this area, will use the opportunity of the Green Paper to put forward their views on the future of media regulation.

12:28

Sitting suspended.

Energy Suppliers and Prices

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

12:29

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Osborne. As co-chair of the all-party group on fuel poverty and as Britain’s first Green MP, I am very happy to have secured this debate on a cause that is very dear to my heart: how do we help the poorest in our society and deliver social and environmental justice at the same time?

The balmy weather of recent days cannot mask the fact that our newspapers have been filled with chilling stories of yet more excessive profiteering by Britain’s big six energy companies, coupled with stories of big pay awards for the companies’ top executives. Last year, EDF’s UK profits were up by 8.5%, on the back of a 15% rise in bills; just last week, Centrica reported overall profits of £2.4 billion; and Scottish Power has reported profits of just under £1 billion.

I have been inundated, as I am sure many other hon. Members have been, with letters and e-mails from constituents complaining about their energy bills and expressing their fears that they will be unable to afford to stay warm. Although a few energy executives are wondering what to do with their gigantic profits, the stark reality for many Britons in the difficult economic circumstances that we are currently in is that they are wondering how they will pay for this winter’s gas and electricity bills. Indeed, it is estimated that more than 5.5 million households in the UK are now facing fuel poverty, leading to an estimated 3,000 premature winter deaths. Average annual household bills for gas and electricity increased from around £600 in 2004 to around £1,200 in 2011, and uSwitch has predicted that such bills could rise to a massive £3,202 by 2020.

Of course it is not just households that are finding energy bills difficult to pay. Small businesses with tight overheads are also feeling the pinch from the increasing cost of energy. More than 94% of businesses have seen an increase in energy costs, according to the Forum of Private Business.

The energy regulator has said that although fossil fuel price rises—the wholesale price of gas, and so forth—are clearly the driving factor pushing up energy bills, on top of those rises the big six are increasing their margins on our bills. Although some people might argue that those margins have now been reduced slightly, given the gigantic profits that have been reported, it is clear that energy companies could comfortably reduce their prices even further and still make a reasonable profit. At the weekend, the Institute for Public Policy Research, a think-tank, released a report that found that as many as 5.6 million people are probably being overcharged because of pricing policies by the big companies. The IPPR believes that such overcharging prevents new companies from gaining a foothold in the market.

Clearly, something is going wrong, and it is about time that we, as elected representatives, did more about it. That is why a number of organisations, such as Compass, which launched the new “End the big six energy fix” campaign a few weeks ago, Friends of the Earth and The Independent newspaper, alongside myself and many colleagues from all parties in the House, have been campaigning for fair energy prices, greater energy efficiency measures and a better deal for consumers.

We believe that it is time to tackle the predatory behaviour of the energy companies. By overcharging their customers, who include the most vulnerable people in society, those companies are driving people into fuel poverty. In addition, they are not fully meeting their social and environmental responsibilities and obligations, whether by investing in insulation and other energy efficiency measures or protecting the poorest and most vulnerable from the impacts of bill rises. That is why we are calling on the Government to stand up to the powerful vested interests of the big six energy companies and to act to end the energy rip-off.

I will set out three simple steps that could help to tackle this problem effectively. First, the Government could respond to the excessive profiteering of the big six energy suppliers by imposing a levy similar to the one imposed in the past on the North sea oil companies and the big banks. Such windfall taxation was used by the Conservative Government back in 1981 to claw back the excessive profits of the high street banks and in 1997 by the Labour Government in relation to the privatised utilities.

In 2012, nearly two decades after privatisation of the energy sector and despite the efforts of the regulator—Ofgem—to create a fully competitive market, the big six still control more than 99% of the retail market. Although we may not have a state-owned monopoly any longer, what we now have is an out-of-control private oligopoly that urgently needs to be reined in and better regulated.

While the energy sector remains an oligopoly, it is quite legitimate that the big six are made to pay a premium for their privileged market position. Indeed, a levy would be one way to address what is essentially a market failure. The revenues raised by such a levy should be ring-fenced to kick-start and support a mass programme of home insulation and energy efficiency measures, starting with the homes of the fuel-poor. That programme could be part of a genuine green new deal and it could help to create thousands of new skilled jobs in the process. There would be a win-win situation: the programme would help the Government to meet its commitment to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016; it would create many new jobs; and it would help to meet emission reduction targets. So a levy on energy companies is my first demand today.

My second demand is that, to prevent energy companies from passing the cost of any levy on to consumers and to make energy prices fairer, I want the Government to give the regulator more powers to cap prices and—crucially—to mandate Ofgem to actually use those powers. A number of options are available. The regulator already has the power to cap prices if it chooses to do so—it has threatened to use that power if the energy companies do not reduce prices—but it is simply no good to make empty threats. The regulator should have the confidence to intervene actively and to use its capping powers in the face of consistent overcharging by companies and persistent market failure.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

May I give an example of such overcharging from the Heddon-on-the-Wall women’s institute, which is in my constituency of Hexham? The Heddon-on-the-Wall WI is being harangued by npower to pay more than £5,000 in back entitlements of power, dating from 2006. In other words, the company got the bill for the WI wrong, and demanding that money now will effectively put the local WI village hall out of business; it would have to go into administration. Npower has not answered my letter on this subject, which I will also raise with the Minister. Is this story not a good example of the sort of haranguing power of the big companies, which are overpowering individuals and small organisations?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention, because that example clearly demonstrates the kind of power that the energy companies can wield. The implications of the story that he has just told are absolutely outrageous, so I hope the Minister will take on board that kind of story. As the chief executive of Ofgem concluded in October 2011, and I hope the Minister agrees:

“We do not have a fully competitive market.”

That was the phrase that Ofgem’s chief executive used.

Another option would be for the Government—working in collaboration with Ofgem—to legislate for new price-capping powers, potentially based on a new mechanism. Any price capping could be linked to the wholesale price of energy, to make energy costs fairer. It would be a kind of energy price escalator.

Ofcom, the telecoms regulator, has made clear its intention to cap the cost of BT line rental charges, in response to BT’s over-dominance of the land-line rental market. Why not apply the same logic and principle to the energy market? Perhaps we could suggest that Ofgem pick up the phone and call Ofcom to ask for advice; after all, we are always told that “It’s good to talk.”

Thirdly, the Government should now launch an independent public inquiry into the big six energy companies. In much the same way that we have had an independent commission on banking, led by Sir John Vickers, and an ongoing investigation into the media, led by Lord Leveson, we urgently need a public inquiry into the energy industry, to get to the root causes of the problems. To be crystal-clear, I must point out that I am not calling for a Competition Commission inquiry. Instead, we need an independent public inquiry with a broader remit than just to consider prices and competition, because more fundamental issues are at work here.

Those fundamental issues include trust. It seems clear to me, from talking to the constituents whom I meet when I go around my constituency, that many people do not trust the energy companies. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the energy suppliers themselves to ensure that these issues are fully addressed and that all the facts, figures and arguments are discussed in the light of day.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument that there is a market failure in the energy sector. If there is a market failure and therefore a de facto cartel is operating, that would be a very serious issue that would need to be fixed. However, what I genuinely do not understand—perhaps she can help me with this point—is why EU figures from November last year showed that UK gas prices for the consumer were 25% lower than those in Italy, France and Germany. Indeed, UK gas prices are the 21st lowest of the 27 countries in the EU. Those statistics do not imply that a cartel is operating in our country; alternatively, they show that, if a cartel is operating here, it is not operating very well.

[Caroline Lucas]

I cannot help the hon. Gentleman directly on the figures that he has just quoted. The bigger issue is the amount of power that those players have in our markets. My constituents in Brighton do not much care about the price of fuel in Italy, but they care passionately about the price of their own fuel here at home. It looks as though the big six are coming together. A public inquiry would find out whether any collusion is going on. Even if there is no collusion, it is certainly the case that excess profits are being made off the backs of constituents who are struggling with very high fuel prices. When they are urged to swap tariffs, the whole process is so deeply complicated that it is not surprising that, essentially, they are mis-sold the energy that they need.

[David Mowat]

I completely agree that we need transparent energy prices, and I hope that the Minister will talk about how we will simplify the tariff structure and all that goes with it. However, my point is the same. I understand that the hon. Lady’s constituents do not care about energy prices in Italy, France, Germany or Sweden. My point is that if there is a cartel operating, it is surprising that our gas prices are so much cheaper than in those countries. I will leave it at that.

[Caroline Lucas]

There are a whole set of complex reasons why energy markets are different in various member states. If everything is completely clean and above board, with no excess profits being made, that can be examined in a public inquiry. That is exactly why we need a public inquiry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he knows from his own constituents, that that is not the perception of the vast majority of ordinary people who are faced on the one hand with rising energy bills and on the other hand with stories in the newspapers about rising energy company profits.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, irrespective of what is happening in other countries, the truth is that many ordinary working families and small businesses are finding it hard to survive, and the increase in energy costs is certainly putting some under?

[Caroline Lucas]

I certainly agree with that. That is much of the motivation for securing the debate this morning.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in a short debate. I know that she shares my concern that the average household now spends £1,345 on its dual fuel bill and that profits last year were on average £125 per household, which is why this issue urgently needs attention. I listened carefully to what she said about competition. Does she agree that one of the key things that we need to do to reform the energy market is to encourage and ensure that the big six pool their energy, so that we can increase competition and allow more entrants into the market?

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. If I speak a bit faster, I will make that point shortly. We need more players in the marketplace. That is the way to drive down prices. It is also the way to ensure that we have individuals as co-generators of their own energy, rather than simply sitting back as consumers. I want to let the Minister know that, should he be minded to go down this route, he would have enormous support from the public.

A YouGov poll commissioned by Compass and Friends of the Earth found that 71% of voters support a levy on the profits on the big six; 77% support the money raised from such a levy being ring-fenced for home insulation and energy efficiency, particularly to remove people from fuel poverty; and an overwhelming 86% of voters support an independent public inquiry.

I am also encouraged that 70% of people support a move away from fossil fuel to renewables. That indicates strongly that we need to kick-start a national debate on energy that not only focuses on price and competition, but more fundamentally on the kind of energy industry that we want for the future, recognising that energy provision should be viewed not merely as a market commodity, but as a public service that we all rely on.

If we do not use less energy or successfully make the transition to renewable energy, bills will keep going up, because the cost of gas is projected to rise, even allowing for highly controversial shale gas extraction as well. We need to work hard to protect the vulnerable as much as possible from those price rises and ensure that the effects are not exacerbated by the greed of the energy companies. Instead, we need an energy industry that helps to deliver social and environmental progress, lifts people out of poverty and helps to bring about a good society.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), I am interested in drawing on best practice from countries such as Germany, where community ownership of the grid has played a pivotal role in allowing renewables and energy efficiency, for example, to flourish—unlike here in Britain, where the grid is privately owned and controlled. Many citizens in Germany see themselves as owners and generators of their energy, not simply as consumers. That is the kind of shift that I want to encourage, so we need to challenge the unacceptable power exerted by some of our big energy companies.

Local authorities potentially have a major role to play here, too, in relation to both insulation and to local, decentralised energy supply. The more we make it easy for communities and councils to generate their own, the less we rely on the big six. The more we cut energy waste and get off gas, the better protected we are in relation to bills. Of course, we urgently need to tackle the complex domestic rates and charging system that has been the subject of so many debates and motions in the House and that serves time and again to disadvantage consumers, especially those who use the least energy.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady referred to the big six main energy companies. Does she agree and acknowledge that the problem is also off-grid in terms of liquefied petroleum gas and heating oil? Millions of consumers up and down the country are affected and their position is just as bad.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because he is exactly right. Indeed, in many rural areas, people living in poverty are off-grid and therefore completely hostage to whatever the energy suppliers choose to charge. They do not have much option.

On the complex set of tariffs, we are sometimes urged to shift tariffs to another supplier or to shift within the same energy company if we do not like what we are getting. However, it is difficult to compare tariffs, like with like. It is so difficult to understand what kind of tariff we need to be on that it is not surprising that not many people take up that opportunity.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because I want to give the Minister time to respond. I will summarise three key points. First, will the Government start drawing up plans for a levy on energy companies in time for the forthcoming Budget in March? Secondly, will they instruct the regulator Ofgem to use existing powers to cap prices, or will the Government work with the regulator to introduce new powers in the forthcoming energy market reform Bill? If the Minister thinks that that might be too much to ask, my third demand is reasonable: will the Government commit to an independent public inquiry into the big six energy companies?

Irrespective of whether the Minister agrees with the analysis that I have presented this morning, we can all agree that this issue is the subject of much controversy in our constituencies. Many people feel that they are being ripped off by the big six. If that is the case, action should be taken. Let us look into it with an independent public inquiry. Let us learn the lessons so that, once and for all, we can move to a more sustainable and fair energy system without all the question marks that currently surround it.

12:47

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Osborne. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate. It is a shame that we did not have a longer debate—an hour and a half—because we have had an unusually large number of interventions, which shows the interest that the subject attracts. I hope that all hon. Members will understand that I want to use the remaining time available to respond to the debate, rather than take further interventions.

The hon. Lady has secured this debate at a time when we have started to see some prices coming down. In recent weeks we have seen price reductions, which will see around a 2% weighted average decrease in retail prices. Prices on wholesale markets are beginning to reduce and companies recognise that they can start to take some of the pressure off consumers. We all share the hon. Lady’s ambition that consumers should be supported at a time when they are inevitably extremely worried about the level of energy prices.

I will talk about some of the measures that we are taking to address the issues. First, it is important to state that we need a market that operates and functions better. Some of the measures that the hon. Lady has set out would make the situation worse. We need to get £200 billion of new investment in our energy infrastructure over the next 10 to 15 years. The more that we make this an unattractive place for people to invest—they are mostly international investors—the greater the likelihood that we will see energy and electricity being rationed, because of a lack of investment in new supply and a lack of investment in the other associated areas of energy efficiency. The consumer will therefore end up picking up the tab.

I was also disappointed that we did not hear any recognition of the global issues that must be addressed. We are having this debate at a time when oil and gas prices are at their highest levels in recent years. The increase in wholesale prices is being driven partly by instability in the middle east and partly by other geopolitical measures. We therefore cannot divorce the issue of energy prices from what is happening globally. However, we can do and are doing a significant amount to assist consumers in paying their bills.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Charles Hendry]

I will not. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand. She has raised many issues, and I want to try to respond to them comprehensively. I am more than happy to meet her separately to discuss the ideas behind her initiative and campaign.

We are already requiring energy companies to provide help to 2 million of the poorest and most vulnerable households through the warm home discount, at a cost of £250 million this year, an increase of 40% over earlier arrangements. Over the next four years, suppliers will provide support worth £1.1 billion. Citizens Advice and Ofgem have received their highest level of funding yet from suppliers for the Energy Best Deal campaign, which helps vulnerable consumers shop around for the best deal. We have extended the carbon emissions reduction target until the end of the year, which we expect will benefit 600,000 of the most vulnerable low-income families, including those with elderly people and people with disabilities, and suppliers will be investing some £400 million in heating and insulation measures to help those households. In addition, the community energy saving programme, CESP, is expected to deliver about £350 million in energy efficiency measures to 90,000 households.

Looking forward, we are introducing the energy company obligation, which will include support to provide affordable warmth to low-income vulnerable households through heating and insulation measures. The ECO will provide £1.3 billion in support each year to householders who cannot achieve significant energy savings without additional support, and will have a specific target to provide heating and insulation to the low-income vulnerable households at greatest risk of fuel poverty.

We are also spending £110 million through Warm Front on heating and insulation to help households make their homes warmer. During the current winter, the winter fuel payment, worth £250 for households with members aged up to 79 and £400 for those with members aged 80 and over, will help 12.7 million older people in 9 million households with their fuel bills.

As I hope the hon. Lady will understand, significant support is going into measures to mitigate the effects of high energy bills, and particularly to ensure that we do not just help with this year’s bills but provide support in addressing the issue year on year in future through greater emphasis on energy efficiency, for which she called in her comments.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for his response. He says that the Government are tackling the problem by, for example, providing the new ECO, but we know that the amount of money in the ECO is £1.3 billion and that by the time we subtract the money being ring-fenced for hard-to-treat homes, there will be far less money left for tackling fuel poverty than came from CERT, CESP and Warm Front. We also know that the money is being raised by a levy on all householders, which will push more people into fuel poverty, whereas Warm Front and the other programmes were funded by taxpayers’ contributions. In the rest of his remarks, will he address the issue of a public inquiry? I do not think that what he is saying addresses the key point, which is about profits, not prices.

[Charles Hendry]

I will of course address those issues, but it is important to provide the context of what else is being done. A tremendous amount of help is being given, more than ever before, to insulate hard-to-heat homes and direct support to people to pay their fuel bills. That is part of the overall energy picture, and it is important to take a holistic approach and understand the issue that way.

In addition, it is important to highlight the impact that the green deal will have. Through the green deal, we are determined to move this country from being one of the least energy-efficient in the whole of Europe to being one of the most. That is an extraordinary challenge, and one that we are determined to address. We recognise that we as Government should be trying to create an environment in which we can make lasting changes to our households so that people can reduce their bills over time.

To come directly to the points raised by the hon. Lady, I think that we all recognise that energy companies need to make a profit and invest in infrastructure for the future. They must also make a return for their shareholders. We have considered pricing here and elsewhere carefully. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, prices here for both electricity and gas are some of the lowest in Europe. However, that is not the same as having the cheapest bills. Our bills are often higher, because our energy efficiency is less good. Again, that reinforces the hon. Lady’s point that we need to make much more progress on energy efficiency in order to contain those bills.

It is also worth considering how suppliers’ profits here stack up against other countries. Their profitability in the United Kingdom is worse than in almost any other jurisdiction where they operate. If we want suppliers to continue to invest the £200 billion necessary, they must see the UK as a good economic area in which to invest. The more measures we put in place to make ours an unattractive investment regime, the worse we will make things in the longer term for consumers in this country.

This is not a case in which one must be on the side either of consumers or of industry. In the longer term, we can only be on the side of the consumer by creating an environment in which businesses want to invest. Through our market reforms and other measures, we are trying to make the UK an attractive jurisdiction and ensure that the regulator, Ofgem, takes strong action to prevent excess profiteering in the sector.

The hon. Lady discussed having new entrants into the market. We are absolutely committed to making that happen. One measure of the success of our market reform proposals will be whether we increase liquidity by bringing more companies into play in the market, but we should be clear that six is already an unusually large number, larger than in any other European country. Most other European countries have one or two dominant players and low levels of switching. Levels of switching here are three or four times higher than in countries such as Germany, which she held up as a good example. There are many aspects of our market that create better opportunities for consumers, and we must be determined to protect those aspects as we go forward.

It is essential for Ofgem to monitor the market closely. My concern about the sort of public inquiry that she suggested involves the consequences. The companies looking to invest in Britain are exactly the companies with the funding and expertise to invest in renewables, which she says—and I agree—are important. However, if we hold an inquiry, they will defer, making it much more challenging to get new investment during the two years of that investigation. Our scope for meeting our renewables targets will therefore start to slip away. The approach that she suggests would have consequences, and I believe that there are better ways to protect consumers in the short term rather than the long term, as her approach would do.

Part of our approach is boosting competition. We have already gone a long way to cut red tape for smaller suppliers, and have increased from 50,000 to 250,000 the number of customers that companies must have before being required to participate in environmental and social schemes. We are making it easier for small companies to get a foothold in the market.

In December, Ofgem published for consultation radical proposals to require suppliers to simplify their tariffs and billing information so that consumers can compare supplier deals much more easily in order to decide whether they will be better off switching. Currently, more than 400 different tariffs are available—that is the scenario that we inherited when we came into Government—which inevitably leads to great confusion and makes it much more difficult, as the hon. Lady said, for consumers to make an informed choice when they are looking for the best deal.

Progress is being made on simplifying the approach. British Gas and SSE have announced that they intend to simplify their tariff structures; SSE has pledged to reduce the number of tariffs that it offers from 68 to just four. Once we get into a world where people can understand much more clearly what they are paying for and see more effectively how it compares with what other companies are offering, consumers will be in a much better position to exercise choice. The big six still cover about 99% of the domestic retail market, so it is important to have additional suppliers and players in the retail sector to ensure that we get the best deal for consumers. I am pleased to see that significant work is happening.

I also welcome the move towards collective switching, an issue taken up by Which? in the past few weeks, which brings together a range of consumers to give them much more confidence and to buy on their behalf. There is more liquidity, more companies are coming into the market and the market will operate better. A tougher regulator is taking action to ensure that comparison between companies is easier and that profitability is not excessive. Above all, we are creating a market in which businesses will be keen to invest, in order to ensure, in the most affordable way, security of supply and low carbon in the longer term.

Jam Jar Bank Accounts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

13:00

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Osborne.

For most of us, using a current account is as natural and normal a part of modern life as indoor plumbing, but it was not always so. Many hon. Members will remember their parents coming home with weekly wages in cash, in an envelope with little holes in it so people could count the money when it was given to them. On arrival at home, the cash would be divided into amounts for the rent, the bills, housekeeping and, hopefully, savings for an unexpected bill, school uniforms or Christmas. The sub-divided amounts would typically be kept in separate boxes, tins or jam jars, from which this debate takes its title.

Most households have changed a lot since then, and there are many advantages to that evolution. For most jobs now, people need a bank account to accept their salaries or wages, and people also need an account to pay the rent or the mortgage. People’s money is also safer in a bank than on the kitchen windowsill. As payments through direct debits and standing orders cost less for financial institutions to process, bank accounts give people access to better deals. A bank account also becomes a gateway to other financial services.

Much progress has been made over the last number of years on that front. The number of people without a transactional bank account, including a basic bank account, fell by about a half between 2003 and 2010 to just 1.5 million households.

As I said, there are many advantages to the transition, but there are also some drawbacks. For a start, there is loss of control, particularly with things such as direct debits. Although people set them up, they happen subsequently without people actively having to do anything.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has secured a fantastic debate.

Our extensive research in my all-party group on financial education for young people highlighted loss of control as a particular problem. Some 91% of people who got into financial difficulty did so because they kind of lost control, and my hon. Friend has highlighted exactly why that is happening.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend goes right to the heart of the matter. There can also be a feeling of being rather flush on payday and a danger of people not making provision for unexpected, or sometimes even expected and known, subsequent liabilities.

Although most of us enjoy free in-credit banking, nothing in life is free; there is a cost to operating bank accounts. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) also goes to the heart of that issue. The provision of free banking relies on people making mistakes and incurring penalty charges. Research for the financial inclusion taskforce has shown that low-income families that move to have a bank account in order to save money through direct debits and so on found that those savings were entirely wiped out by penalty charges, which averaged £140 in the first year. That combination of factors, as my hon. Friend says, can lead to people tripping into debt, which can then spiral. I mentioned people who do not have a transactional bank account, but many choose to manage in cash even if they have a bank account.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talked about people tripping into debt. He will also find that people trip into ill health, particularly mental ill health. I work with Advocacy in Wirral, and one of the main issues that it deals with is the sheer practicalities of life and not being able to pay bills, leading to a deterioration of mental health.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend’s point is, as ever, apt and to the point. She could also have mentioned the stress that debt and trying to manage one’s finances can bring to families, which is one of the key factors in family breakdown.

To address those points—at least in part—and a few other points, we have jam jar accounts. They mimic the jam jars on the windowsill; that is the whole point of such accounts. Louise Savell of Social Finance has identified three core features. First, when someone’s wages come in, the money is automatically distributed among different pots within the bank account—for rent, household bills, spending money, savings and so on. Secondly, the person would receive a low balance alert by text, if there is a danger of that person failing to meet one of their bills from the bills account. Thirdly, if the person does not act on that for whatever reason, there would be an auto-sweep from savings into the bill-paying account in order to avoid penalty charges or failing to make the payment.

There are a number of questions about product design, which can be done in different ways. One big debate is about budgeting support, which could accompany the accounts. Comprehensive budgeting support—helping people to decide how much goes into each pot and how and when to redistribute—would be a great bonus, but that is quite costly. The issue should have a separate debate, because we can have a lot of the benefits from jam jar accounts without fully comprehensive budgeting support, and we can have a lot of great benefits from fully comprehensive budgeting support without jam jar accounts.

A second question about product design is how easy we make it to raid a savings account. Jam jar accounts are in many ways a method for one to impose discipline on oneself. A customer might decide that it would be good to impose further discipline and say, “If I want to move money out of the savings account into the spending account, I should have to do something actively. Ultimately, it is my choice because it is my money, but I will make myself ask for it in writing or by e-mail.”

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more attention and help need to be given to those of a certain age? They could find bank accounts hard to deal with—it is taxing, as he has suggested—and they like to see what they have and manage it in that way. More help is needed for the senior citizens of our country.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There is a generation that is more comfortable with managing such matters online, if they have access to a desktop personal computer, or, for those who do not have that, through smart phones, mobile phones and auto-voice recognition. However, there is a cadre of people for whom that is less appropriate.

The third question on product design is how to market such accounts, by whom and to whom.

Why would we want a great increase in jam jar banking? First, it would reduce the extent to which people trip into debt. Secondly, the poorest would pay less, both directly, through lower bank charges; and indirectly, because service providers would have a lower average cost of collection. Therefore, the poverty premium, as highlighted by Save the Children and others, would be reduced. Thirdly, and just as importantly, it would stimulate savings through a sort of a nudge. One of someone’s jam jars would automatically be a savings account, and they would have to say yes or no to put a few pounds away every week or month. We all know what a difference that makes; it can be quite transformational to have savings and assets.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am leading a campaign for the establishment of community-based local banks. Would one of the best custodians for jam jar accounts not be a community-based local bank? Such banks allow people to save locally with a local bank manager, with whom there can be a close, personal relationship. That would increase savings and the benefits of a jam jar account.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes a fine point, and I commend him on his leadership in the local banking movement. I will say a few things about credit unions, which I think share some characteristics.

I have talked about the “Why?” of jam jar accounts, and it is also fair to ask, “Why now?” There are three good reasons why the issue is particularly relevant at the moment. First, the Government and Members on both sides of the House are focusing, rightly, on the cost of living. We discussed heating bills in the preceding debate, and there are active debates about rail fares and petrol and diesel costs. Bank charges are also a significant part of the cost of living. The second reason why the debate is particularly timely is because of the introduction of universal credit, the move from fortnightly to monthly payments, and the move away from direct payments to landlords. The third reason is the sector modernisation fund of £73 million for credit unions that the Government are supporting. That presents new opportunities for development in that sector.

[Esther McVey]

Of course I greatly welcome—as all of us here do—the universal credit, but does my hon. Friend agree that what is being offered protects not only those receiving the credit, but potentially the landlords and other people who are the recipients of bill payments? Those people also need protection.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, there is a potential benefit for landlords and other service providers. There is a line of argument that goes: why not just keep the two-weekly payments and the direct payments to landlords? However, a key objective of universal credit is to make the receipt of benefit feel more like being in work, which usually means having to cope with monthly payments, not having money paid direct to a landlord and so on. The use of such accounts is a good way of helping people through that, which is a perfectly legitimate aim, while keeping the key features of universal credit.

We know that Ministers are interested in this area. Most recently, in answer to a written parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, which was published after I applied for the debate, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), confirmed that the Government are actively looking at the potential for low-cost budgeting accounts.

So why do they not exist already? Well they sort of do, just not on a particularly big scale. Last year, there were four providers of jam jar accounts, although three of them are not the household names that most of us would recognise. Until now, a key driver for the development and roll out of such accounts has been debt management companies wanting to have greater security of payment schedule, rather than consumer advertising. So although they exist, they do not exist at scale. Social Finance estimates that there are only about 150,000 such accounts in the UK. They do not exist through big brand institutions—by the way, the exception to that is the Royal Bank of Scotland. I know that it is not very fashionable these days to say nice things about RBS, but I commend it for having such an account, which it uses for its most challenging customers. However, that also means that the account is not actively marketed to the general public. Someone would struggle to walk into an RBS branch and open such an account, unless they are referred on to it.

[Guy Opperman]

Given that RBS will potentially be sold or divested by the Government in the longer term, is that something that should be carried through post-sale and hopefully made part of a community-based organisation?

[Damian Hinds]

In the interests of time, I will have to leave that question hanging—fascinating though it unquestionably is—because I must plough on.

The third important point is that such accounts are not available at an attractive price—with the exception of the RBS account. Typically, they cost the consumer about £150 a year. Why are such accounts not available at scale through big brand institutions at an attractive price? That is a very good question. Intuitively, such accounts seem like an attractive concept. In fact, many hon. Members here might reflect that, in our own personal finances, we mimic how jam jar accounts work. We might have a separate current account for household bills or a separate credit card that we use for car payments or something like that.

There is an attraction to such an idea, but the key stumbling block is economics. There is no reason to believe that the banks that do offer such accounts at the prices I talked about are making above normal profits, although at scale the cost should come down. Social Finance estimates that it should be possible to provide such accounts at between £5 to £7 a month, which is around £60 to £85 a year. The biggest sensitivity to that cost is the extent to which call centre human support on budgeting and so on is provided.

In any case, that is still a lot of money, so the question of how to pay for it remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West touched on some of those issues a moment ago. There is some reason to believe that people—consumers themselves—would be willing to pay something. In the credit market, if we think about how much consumers implicitly are willing to pay for the convenience and flexibility of home credit over cheaper sources, there is some evidence that people value and would pay for control. Some research suggests that maybe people would be willing to pay £1 a week—£50 a year. However, that still seems rather a lot. That could possibly be augmented with some other charges for ATM withdrawals and so on.

Some people might say, “Get the banks to pay for it. They’ve done all these bad things, so they should do it.” To be fair to banks, they do quite a lot in the corporate social responsibility sphere already, including with credit unions. We could perhaps get them to provide such accounts on a semi-commercial basis, forgoing their normal profit margin. What would not be a good idea is to suggest that other customers should cross-subsidise those with jam jar accounts. There are two reasons for that: first, for competition policy reasons and, secondly, because it is generally a bad idea in the interest of effective markets.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West mentioned, there may be a role for service providers, particularly housing associations and utility companies, who would benefit from having a more reliable payer. Particularly for the most risky customers, a housing association, for example, might even be willing to provide cash support for the costs. Perhaps more generally, one would be looking for softer support in terms of marketing and so on to reach scale.

We are talking about banks and consumers, but is there a role for the Government? There is certainly not a role for the Government in telling people what sort of bank account they should have. There is also not a role for the Government in telling banks what should be in their new product development pipeline. However, there is a real social interest in all these issues, as I outlined earlier. If it is a question of bringing together organisations that may all have an interest, some of which may not know about it yet, in developing this market, perhaps the Government are best or uniquely placed to do that.

In my final minute or so, I have three simple asks of the Government, to which I would love to hear the Minister’s response. The first ask is to prod the banks and continue to stress to them the benefit that may be had both to society and potentially to them in developing these products. There may even be a pure commercial case to be made for them. After all, I often remark that nobody knew until 3M brought it to market that the thing that was really holding back their office productivity was a little yellow square piece of paper that can be stuck to the wall. Sometimes products just have to get out there before we realise their potential.

The second ask is to consider having a pilot scheme in one area, working with a housing association and one or more utilities. It would then be possible to quantify the benefit that comes from security of payment and collection cost, as well as to assess the beneficial impact on individuals in terms of their budgeting behaviour, the amount of money they save and their propensity to start to make savings.

My third ask is to work with credit unions. This Government have been a great supporter of the credit union sector, particularly through the £73 million modernisation fund. If part of that were to be used to develop a robust, sustainable common banking platform, it would open up all sorts of possibilities, including this one. There would also be the potential to work with the Post Office, which would provide a great new source of revenue and business to post offices, which matter so much to all of us in our communities and constituencies.

We know that financial inclusion, helping people to make the transition into work and helping hard-pressed families with the cost of living are all things for which Ministers have shown a passion. They are also all things where jam jar banking could make a substantial difference. I hope very much that Ministers will continue to work with consumer groups, housing associations, utilities, banks and credit unions to help to stimulate such accounts into becoming an at scale reality.

13:09

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate on the topic of jam jar accounts and low-income consumers. It is particularly interesting and timely, given the various reforms going on in the area, which I hope to explain a bit about in my remarks. In the absence of my colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who leads on these issues, I am very pleased to be responding on behalf of the Government. Indeed, hon. Members may know that I have taken a long-standing interest in these issues in my constituency of Norwich.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made a number of relevant points concerning the potential role that jam jar accounts could play in helping to improve financial capability and inclusion, particularly alongside the introduction of universal credit. I should like to respond to the various points that he made and take this opportunity to set out briefly some of the work that the Government are doing in this area, which I am sure he and others will welcome.

Let me begin by dwelling on the progress made to date on the issue. Jam jar—or budgeting—accounts are a relatively new concept, as my hon. Friend mentioned. However, they are available in various places. As he has described, such accounts include various features that are aimed at helping customers to manage their money more easily. At the most basic level, that includes the ability for customers to divide their money between different pots. It may also include, as my hon. Friend said, a function that automatically moves money between accounts and access to support from a trained money manager who can provide advice or direction if necessary.

As hon. Members may know, the Financial Inclusion Taskforce commissioned initial research into the viability of this concept in 2010. It was carried out by Social Finance and was published in June last year. As I think my hon. Friend is aware, the report surveyed the demand and provision of jam jar accounts. It noted, as he said, that such accounts currently exist but tend to carry a monthly account usage fee that can put them out of the reach of those on the lowest incomes. The report also quantified the pool of customers who could benefit from such accounts if they were available at lower costs—up to 9 million. The report recommended that further research be undertaken, followed by a pilot study to explore the potential benefits of such accounts.

Certainly, the idea is extremely interesting. While no one financial product will suit every individual, some people may find these kinds of budgeting facilities useful, and far more useful than the methods that they use currently. The Government are committed to promoting a diverse and competitive financial services sector that provides consumers with access to a range of financial products such as jam jar accounts, which may form a part of those services, to meet consumer need.

If my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire will allow, I will refer briefly to a couple of points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Ms Osborne need not worry—I will not veer into the scope of the Royal Bank of Scotland in this debate. The Government are committed to providing a diverse and competitive financial services sector, exploring options to expand the roles of credit unions, which have been mentioned and which have an important role in providing services to communities. I note the other points that were made about more local banks and housing associations. Hon. Members will be aware of the current opportunity, under the Big Lottery Fund, for housing associations to take an interest in financial capability, which is important and an issue that I am aware of at constituency level. The Financial Services Authority has made improvements to its authorisation process to ensure that it will not act as a barrier to entry for new local banks, if that is something that the good people of Hexham want.

It is relevant to consider this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has, in the context of the introduction of universal credit. The new benefit will simplify the existing complex system of benefits and tax credits, improve work incentives and make it clearer to claimants how the move into work will benefit them. As hon. Members are aware, it will be paid in a single monthly payment, with housing costs paid direct to the tenant. That will enable low-income households to overcome one of the traps of poverty relating to the responsibility of managing a budget and the impact that that can have on other things. The monthly payment of benefits will make it easier for households to take advantage of cheaper tariffs and make access to affordable credit easier through an increased financially responsible record.

The Government recognise that some claimants need additional help to budget, particularly during the transitional period. As my hon. Friend suggests, jam jar accounts could have a role to play in helping many universal credit claimants to budget, protecting their essential payments and supporting positive money management behaviours. For that reason, I am pleased to confirm that, in addition to working with the advice sector to ensure that claimants can access appropriate budgeting support services, the Department for Work and Pensions is working with a range of banking and financial product providers, such as banks, buildings societies, credit unions, pre-paid card companies and others, to explore options for delivering such services, and to make financial services more accessible and supportive to low-income households.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

We have heard a good idea this afternoon, but high street banks cannot, or will not, provide such accounts at a cost-effective rate. Until that issue is fixed, we are just talking about an idea or a concept, and it will be very hard for it to be realised. Will the Government do more to bridge the gap between what the banks are able or willing to do and what the market is apparently willing to spend?

[Miss Smith]

I shall, with pleasure, come on to some of the work that the Government are doing to encourage simple financial products, via explaining briefly the next steps for the DWP and via credit unions.

From June this year, the Government will run a series of housing demonstration projects in which we will pay housing benefit direct to tenants to test the support required to help claimants budget and manage their rent payments effectively. They will be an opportunity to consider what type of budgeting products—whether from the commercial sector or elsewhere—can be used to support universal credit claimants in the longer term.

Several hon. Members have mentioned credit unions. They play an important role in offering access to financial services—bank accounts, affordable credit, insurance and savings to name but a few—to people who may not be able to, or may not wish to, access those services through mainstream banks or building societies. They work within a local community ethos and often actively seek to help those most in need of support. The recent legislative reform order brings new and exciting opportunities to credit unions. It is now for the sector to respond to those opportunities by seeking new ways to reduce their costs, to improve the products and services that it offers and to reach out to new markets to become self-sufficient and sustainable. To support credit unions in making this leap, the DWP has carried out a feasibility study to look at options for expanding their role. That study has reported to Ministers and an announcement on its findings will be made soon.

On the point about how the Government can otherwise help consumers take responsibility for their finances and make better choices, jam jar accounts may be one useful tool, but consumers need access to both financial advice and an appropriate range of products. That is why last year the Government launched the Money Advice Service, which promotes understanding of the financial system and helps to raise financial capability across the UK. In particular, its financial health check is helpful to some of the citizens referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire.

Another part of empowering consumers is ensuring that the right products are available. They need to be straightforward, easy to understand and simple to provide consumers with a benchmark with which to compare products, make good decisions and make sense of an often bewildering marketplace. Earlier this month, the Government launched a steering group to design a range of simple financial products, made up of representatives from both industry and consumer advocates. The group will report to Ministers in July and has announced that it will focus initially on developing simple deposit savings and protection insurance products. This is an opportunity for industry to innovate and develop a range of simple products, and it comes at a time of exciting developments elsewhere in the industry.

Under the various developments that I have outlined today, it is clear that there is an appetite, in the Government and in the third and commercial sectors, to find a way forward. I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their remarks. I am sure that my colleagues, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, will appreciate the insights that they have contributed and will continue to take them into account in the further development of work in this area.

Clean Coal

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

13:29

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Ms Osborne, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship. I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues attending a debate on an important subject: the economic potential of clean coal.

As a child in the 1970s I used the phrase, “taking coals to Newcastle”, to describe the silliest, most useless activity that could possibly be undertaken. I never really thought about the words behind the phrase, of course, except to note that it referred to Newcastle, the city in which I lived and which had been exporting coal since the 13th century. The region powered Britain’s industrial revolution. Recently, when I visited the port of Tyne and saw huge ships unloading coal, the full realisation of the extraordinary change in our relationship to coal was forced on me. Three million tonnes of coal per year are coming up the Tyne, instead of going down and out to the wider world. We are now importing millions of tonnes of coal per year to Newcastle and the same is true for Great Britain, once described as an island built on coal.

According to the Library, in 1920 there were 1.25 million miners in the UK. Today, the UK mining industry provides just over 6,000 jobs directly and supports a similar number in coal power stations and coal transportation, but demand for coal has not fallen to the extent that those figures might imply. In addition to the increased productivity of coal miners, we also need huge levels of imports to satisfy demand. In 2010, we produced 18.4 million tonnes of coal to meet demand of 51.4 million tonnes. What makes that all the stranger is that the UK has thousands of billions of tonnes of coal reserves, offshore and onshore.

Five Quarter, a company spun out of Newcastle university, has licences from the Coal Authority to exploit 2 billion tonnes off the Northumberland coast. Using new technologies and processes, in energy terms that is equivalent to 11 billion barrels of oil; and that is just one company. Yet in 2010 we imported 26.5 million tonnes of coal.

Let us be clear that by importing so much coal we are not reducing the global carbon footprint or improving the safety of mining. Nearly 10 million tonnes of coal a year is imported from Russia. Despite having improved somewhat in recent years, Russia’s mining safety record is still poor, although it is better than China’s. In the UK, we suffered the terrible tragedies of three mining deaths in 2010, the highest for several years. In the same year, 135 Russian miners died at work, including 66 in one explosion.

I applied for this debate because I believe there could be huge potential in exploiting the vast reserves of coal beneath our feet, and I am concerned that the Government are not doing all they can to realise that potential. I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on why we import so much coal when we have such vast reserves.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this important debate and I welcome her remarks. Will she push the Minister a little bit on clean coal, recognising that there are 300 years of energy need beneath our feet? The hon. Lady touched on that in her opening remarks.

[Chi Onwurah]

I will come to that point. I shall consider it a pleasure to push the Minister, just as the hon. Gentleman describes.

Coal importation does not raise the same issues as gas importation. In terms of energy security, there is no vulnerable single coal pipeline and there is a wider supplier base and a more competitive market for coal, but transporting millions of tonnes of carbon around the world is hardly green and, more importantly, there is in this country the budding technical knowledge to exploit coal in a cleaner way than our competitors.

The first industrial revolution was fuelled by coal and we are now having to deal with the consequences in the form of climate change. Clean coal, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is any technology that reduces harmful emissions from burning coal or avoids the need for burning coal altogether to generate electricity in a more sustainable manner.

Carbon capture and storage and underground coal gasification are two areas where the UK has the opportunity to become a world-beater in clean energy production, but we cannot wait for ever. Underground coal gasification is the gasification of a deep coal seam to convert coal to a high energy synthetic gas, which goes by the lovely name of syngas. Both the technology and the gas produced are relatively clean, compared to coal-fired generation and surface mining.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the matter to this Chamber.

The potential for clean coal is estimated between £2 billion and £4 billion, perhaps with some 60,000 jobs as well. Does the hon. Lady feel that we should be embracing the technology in totality, especially as oil has reached its highest price in the past two years?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the important economic potential of clean coal, especially at a time of high energy prices. I shall mention that.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east region could play a tremendous role in terms of the abundant reserves off its coast, from Durham to the top end of the north-east coast, underground coal gasification and deep-mined coal reserves? Does she agree that we should consider every opportunity to exploit that resource and, in the meantime, create thousands of what we would describe as clean jobs—clean energy jobs—in our region, which has suffered greatly as a result of the closure of the coal industry and shipbuilding?

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend has a huge amount of experience in coal, to which I pay tribute. He raises important points about the north-east, with regard to our huge coal reserves, which he rightly mentioned, and the economic potential of coal, which I will say a little more about. I thank him for his intervention.

Like all new exciting, but as yet untried, technologies, carbon capture and storage and underground coal gasification require research, analysis and trialling to understand the risks, if any, and whether and how they might be overcome. However, I regret that I am yet to be convinced that the Government are fully committed to enabling the potential of clean coal technologies to meet our energy needs in the medium and long term and to bring to the region and the country the kind of jobs my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Carbon Capture and Storage Association estimates that by 2025 the market for clean coal could be worth £10 billion a year to the UK, with more than 50,000 quality jobs.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s remarks on clean coal. She mentioned 2025, which might be a realistic time for this technology to come in, because it is unproven. Does she acknowledge an issue that all hon. Members know about, given the dependence of regions on coal, which is that the previous Government signed the EU large combustion plant directive, which mandated that, by 2015, five of our biggest coal stations will come off-stream, way in advance of any realistic prospect of CCS working? I hope, eventually, that that technology will work.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports clean coal technologies. The previous Government made huge efforts to ensure that we were on track for sustainable energy to meet the appropriate emissions concerns. I will mention the timetable for carbon capture and storage, on which, as he rightly says, current coal generation capacity is dependent.

We have already seen how the Department’s muddled messages have damaged the solar industry and, this week, the wind industry, so it is now vital for the Government to set out a sufficiently detailed and long-term ambition for clean coal technologies in the UK, because the prize in terms of jobs and energy security is far too important for us to fumble.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that terminology is important? Using the words “renewable energy” all the time, rather than “low-carbon energy”, can muddle the debate. Effective clean technology, should it be proved to work, will be low-carbon energy, and that is the sort of descriptor we should be using, rather than “renewable”.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right that in meeting the emissions targets we have set ourselves, “low carbon” is a key term, rather than “renewables”. Low-carbon energy can be a transition to a future that might, in the longer term, be entirely based on renewables as differently based forms of energy run out.

My concern is the real possibility that if the UK does not act now, companies will not invest here; they will reprioritise their investments away from carbon capture and storage and away from the UK. The economic potential of clean coal extends further than the direct jobs created in the industry and the supply chain. As has been mentioned, it could bridge the gap to longer-term renewable energy and could keep energy costs down in the short and medium term, which will be a better deal for home consumers and for industry. In the north-east, that is particularly important, because we have many world-leading but energy-intensive industries such as chemical processing. Developing integrated clean coal processes has the potential to supply the energy needs of those important sectors in the north-east and elsewhere.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I stress the huge potential of clean coal. Areas such as Ashford, which I represent, have powered the UK before and would like to power it again, so I thank my hon. Friend for the debate and for pressing the Minister.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of clean coal and clean coal technologies to the north-east and to many regions in the UK, including the north-west.

Last year, in response to an oral question, the Minister told me:

“The Government recognise the potential of underground coal gasification, but the technology is still in its early stages...Our view is that as a carbon capture option it is not a priority to pursue at present. The Coal Authority has lead responsibility, as the freehold owner of our national coal resource, and we continue to monitor developments in the sector.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1649.]

At a subsequent meeting, in January, the Minister and his officials appeared somewhat more positive and certainly supportive of carbon capture more generally. I was not filled with confidence, however, to learn that the DECC policy team that deals with clean coal is called the coal liabilities team. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but can the Department champion the potential of clean coal rather than the legacy of the past?

DECC’s continued delay played a significant part in the failure of the Longannet CCS demonstration project in 2010. In November last year, the Department promised that the money would be reallocated to other CCS projects, but in the autumn statement, the Treasury raided the CCS fund to spend on other projects. Coal-burning power stations still provide 28% of our electricity, rising to 50% in times of high demand. Many coal-fired stations are dependent on testing the viability of retrofitting those new technologies so as to be able to continue production past 2015, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat).

Globally, China mines three times as much coal as any other country, or more than 3,000 million tonnes of coal in 2010.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. She mentioned China, and it is important for us to look at what is happening on carbon emissions not only regionally and nationally but internationally. I was lucky enough to be in China only two weeks ago, with the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. The Chinese put coal production in 2010 at 3.24 billion tonnes; they forecast 3.9 billion or almost 4 billion tonnes of coal per year by 2020, and then they are looking to reduce production to a steady output of around 2 billion tonnes by 2050. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really up to us to use our engineering and manufacturing skills to get carbon capture and storage on line in the UK, giving us a great opportunity to export our manufacturing to the likes of China, which will make a huge difference overall?

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We might disagree about the speed at which the new technologies can be brought on line—whether 2015 or 2020—but what is absolutely clear is that the rest of the world is burning coal and that the new technologies will be needed to ensure that the energy required in the world does not bring about grossly increased emissions. We have an opportunity to be at the forefront of a new and expanding market. It could be a huge new market, but I fear that we might let it pass by without fully understanding it.

I welcome the recent announcement from DECC that takes us a step closer to the first CCS commercial demonstration project; it is long overdue. We are now told, however, that the demonstration will take between four and eight years. Does the Minister not recognise the importance of being ahead of the curve in demonstrating and scaling such technology? Instead of a programme of support and a stable policy environment from the Government, we continue to see confusion. I am sure the Minister agrees that a proper energy policy requires security and a diverse source of supply. How can he reassure the House that he is doing everything to ensure that we capture the benefits of clean coal? We also need certainty. What assessment have the Government made of the economic potential for clean coal, and when will he be in a position to make a long-term decision on whether the Government will support it?

13:39

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on getting the debate, because it is timely.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and in opposition, we can all have a go at what the Government did or did not do in the ’80s or ’90s. Everyone would agree that, if anything, the Government went too far in closing down the coal industry, which could still have been producing for this country today, but the truth is that the Labour Government also did not do particularly well by the coal industry.

Until the petrol price increase of 2007 and 2008, coal was a dirty word in this place. Thankfully, finally, in those years, because of the huge, uncontrollable expansion in the cost of petrol, people began to realise that we had to look for alternatives. The alternative could and should be coal, but since those days, we have become bogged down in discussions about where we go with it. There was a bidding process in Europe and in this country, but we have seen nothing but reversals, with projects at Hatfield, Longannet and Kingsnorth all going into reverse and being dropped. If possible—I am very aware of the limited time that the Minister has—can he tell us exactly where we are with the CCS process? Will we see anything done in the near or longer term? The debate has been going on for a long time, and we have had, in effect, little if any progress.

In particular, the underground gasification of coal is a huge issue and is being developed strongly in our region by Newcastle university and the Ramsay project. The technology was proven more than a century ago to access reserves of coal way beyond anything that has ever been reached by conventional mining, whether in the last 10 years or the last 1,000 years. Coal that is sometimes thousands of metres deep and cannot be accessed by humans, can be accessed by machinery, and that should be promoted. The last Government agreed that a strategic environmental assessment would be carried out off the Northumberland coast. Has that happened? If not, will it happen? If so, when will it happen?

13:50

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Osborne. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for securing this debate. She has raised some important issues. I am sorry that, to make a political point, she distorted the situation, but I will clarify how we are trying to take forward carbon capture and storage particularly, to ensure that Britain can lead global developments in the sector.

Let me say at the outset that we agree absolutely with the hon. Lady about the important role that coal can continue to make. We want it to have a significant role in our energy infrastructure for many years to come. It is valued partly because of its flexibility, and as we move to inevitably more intermittent generation from all sorts of renewables, the flexibility, or dispatchability, of the coal sector is valuable indeed. We recognise that to secure that long-term future, we must deal with carbon emissions. The clean coal technologies—the hon. Lady outlined two of them—can help to ensure that coal has a chance to play an important role in our energy mix.

We are keen to take CCS forward with all speed. The Department has created a new division called the office of carbon capture and storage. It is not part of the old coal liabilities group, which is dealing with the historic legacies of the mining industry, but a new dynamic team focused purely on developing clean coal technologies. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that in our message to the outside world we are already doing a great deal to signal a step change.

The hon. Lady referred to coal production and the volume of imports. In 2010, which is the last year for which we have full figures, domestic production was nearly 18 million tonnes from 16 underground and 35 surface mines, employing just over 6,000 people. We have seen a significant drop in imports in recent years, because of a range of factors, from 38 million tonnes in 2009 to 27 million tonnes, a drop of 31%, by 2010. There is a range of reasons for that, including pricing issues—it may sometimes be cheaper to import coal—but often the reason is the sulphurous content and other issues that are important in combustion uses for the different types of coal. Those are commercial decisions, but I want to ensure that we create a long-term viable future for the UK coalmining industry, and we want as much coal as possible to be provided from domestic sources.

On carbon capture and storage, the hon. Lady talked about confusion. At a CCS conference yesterday, Jeff Chapman, who heads the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, used the word “tremendous” to describe the Government’s position. He said that he was encouraged by the speed at which we are trying to move forward and our dynamism and much more comprehensive approach.

Last year, we had to accept reluctantly that the Longannet project would not work and that we could not get the 300 MW CCS output that we wanted for $1 billion. Some aspects of the old competition were part of that process. It ruled out some of the pre-combustion technologies that we believe have a significant role to play and oxy-fuel combustion, which is another technology that could be significant. It did not take account of the £100 million cost involved in putting in place the flue gas desulphurisation technology that an old plant needs to give it a longer-term future.

Since pulling back from that project, we have sought to put in place a new one and a new competition that is much more all-embracing. It will give the industry opportunities to identify more projects, and greater scope for collaboration between different industrial partners in that process. It will also provide the opportunity to find out whether we can use the funding to support infrastructure development. For example, would putting in place large, over-sized pipelines provide the opportunity for an industry to be created, rather than a few pilot projects?

Our ambition has moved on. It is not just about how to put a few projects in place, but about how to create an industry that is viable and competitive in the 2020s. That is why there is a real sense of excitement. There were 200 people at the CCS conference yesterday. Two hundred businesses attended an industry day last week, and 150 attended a previous one before Christmas. People around the world who know about the technology are looking at the United Kingdom as one of the places where they can take it forward.

We still have the £1 billion. The hon. Lady is wrong in saying that it has been raided. The Treasury said that we do not now expect it to be used in the current spending round, but it is still available, and if projects come forward more quickly, they can access it.

[Chi Onwurah]

Is the Minister saying that the £1 billion is available to be spent in this period of the spending review?

[Charles Hendry]

We think it unlikely that anyone could come forward for £1 billion in this spending round, but we have said that it is still available when it is needed. The likely expectation is that it has been knocked back to the next spending round, but the commitment remains.

[Mr Anderson]

I understand that I must be brief. If we are to reduce emissions by 8% from 1990 levels, when would CCS have to have proven itself and to be operational?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with tremendous authority on these issues. We want a viable industry that is cost competitive with other low-carbon sources of electricity generation in the 2020s. We want the project work to be done now, and we are looking at a range of technologies and their contribution.

We have £1 billion of up-front funding. We want to run the project so that it links in with European funding— the new entrant reserve 300 funding—so that that can also be accessed. We have allocated £125 million for research and development, which is on top of that. Our electricity market reform measures are considering a range of other factors that can be used to incentivise long-term investment in full-scale plant. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are moving ahead with tremendous speed. During the next few weeks, we will launch the competition with a view to deciding how to select the best companies and the best projects as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady referred to underground coal gasification, and I was grateful to her and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for bringing representatives from Newcastle university to see me at the end of last year to talk through some of the issues. Underground coal gasification is a fledgling industry so far and has yet to be proven in the United Kingdom, but there is increasing interest in its potential. It has been suggested, as the hon. Lady did today, that it could be linked with carbon capture and storage, although that concept is still at an early stage of development and a lot more work will need to be done on the process. I do not want to go into the technology, but we think it may be a significant opportunity to enable us to access the extensive coal resources that remain in the United Kingdom. They are unlikely to be exploited by conventional mining, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, and we must use different technologies to access the very deep mines, which cannot be done by men and women working in them.

As with any activity involving underground coal, potential underground coal gasification operators would have to obtain a lease and a licence from the Coal Authority. It is likely that the UCG process would also release native methane, which would require a licence from Department of Energy and Climate Change under petroleum legislation. However, given the incidental nature of any natural gas release, the Department will seek to minimise any administrative burdens in that respect.

To be acceptable in the United Kingdom, operators must be able to demonstrate that they employ processes that are sound from the environmental control perspective. A great deal of evidence has been submitted about this, and we look forward to working closely with the hon. Lady and her colleagues at Newcastle university to try to take the matter forward. She will be aware that the Coal Authority has issued 18 conditional licences, paving the way for potential exploitation of coal through UCG. I will follow the progress of the Newcastle team and other conditional licences with great interest.

I hope that in that brief response I have been able to re-emphasise our commitment to clean coal technologies and their contribution, and I hope that that strong message will go back to the communities that the hon. Lady and her colleagues represent.

Question put and agreed to.

13:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

Tuesday 28 February 2012

Third Statement of New Regulation

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

The Government are today publishing the One-in, One-out: Third Statement of New Regulation. This statement reports on regulations within the scope of the one-in, one-out rule which are expected to come into force between 1 January and 30 June 2012. In parallel, Departments are each publishing a summary of the regulations they intend to introduce.

I am laying copies of the statement in the House Libraries.

EU Competitiveness Council

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)]

The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 20 and 21 February 2012. I represented the UK on internal market and industry issues on 20 February, and Andy Lebrecht, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK on research issues on 21 February. A summary of those discussions follows.

The main internal market and industry issues discussed on 20 February were; Europe 2020; public procurement; the accounting directive, which was also the subject of the lunchtime discussion; social entrepreneurship and venture capital funds; and smart regulation.

An orientation debate was held on the Europe 2020 strategy, linked to the 2012 annual growth survey. Discussions from this Competitiveness Council, and other sectoral Councils, are due to feed into the March 2012 European Council conclusions. All member states intervened positively. I intervened to press for completion of those growth measures that were already in the pipeline, that is: concluding free trade agreements, fully implementing the services directive, continuing to deregulate our professions, reducing regulatory burdens and creating a fully functioning digital single market. Some member states also called for greater reciprocity with respect to the external dimension of the single market. I intervened to counter these calls.

A second orientation debate was held on the proposal to update the public procurement package. I intervened to press for greater flexibility in the procurement rules, and was supported by several other member states in this regard. I also called for the retention of the current distinction between so called “A-Services” and “B-Services”, which are currently subject to different regimes. Specific to the UK, I also called for the Commission to consider whether fledgling mutuals should be subject to full EU rules from the outset, and whether it might be appropriate to introduce a time-limited exemption.

Over lunch, and subsequently in formal session, there was a discussion on the accounting directive. This focused on the proposed requirement for increased transparency in the payments from mining and extractive companies to Governments, on a per-country and per-project basis. I led the discussions by supporting the ambition of increasing transparency in the sector by developing a meaningful reporting regime, while also stressing the importance of our extractive industries remaining competitive. I also called for the materiality threshold, the monetary level at which reporting occurs, be set out in the directive.

The final orientation debate focused on venture capital and social entrepreneurship funds, and there was broad support for the proposals. Some member states called for a heavier regulatory regime to include the need for depositaries, though this received little support and the UK intervened to call for a light regime.

The Council agreed conclusions on smart regulation. Poland intervened to support the conclusions.

There was one AOB point on day one regarding the patents package. Several member states intervened to call for the swift conclusion of the outstanding issues.

The main research and space items discussed on 21 February were: the global monitoring for the environment and security (GMES) programme; the annual growth survey in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy; and scene-setting discussions on the Horizon 2020 package with a focus on international collaboration, SME support and the social sciences and humanities.

In the orientation debate on GMES, the UK and several other member states intervened to state that it should be funded from within the EU budget.

On the annual growth survey, member states noted in particular the need to develop complementarities between national and EU-level research programmes through simplified public/private partnerships; and to improve the focus on demand-side measures that could stimulate innovation, including strengthened support for pre-commercial public sector procurement as a means of driving investment in new products. The UK intervention referred to measures adopted at national level.

On the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), Commissioner Vassiliou introduced the Commission’s proposals, noting that it was a crucial feature within Europe’s wider package of support for innovation, and that the EIT was now delivering results through the knowledge and innovation communities (KICs).

On the bioeconomy. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn introduced the Commission’s communication “Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe”, stating that the smart and sustainable use of biological resources and waste was now a necessity given the dual pressures of diminishing fossil resources and global population growth. By making smart investments the EU could maintain global leadership in and secure new sources of business growth. This was followed by an exchange of views over lunch, during which member states expressed support for a more coherent approach to policy-making in this area, noting that the issue was too diverse to be handled by a single directorate-general.

On Horizon 2020, the presidency hosted a further orientation debate, inviting Ministers to explore the support that will be required to ensure that the social sciences and humanities (SSH) are fully integrated within the programme. Ministers were also invited to explore the support necessary for SMEs, and the measures needed to fully embed international co-operation in the programme. Member states, including the UK, expressed strong support for the principle of embedding support for SSH throughout Horizon 2020, with many arguing that technological advances that were not accompanied by a firm understanding of the potential socio-economic and behavioural impacts were less likely to be adopted by citizens. Several member states supported enhancing international co-operation, notably in the context of addressing global societal challenges. Many member states, including the UK, underlined the need to foster participation by SMEs, including through the proposed debt and equity facilities and specific measures for SMEs. Some member states highlighted the need for member states to provide direct networking and mentoring support to SMEs and universities to improve synergies between the two. The UK noted we would be reviewing support available to SMEs. The presidency reaffirmed its ambition to work towards political agreement (“partial general approach”) at the May 2012 Competitiveness Council.

Under AOB, Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn provided an update on Commission preparations for a European research area framework and noted that a recent public consultation had highlighted obstacles to researcher mobility and careers as key obstacles to the development of a genuine single market in research within the EU. On international thermonuclear experimental reactor programme (ITER), UK and several other member states called on the Commission to include funding within the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) as placing the programme outside the MFF risked sending damaging signals about political support for the project, which the EU is leading on. The presidency provided information on the informal Council it hosted in Copenhagen on 2 February 2012.

Office of Tax Simplification (Small Business Tax Review)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government launched the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) in July 2010 to provide independent advice on simplifying the tax system.

The OTS has been working on three reviews and today has published its final recommendations on its small business tax review. The OTS will be presenting its interim reports on pensioner taxation and employee share schemes next week.

On 9 May 2011, the Government asked the OTS to carry out a review of tax administration for small businesses as part of the next stage of the OTS’s small business tax review. The OTS was asked to identify areas of the tax system that cause the most day-to-day complexity for small businesses, recommend priority areas for simplification and consider the impact of these recommendations on different business sectors.

The Government will respond to the OTS recommendations at the Budget, on 21 March 2012. Copies of the final report on small business have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Asset Protection Agency (Interim Report)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The interim report for the Asset Protection Agency (APA) has today been made electronically available in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report contains commentary on key developments in relation to the APA and the asset protection scheme (APS) over the period from 31 March 2011 to 31 December 2011.

I am pleased to note the statements in the report that the likelihood of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) being able to make a claim under the APS has reduced significantly and that the British taxpayer is expected to make an overall profit of at least £5 billion from the APS.

Sale of Northern Rock Plc to Virgin Money

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

On 17 November 2011, the Chancellor announced the sale of Northern Rock plc to Virgin Money. The transaction completed on 1 January 2012, following approval from the Financial Services Authority and receipt of European Commission merger clearance.

Today, UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI) has published a document setting out the background to and rationale for the decision to return Northern Rock plc to the private sector through its sale to Virgin Money.

The publication includes information regarding UKFI’s assessment of the Virgin Money bid against a full range of options to return Northern Rock plc to the private sector, including remutualisation. UKFI and Northern Rock plc received independent corporate finance advice from Deutsche Bank. Other information includes background on the sale process and the timing of the sale.

The publication also includes an assessment of the expected overall taxpayer returns from the Government’s intervention in the former Northern Rock which amounts to a positive net cash return. The Government provided £37 billion of funding into the two companies¹ that comprise the former Northern Rock and the return of cash from these companies to Government (excluding tax proceeds) is expected to total between £46 billion and £48 billion.

Copies of this publication have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

¹The former Northern Rock was split into two entities on 1 January 2010: Northern Rock plc, a mortgage and savings bank; and Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc, the remaining closed mortgage book.

Government Olympic Executive (Annual Report)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I am publishing today the Government Olympic Executive’s Quarterly Report—“London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report February 2012”. This report explains the latest budget position as at 31 December 2011, and outlines some of the investments which are being made to capitalise on the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

Across the whole games project, preparations are reaching their final stages. Ownership of the Olympic park has been transferred from the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to the London Organising Committee. The Olympic and Paralympic travel planning website “Get Ahead of the Games” has been launched to help people plan their games-time journeys. The security and emergency services have taken part in some very visible testing exercises, and sports test events continue, most recently the track cycling world cup at the velodrome and the diving world cup at the aquatics centre.

At just 150 days to go until the games, the overall funding package remains at £9.298 billion with £527 million of uncommitted contingency available, a reduction of £1 million on the previous quarter. The ODA’s construction programme is now 96% complete. The anticipated final cost of the ODA’s construction, infrastructure and transport programme is £6.777 billion—a decrease of £79 million on the previous quarter. This includes £26 million that the ODA has returned to the DCMS, which is being transferred to LOCOG and the OPLC for work on park venues and security. On a like-for-like basis, the ODA’s anticipated final cost has reduced by £211 million since the 2010 spending review.

The ODA has achieved £38 million of new savings in the quarter October to December 2011, taking the total achieved since the November 2007 baseline to more than £950 million. Construction of the venues and infrastructure for the games is 96% complete, with the Olympic park and village handed over from the ODA to LOCOG in January 2012 so they can prepare the venues for staging the games.

A number of items of work have been transferred to LOCOG following the handover, as they are now best placed to deliver them. Accordingly, £24 million has been released to LOCOG for operational security and for the conversion of venues for the Paralympic games. Up to £12m has also been released to LOCOG for capital works which will have legacy benefits, including the fit out of the media centres, the installation of electric vehicle charging points and the relocation of the hockey pitches to Eton Manor following the games.

As planned, funds have also been released for pedestrian management outside games venues (£57.7 million) and additional utilities resilience measures across games venues (£12.5 million). These costs were previously forecast so do not constitute an increase, but rather a confirmation of previous budget assumptions.

The remaining balance of contingency within the public sector funding package now stands at £425 million, with an additional £102 million available to the ODA in programme contingency to cover assessed risk. In total, this leaves £527 million of uncommitted contingency remaining.

The change to the ODA anticipated final cost is due to a number of factors, including:

A decrease of £72 million in the programme contingency required to meet remaining assessed risks;

A net £29 million increase in transport operating expenditure reflecting a reallocation of £34 million to venue transport operations offset by £5 million savings;

A decrease of £15 million largely due to LOCOG taking responsibility for operational security from January 2012;

A reduction of £6 million in the forecast construction costs of the village due to close out of commercial contracts; and

An increase of £3 million in the international broadcast centre and the main press centre costs due to commissioning of the building and improved drainage systems.

With 150 days to go to the games, we remain on time and within budget with more than £500 million of uncommitted contingency remaining. This puts us in a strong position and gives me increasing confidence that we can deliver the games under budget.

I would like to commend this report to the Members of both Houses and thank them for their continued interest in and support for the London 2012 games.

Copies of the quarterly report February 2012 are available online at: www.culture.gov.uk and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Cultural Education

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Together with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), I am today publishing Darren Henley’s report on cultural education and the Government’s response to its recommendations.

Darren Henley, managing director of Classic FM, sets out a compelling challenge for making cultural education in English schools world class. The report sets out a vision—to enable children from all backgrounds and every part of England to have the opportunity to experience and enjoy the best that our unique cultural heritage has to offer.

Once again we would like to record our grateful thanks to Darren Henley for his ambitious approach to undertaking a review of this scale across such a divergent sector. His vision for excellence in cultural education is one that we share.

We would also like to express our gratitude to the cultural education sponsored bodies: Arts Council England, the British Film Institute, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund, who have risen to the challenges posed in the report and who have found a way to work together to address those challenges. We look forward to continuing to work closely with them, and to their increasing support for schools.

Learning about our culture and playing an active part in the cultural life of the school and wider community is as vital to developing our identity and self-esteem as understanding who we are through knowing our history and the origins of our society.

Enjoying and participating in cultural life should be available to all students: it must not be restricted to those young people whose families already enjoy the benefits of participating in cultural activities. No matter what their background or family circumstances, school pupils should have the opportunity to develop their creativity, their relationship with society, and to contribute to the economy in ways that are beneficial to them as individuals and to society.

Cultural education is a valuable part of a rounded education that children and young people should expect to receive, not least on enhanced pupil performance across the curriculum.

The Department for Education is therefore making £15 million available over the next three years to ensure that all pupils can engage in a variety of cultural activities of the highest quality. We want the experience that young people have of their cultural heritage while at school to inspire them to participate actively in the cultural life of the nation throughout their lives.

This is not just about creating opportunities; the real and lasting impact will occur when those opportunities are enjoyable, challenging, of high quality, and when the young people are appropriately supported to achieve. We welcome the collaboration and contribution of the DCMS-sponsored bodies to work with schools and make this vision a reality.

Our intention is to make it possible for every school to introduce every pupil to high quality cultural education, achieving academic excellence, and for young people to contribute to our thriving creative industries, if that is where their talent and passion lies. We are introducing new initiatives, over the next three years, with the shared commitment of the Arts Council England, English Heritage, the British Film Institute and the Heritage Lottery Fund. We shall publish a new national plan for cultural education in which we will set out a clear route for cultural education from early years through to study at the highest level.

As evidence of this shared commitment, a new cross-ministerial group will help the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education work more effectively with sponsored bodies and each other.

We will invite teaching schools to draw up a programme of work, investing £300,000 to develop training and mentoring for new teachers and continuing professional development for experienced teachers. They will work with and be supported by cultural sponsored bodies to ensure all schools have access both to excellent teaching support and a variety of cultural education activities for all pupils.

Museums and galleries will receive £3.6 million to encourage and help all students to experience some of our cultural and historical treasures at first hand. English Heritage will work closely with schools, encouraging them to explore historical sites in their local area.

Our intention is that no talented young person, whatever their background, should be unable to realise their full creative potential. We are therefore investing £600,000 to establish a new National Youth Dance Company so that talented young dancers can aspire to reach the top of their profession, whether that is in contemporary or classical dance. This will match the excellent models we have in the field of music. We will expand the art and design Saturday clubs, based on a model pioneered by Sir James Sorrell, to give students access to high quality specialist equipment and tuition at local colleges and universities. The British Film Institute will lead the establishment of a new National Youth Film Academy, which will receive £3 million from the Department for Education, with additional support from the National Lottery, to support film education for all children and young people. Its aim will be to train the next generation of talented British film-makers.

Our Departments are determined that, together with our arm’s length bodies, our collective resources and expertise will make a real difference to the quality of cultural education experienced by all pupils in all schools.

Copies of “Cultural Education in England”, together with the Government’s response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Marine Protected Area

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

We would like to draw the attention of the House to the announcement yesterday by the Government of the overseas territory of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, declaring a sustainable use marine protected area (MPA), covering over 1 million square kilometres of the territory’s maritime zone. The Government very much welcome this announcement, which means that waters around South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are now one of the largest sustainably managed areas of ocean in the world.

The sustainable use marine protected area enshrines in legislation new and existing policies to ensure the highest standards of sustainable fisheries management. The declaration includes over 20,000 square kilometres of no-take zones, alongside a prohibition on commercial bottom trawling and depth limits on the use of commercial bottom longlining. These measures will provide protection for the sensitive biologically diverse seabed and support the protection of the fish stocks around each of the islands within the territory.

The South Georgia toothfish fishery has already been certified as sustainable and well managed by the Marine Stewardship Council. The MPA designation further underpins the sustainable management and environmental stewardship of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as contributing to the UK’s wider commitment to the conservation of the southern ocean, through its leading role within the Commission for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. The Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands has also indicated its intention to undertake further scientific work during 2012 to identify whether further additional protection measures should be incorporated into the MPA designation in the future.

UK Government National Action Plan (Women, Peace and Security)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing a revised British Government national action plan on UNSCR 1325 women, peace and security. This national action plan is fully integrated with the work of the Minister for Equalities, who is the ministerial champion on violence against women and girls.

I wanted to announce publication to coincide with the start of the British presidency of the UN Security Council in March, given the lead role that the UK takes on the Council, for the women, peace and security agenda.

Since the national action plan was last revised in November 2010, the Government have been active in promoting the women, peace and security agenda through multilateral bodies, including: a significant financial contribution to UN women; encouraging more states to develop national action plans; and promoting the inclusion of gender issues within doctrine and practice for peace missions.

Across Whitehall, further efforts have been made to expand awareness of women, peace and security, issues, including through revised conflict, security and human rights training programmes that include significant elements covering gender issues; the deployment of female engagement teams on UK military operations overseas; and the dissemination of a 1325 toolkit to all of our embassies and Government offices overseas.

We have also continued to deliver gender based programmes in our three priority countries. For example, DFID has invested £60 million in a security sector accountability and police reform programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which will include the development of sexual and gender-based violence focused police units. The FCO is funding a multi-donor project to strengthen the capacity of the National Human Rights Commission in Nepal, to help develop a responsive and accessible justice system that will promote gender equality. In addition to a wide range of gender focused programme activity in Afghanistan, we are supporting the Afghan development of a 1325 national action plan, ensuring wide ranging consultation, including with women’s groups.

In October 2011,1 published a review of the Government’s performance against the national action plan. The revised plan that I am announcing today learns from that review and outlines new commitments for action over the coming year.

It also reflects new challenges on women, peace and security, in particular following the Arab spring. The national action plan has been expanded to include, for the first time, a regional action plan for the middle east and north Africa.

We are grateful to the associate parliamentary group on women, peace and security (APG WPS) for their active engagement on this important issue, and would in particular like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who chairs that group. I should also like to thank the civil society organisation Gender Action on Peace and Security (GAPS), for the contribution they have made to the process of revising the plan.

We will continue to consult with Parliament and civil society, including in the run up to a review of the Government’s progress against the revised national action plan in the autumn. As the national action plan expires in November 2013, a full evaluation will take place in 2013, and make recommendations on how the plan should be refreshed or replaced.

I have deposited a copy of the revised national action plan in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the FCO website at: www.fco.gov.uk.

CPS and RCPO (Merger)

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I have today laid before Parliament a public consultation document: Consultation on an order giving legal effect to the administrative merger of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office.

The merger of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) has already been achieved administratively. The merger took place on 1 January 2010 and is safeguarding and delivering improvements to the already high quality work on serious and complex cases. It is also providing increased value for money by minimising duplication and driving economies of scale. The benefits include an enhanced international capability, a specialist tax prosecution service and a joint prosecution approach to cross-border crime.

The two organisations, however, remain legally distinct. I believe it is desirable for them to be one organisation legally as well as operationally. An order under the Public Bodies Act 2011 would achieve this objective.

The purpose of the consultation exercise is to seek views on whether we should give legal effect to the administrative merger and whether the approach we are proposing would achieve the desired effect.

The consultation closes on the 22 May 2012. I will carefully consider the consultation responses before bringing forward any order giving legal effect to the administrative merger of the CPS and RCPO.

Crossrail Train Procurement

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

I would like to inform the House that the invitation to negotiate for the procurement of rolling stock and associated depot facilities has today been issued by Crossrail Ltd.

Together with the Mayor of London, my co-sponsor on the Crossrail project, I welcome this major milestone in Crossrail’s journey from inception to reality.

Crossrail will create vital new transport infrastructure to support economic growth. It will deliver faster journey times and a 10% increase in the capacity of London’s rail network.

Crossrail Ltd is inviting suppliers to design, manufacture, finance and service around 60 new trains and build a depot at Old Oak Common in West London. These new trains will provide around 27,000 seats, reducing congestion and bringing an additional 1.5 million people within 45 minutes of London’s major business centres.

Hon. Members will recall that the previous Secretary of State for Transport committed to consider any relevant findings of the Government’s growth review as part of this and other large-scale procurements. Hon. Members will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer published the national infrastructure plan in November 2011 and included a package of measures to reform public procurement in the autumn statement.

My Department has been working with colleagues across Whitehall and suppliers and delivery bodies to implement these recommendations. Across the transport sector we want to improve dialogue with suppliers and increase the long-term visibility of forthcoming contracts in order to strengthen the capability of the UK supply chain.

In respect of Crossrail, reflecting its stage in the procurement process, this invitation to negotiate is a clear example of how, working in partnership with the Mayor and Crossrail Ltd, we are already adapting our approach.

First, the invitation to negotiate includes requirements for “responsible procurement”. This means that bidders are required to set out how they will engage with the wider supply chain and provide opportunities for training, apprenticeships, and small and medium-sized businesses within their procurement strategy. Bidders are also required to establish an appropriate local presence to manage the delivery of the contract.



The Mayor and I are also keen to understand and communicate the benefit of this contract to the UK economy; bidders are being asked, in the invitation to negotiate, to specify from where each element of the contract will be sourced. This is not an assessment criterion in the decision process, however, the successful bidder will be required to report against their proposed estimates.

Secondly, Crossrail Ltd, which has already developed a reputation for being an industry leader in this field, will ensure that, going forward, this procurement is efficient and effective and does not involve unnecessary costs for the bidders.

In addition, this contract will provide a significant element of public investment, alongside private finance, optimising the balance of public debt and transfer of risk to the private sector. This approach will help ease the costs of debt repayments to the public purse, as well as reduce bidders’ requirements to raise debt and equity, while still transferring significant risk to the private sector, ensuring that we secure value for money. First and foremost, the successful bidder must be able to deliver the right trains and depot facilities.

Above all, I want this procurement to be a fair process that provides best value for money for the UK taxpayer and future fare payers’ and high quality, reliable trains for the millions of people that will use Crossrail services every week.

Four bidders will be receiving the invitation to negotiate having performed strongly at the pre-qualification stage and I look forward to a highly competitive process. The contract will be awarded in Spring 2014.

House of Lords

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Tuesday, 28 February 2012.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Middle East: Quartet

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the role and future of the Middle East quartet.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Government remain determined to do everything possible to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We believe the quartet still has an important role in achieving this.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Given the breakdown of talks on 26 January, in the last iteration, and given that one side to the talks has no confidence whatever in the representative of the quartet—to the extent that they will not even shake his hand at the meetings—and that the other side in the talks flagrantly disregards the representative’s deadlines for submissions and proposals, can the Government really stick to the view that they have complete confidence in the future of the quartet? Is my noble friend aware of President Sarkozy’s comment that the quartet is dead—

“Let’s stop kidding ourselves”?

Will my noble friend tell the House what proposals the Government have to put the quartet on a new footing under new leadership?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We all share my noble friend’s disappointment at the slowness of progress in the Middle East peace process and the difficulties that are being encountered—as well as at the suspension of the talks in Amman, although they have only been suspended and not abandoned altogether. However, I think that she is a shade harsh in her general judgment. We pay tribute to the efforts of Mr Blair and others in improving the situation on the ground in occupied Palestine, but one must be realistic: the quartet alone cannot achieve the progress that we all want to see. Such progress can happen only if the will is there, but the will is not present on all the necessary sides in the peace process to make progress along the road map. If the will is not there, the quartet cannot achieve the impossible.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the noble Lord agree that the quartet is divided—for example over Syria, given Russia’s view on it—and that it has been ineffective, save marginally at the lower infrastructure level; but that we cannot kill it because there is no alternative, and one day there may be a role for it?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that the noble Lord is realistic. The quartet is not in a position to achieve the magic progress that we want to see, but the moment may come when its usefulness can be developed. In the mean time, we retain confidence in it as a part of the mechanism for taking things forward. Clearly, however, many other aspects need to be improved and strengthened.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, how does the effect of the Iranian nuclear weapons crisis on Israel bear on the ostensible agenda of the quartet? Is there not a lack of reality in the timescale as regards the urgency of various matters? Will that have a bearing on the present agenda of the quartet?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is asking about the broader issue of Israel and Iran and the very tense situation that clearly exists. I think it was President Obama who, on becoming President, was advised that everything in the Middle East is connected with everything else. Israel’s concerns about Iran, and all our concerns about Iran’s attempt to move to nuclear weapons, are part of the Middle East imbroglio. However, we must not let that take our eye too much off the need for the Middle East peace process to go ahead and for the road blocks along that process—including the building of settlements, which is clearly a major obstacle—to be overcome.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, with the rate of Israeli settlement in Palestine continuing apace and apparently unchecked, in precisely what respect has the situation improved on the ground?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As far as settlements are concerned, it has not improved at all. On the contrary, although the Jerusalem municipality has told the British representatives who make constant representations that for the moment it does not plan any further settlements, or any further demolition in east Jerusalem either, the settlements seem to continue. So there has been no improvement there. I was referring to Palestine industry and enterprise and some beginnings—even in the miserable conditions of Gaza—of advance in enterprise, thanks to some noble and dynamic contributions by British businesses.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, if the Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, reach agreement in the coming weeks on constituting a technocratic Government with Mahmoud Abbas as both President and Prime Minister, will the British Government use their influence to deal directly with the Government who emerge from that process and not be impeded from doing so by any objections from elsewhere?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer is yes, provided that Hamas shows some readiness to conform to the quartet principles, renounces violence and plays a constructive role. Provided that that happens, we could then move forward, and certainly the British Government would use all their influence and support to ensure that that process did move forward.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, from my visit there last week, I have come away with the sense that some important changes are taking place. Indeed, on the Palestinian side, there is a sense of confidence which is perhaps partly to do with the application to the United Nations and other developments. However, is it not clear that the efforts of the quartet itself are resulting in little more than nugatory negotiations and arbitrary deadlines? Given that elections are now in the air so widely among the participants both inside and outside, would it not be better for the quartet to pull back and analyse how it could produce a strategy that over the next three to four years will produce serious negotiations, rather than to continue kicking at a door that will not lead it anywhere in the very short term?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that my answer has to be the same as the one that I gave to my noble friend earlier. The quartet is part of the mechanism, but many other things need to change and improve. There is the question of the recognition of Palestine as a state. The British Government believe that Palestine has fulfilled most of the conditions for that although we think that the ultimate statehood will be acquired when the occupation ends and when peace is achieved. These things must all be pressed together. I do not think that it would be wise at this stage to say that the quartet must be put on the back burner and not play any role at all—it could play a role. At the moment, there are obviously major difficulties in the way.

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, I have just returned from a conference called by the Arab League in Qatar on the subject of Jerusalem. At the end of that conference a resolution supported by the Arab League was passed to ask the United Nations to try to stop Israel’s annexation and Judaisation of east Jerusalem. Will the British Government and the quartet support this move?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is part of a jigsaw, the aims of which would certainly have our full support. The position is that after the suspension of the Amman talks, Mahmoud Abbas and others have made it quite clear that the aims are: border security, on which Israel is supposed to report back by the end of March on what it does; a freeze on the settlements, which certainly has not occurred; and that if neither of those things happens, then indeed the whole process will go back to the United Nations—and we shall continue to use our best efforts to make progress there.

Local Authorities: Standards

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked By

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact the new arrangements for monitoring standards in English local authorities will have on the incidence of vexatious and frivolous cases and on potential whistleblowers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the Standards Board regime actively encouraged vexatious complaints, often for political point-scoring. Councillors were often put through a lengthy investigation process before the matter was resolved. A councillor should not be found to be in breach of the code of conduct if, in highlighting fraud, waste or incompetence, they do so in a proper way. Our reforms will enable councils to deal with complaints expeditiously, and require them to seek the views of an independent person.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her very helpful response. During the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, I referred to the particular case of Councillor Esmond Jenkins, who was pursued to the Standards Board for England after he had blown the whistle on corruption in Cotswold District Council. Does my noble friend recall that the Minister then responsible, our noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, rightly said that such complaints to the board could be petty, malicious, vexatious or politically motivated? I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating some of those points.

I have already established that the Standards Board for England spent in excess of £63,000 of taxpayers’ money on that case. Can my noble friend assure your Lordships' House that the replacement regime to maintain the standards of integrity and behaviour in local government will avoid wasteful expenditure on persecution of that sort? In particular, is she satisfied that councillors who investigate and expose wrongdoing will not be accused of bringing their authority into disrepute?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the changes we made to the standards committees and standards support were made, as the noble Lord will recall, as a result of concern in this House. Our thrust has always been to ensure that this matter is run at a local level so the decisions made on how the system is set up will be left to local authorities. But I assure the noble Lord that we will be monitoring what happens as a result of those changes and looking to see how local authorities are dealing with allegations about the conduct of councillors—just to avoid, we hope, the problems that he mentioned and to find out the views of councils about the new arrangements.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, has the noble Baroness had a chance to reflect on the recent High Court decision in the case of Bideford Council? Does not she agree that it is “vexatious and frivolous”—the words in the Question—when local authorities are taken to court for arranging voluntary sessions before council meetings where members are invited to say prayers, as we do in this House?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, that was a legal decision which was interpreted, I think, as part of European Union law. It is clear that councillors can voluntarily attend prayers if they wish. There is no compulsion on them to attend, but council authorities can have prayers out of the chamber if people wish to have them before a meeting.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the new legislation the sanctions being considered and imposed by local authorities are only as draconian as asking the leader of the group to have words with the offending member? Has my noble friend any observations as to how the sanctions can be more biting than those being imposed by a cross-section of councils that I have been observing?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord slightly underplays what the sanctions can be. There can be censure. If it is a trivial matter, it can be dealt with by the leader of the group. It can be much more seriously dealt with. It can be taken to the council for formal censure. Someone who is found to have transgressed can also be removed from a committee for a certain length of time. We have not allowed local authorities to suspend councillors as a result of such decisions, but I think we have put forward a perfectly reasonable set of sanctions.

[Lord Tomlinson]

As the noble Baroness has suggested that the genesis of this legal judgment was European, will she given an undertaking to write to me to explain precisely which part of European legislation is alleged to have been breached?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I said that I thought it was; if that is not correct, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps coming back to the issue, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right to say that the Standards Board did not fulfil the task in the way that it was thought that it would, but there are instances where action should be taken against councillors where they have behaved inappropriately. The noble Baroness mentioned monitoring. Can she give more substance on that? Will there be a review after a certain period of time so that we can see whether the new system is working? There need to be some safeguards for the public interest on this.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the impact assessment for the new arrangements on standards provides for a review within three to five years. That will take into account all the matters that the noble Lord has mentioned.

Devolution: Wales

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:50

Asked By

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to resolve issues arising from the devolution of powers to the National Assembly for Wales.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, the National Assembly for Wales is now able to pass laws in all 20 devolved subjects. The Commission on Devolution in Wales—the Silk commission—is looking at how the Welsh Government can be made more accountable for what they spend and at any modifications to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Welsh devolution settlement to work more effectively.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I thank the Minister for his reply. With an increasing number of powers being devolved to the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and the Parliament in Scotland, what means are there to inform us of what decisions are taken at that level in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland? Moreover, with increasing devolution, what role does the Minister see for this House when it is composed of Members from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there are regular exchanges at official and ministerial level where information is given as to legislation passing through this Parliament which has relevance for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there are close links the other way. With regard to parliamentary and assembly exchanges, the Calman commission, on which I sat, thought that it would be advantageous if there was a greater flow of information between parliaments and assemblies, but recognised that that would be a matter for the parliaments and assemblies and not for government. On the role of your Lordships' House in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it clearly has a role in examining matters which in the case of Wales are non-devolved. We have done so since 1999 and I can imagine that we will continue to give it the scrutiny that we would expect of a revising Chamber.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that, whereas the outcome of the referendum almost a year ago to this week was quite clear-cut, the degree of devolution in various portfolios remains more unclear? In Wales, unlike Scotland, a portfolio is not devolved in its entirety but is dependent on interpretation of legislation. In order for people to understand better how the devolution settlement is working, will he arrange for this to be reviewed so that we might have more clear-cut devolution that is better understood by civil servants, by the press and media, and particularly by the electorate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I recall taking through your Lordships' House prior to the referendum an order in which we sought to try to bring together all the different parts which had been the subject matter of legislative competence orders over a number of years with the objective of achieving greater clarity. However, I note what the noble Lord said. The Silk commission perhaps gives an opportunity for some of these issues to be aired. Obviously, the Government will have to consider what that commission proposes in due course.

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, when the Government established the Commission on Devolution in Wales—the so-called Silk commission—it was surprising to learn that reform of the Barnett formula was excluded from its remit, despite it being a flagship manifesto commitment of both coalition parties. Are the Government still committed to reform of the Barnett formula and, if so, when will it happen?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will reflect that the Barnett formula has implications for all parts of the United Kingdom and therefore it would not have been appropriate for the Silk commission to look at it in relation to Wales in isolation. That is why the Calman commission, looking at Scottish devolution, did not feel able to look at the Barnett formula. This Government have indicated that, while there is a case for looking at the Barnett formula, it is important that we first bring the finances of the United Kingdom under control. That is a precondition for any movement on the Barnett formula. For noble Lords who are keen to talk about the Barnett formula, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill which I very much hope will be debated later this evening.

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

My Lords, one of the remaining issues after more than a decade of devolution is the dire state of the Welsh economy after the Welsh Labour Government have ruled the country. They have got rid of the Welsh Development Agency, which has cost us a great deal, and one Welsh academic has described it as,

“the worst policy decision made in Wales in living memory”.

Does my noble and learned friend agree with that verdict?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not in a position to agree with that, not having read that particular report. Clearly the economy of Wales is a matter in which your Lordships’ House has a legitimate interest, concerning, as it does, both devolved and non-devolved matters. I understand that on St David’s Day later this week the House of Commons will be debating Welsh affairs generally, and I strongly expect the economy to dominate and not least the Welsh Development Agency and the point made by my noble friend.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does the noble and learned Lord accept that, although as a constitutional precept this Westminster Parliament can, even in relation to any matter delegated to any one of the constituent parliaments, still legislate as it would wish in relation to any devolved area, in relation to Scotland some 14 years ago a convention was kindly agreed to the effect that this House would not dream of doing that unless so specifically requested by the Scottish Parliament? Particularly now in the context of the added powers enjoyed by Wales since the referendum, will such a convention be considered by Her Majesty’s Government in relation to Wales?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that the legislative consent Motion, originally described in Scotland as the Sewel convention after the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who announced it, has worked well in practice. It is my understanding that if legislation which has implications for Wales is brought before your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons, it will be the subject of a similar convention. After each Queen’s Speech there is an obligation on the Secretary of State for Wales to consult the National Assembly for Wales about UK government proposals that may have an impact on Wales, not least since the further devolution on devolved matters.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, loath as I am to be in disagreement with my colleague on the Front Bench so far as concerns the Barnett formula, I say to the Minister, “Review the Barnett formula but don’t rush it”.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear the noble Lord and he may wish to make that point in the debate later.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

As regards the anomalies in relation to Welsh devolution and some of the problems arising from Scottish devolution, which we will be discussing at length later today, as well as the West Lothian question, on which the Government have set up a commission, would those matters not all be better dealt with if we were to look at the English dimension and devolution within or to England?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that there has been some history of that, not least pioneered by the Government of whom the noble Lord was a member. I do not seem to remember that there was huge enthusiasm for it in the north-east of England, but it is still a very pertinent point and one which I am sure will be raised again in debates on this issue in the future.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Next Question.

Schools: Curriculum

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked By

[Lord Rennard]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to prevent the booklet Pure Manhood: How to Become the Man God Wants You to Be being used as part of the school curriculum.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the Government take the issue of homophobia in schools very seriously. This and other forms of bullying or discrimination are of course covered by the Equality Act 2010. However, in passing the Equality Act, curriculum materials were excluded, as a ban could inhibit classroom debate and the illustration of different viewpoints. We have no plans to change the position reached in 2010.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, can the Minister then tell us what specific actions the Government might consider to prevent the distribution in any school of literature that is clearly homophobic, undermines HIV prevention campaigns and is likely to incite further homophobic bullying?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the Government are extremely clear that material used for the purpose of inciting homophobic bullying would be completely improper. The Government would want to take action; it would fall foul of the Equality Act and various other pieces of legislation. The question is whether we should ban all materials, whatever they are, to which any of us individually might take exception. The position that was reached in 2010 on the Equality Act seems to me right. It draws a distinction between how children are taught and what goes on in schools—and it is clear that there should not be that kind of behaviour—and the use of different kinds of material from which, used properly, people could conclude that material of the sort my noble friend mentioned was full of all sorts of errors of the kind to which he referred.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, have I been wrongly under the impression that in this country we no longer ban books or, indeed, burn them? If equality legislation, while enacted in the name of social progress, has the effect of dragging us back to that illiberal state of affairs, may there not be a case for reviewing the relevant aspects of the legislation?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The point that I was trying to make—perhaps not very clearly—was that the precise point reached about curriculum materials in connection with the Equality Act in 2010 was that it would not lead to the conclusion which the noble Lord and I would want to avoid: that is, that materials to which individuals might take exception would be banned. We absolutely do not want to get to a point where that happens; those days—from whatever point of view that is taken—are fortunately past. Because of the exemption in the Equality Act, that situation does not arise.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, is not using this particular document in schools not completely contrary to the department’s guidance, which bans the use of inappropriate materials in sex education classes? In a country where three young men have recently been jailed for distributing leaflets promoting hatred of homosexual people, is it not clear that this document is inappropriate and therefore against the department’s guidance?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My noble friend is right that the Government issue clear guidance as to what materials are appropriate. If parents, pupils or others are concerned about the use to which particular materials are put, then they have every right to complain to the school, to us, or to the YPLA in the case of an academy. Ofsted can have a look, and we can take a view as to whether the material is being used inappropriately. If the material to which both my noble friends refer were being used to make the point that this kind of view is a minority view, that would seem to be a perfectly proper use to which it could be put.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I think it is important to clarify this. Is the Minister aware that the Explanatory Notes written by his own department to accompany the Equality Act made it clear that the curriculum is covered by the Act? This would obviously outlaw any activity—such as the document we have been talking about this afternoon—which could lead to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or potentially encourage homophobic bullying. Can he please clarify once and for all the status of this document? A public clarification on this could, perhaps, lance the boil of some of the controversial debate taking place on this subject .

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I hope I have explained, but if I have failed I will try to make it clearer. My understanding is that there is a clear distinction between what is able to be taught in schools and teaching that encouraged homophobic bullying or inappropriate behaviour of any sort, which would clearly fall foul of a range of different pieces of legislation. That is clearly wrong and we would deplore it. However, the ban on that kind of behaviour and what is done in lessons does not extend to particular source material. For example, there may be people who think that the “Merchant of Venice” as a script, a text or a document encouraged anti-Jewish sentiment. Should that be outlawed? No, it clearly should not. That is the distinction I am seeking to draw between the use to which materials are put and the materials themselves.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, has the Minister read the book and does he have a personal view on it?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As it happens, I have read the material to which the noble Lord referred. Many views expressed in it are not ones to which I would subscribe. However, there are many pieces of information, material and literature that contain views to which I do not subscribe, and I do not have a great desire to ban people who hold views different from mine.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, is it not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to ask parents or others who object to homophobic material being used in schools to apply to Ofsted or take action under the Equality Act?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am sorry; I did not hear the beginning of that question.

[Lord Avebury]

The noble Lord implied in an earlier answer that the only remedy that a parent had if they objected to the use of homophobic material in the classroom was to apply to Ofsted or bring proceedings under the Equality Act. Is that not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I hope that I said that there was a range of routes. Those options are at the extreme end of the routes. Complaints may also be made to the school, the governing body and the department, and to the YPLA on behalf of the department.

St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield (Boundary Change) Order 2012

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved By

[Baroness Hanham]

That the draft order laid before the House on 16 January be approved.

Relevant document: 38th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 February.

Motion agreed.

Public Services (Social Value) Bill

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:07

Bill passed.

Scotland Bill

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 17th Report from the Constitution Committee.

15:08

Clause 22 : Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner

Amendment 44B

Moved by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

44B: Clause 22, page 15, line 8, leave out “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” and insert “Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is delighted to return to Committee on the Scotland Bill. It seems some time since we discussed these matters—and indeed it is, so we are glad of the opportunity to debate this important piece of constitutional legislation.

The amendments I will move and speak to today are probing in nature. Amendments 44B, 45A and 45B seek to explore the apparent inconsistency between the names and the appointment processes of the Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner and the BBC Trust member for Scotland as they are set out in the Bill. Noble Lords had the benefit of a debate that took place in Committee on 2 February 2012 on Amendment 44A, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Sewel in an attempt to identify the reason for these apparent differences. I shall return to the Hansard report of that debate shortly; I give the Minister notice that I will draw on the words of his colleagues in the debate to support the amendments that I have tabled.

I will say also that I welcome Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I put my name to it as it exactly replicates an amendment tabled in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Tom Greatrex, but not debated because of insufficient time.

Amendments 44B and 45A amend the title given in Clause 22 to the new commission role from the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” to the,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.

I recognise that in itself this is a minor change to the Bill, but it raises a wider point about the consistency of the new roles for Scotland that are created by this Bill. The proposal for the change in title is derived directly from the format established in Clause 20 with the,

“BBC Trust member for Scotland”—

not the “Scottish BBC Trust member”. We believe that there should be consistency in the Bill in the naming of the new executive roles in Scotland and we ask the Minister why the decision was taken to use a different configuration for the title of the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner”.

The point about inconsistency becomes more important with the issue raised by Amendment 45B. The appointments process for the BBC Trust member for Scotland is that:

“A Minister of the Crown must not exercise without the agreement of the Scottish Ministers functions relating to selection for a particular appointment”.

However, the appointments process proposed for the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” is in,

“the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer”,

in consultation with Scottish Ministers. This is the exact point that my noble friend Lord Sewel raised in the debate on 2 February. I am looking now at the Official Report and the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in seeing off my noble friend’s amendment. She said that,

“broadcasting remains a reserved matter”.—[Official Report, 2/2/12; col. 1785.]

So does the role of the Crown Estate Commission. She went on to say:

“It is our view that this”—

my noble friend’s amendment—

“does not give the Scottish Government sufficient involvement in the appointment process. Securing the agreement of the Scottish Government is the appropriate way of involving them in the appointment process for the BBC Trust member for Scotland. The existing provision gives the Scottish Government an important and appropriate power and the UK Government do not wish to weaken this. I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment”.—[Official Report, 2/2/12; col. 1786.]

I draw exactly on that argument and wish to apply it to the appointment of the new Scottish commissioner for the Crown Estates.

Amendment 45B brings the appointments process for the Scottish commissioner closer into line with that of the BBC Trust member by proposing that Scottish Ministers should make the recommendation,

“with the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer”.

These are not issues on which I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I raise them in an effort simply to elicit further information from the Minister about the reasons for these inconsistencies. I am fully prepared to accept that there may be good ones, but I cannot for the life of me at the moment think of what they are, but I wait with bated breath.

I would also like to speak in support of Amendment 45, which replicates a provision tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West to probe the appointments criteria intended for the new role of the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner. At present, there has been no discussion and no detail presented about the sort of qualifications expected of this important role. I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord what conversations the Government have had with the Crown Estate Commission with regard to the proposed new role and the appointments process and qualifications expected. In anticipation of this debate, I had inquiries made of the commissioner’s office as to what qualifications would be expected. With all due respect to the answer I received, it did not make it any clearer to me exactly what would be expected of a commissioner, never mind the one who represented Scotland.

15:18

As I am on my feet—and on a more general note—I want to raise another issue. The Secretary of State for Scotland told the Scotland Bill Committee last September that the Crown Estate Commission’s operations in Scotland are,

“still up for debate and consideration”.

In the context of the Scotland Bill I would like to ask the Minister what he believes the Secretary of State meant by this comment, and whether we might see any significant changes to the Bill in relation to the administration of the Crown Estate in Scotland before the Bill passes through the House. I know also that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the management of the Crown Estate and the role and working practice of the Crown Estate Commission in Scotland, and is expected to produce a report in mid-March.

I would have passed over that without comment, but for the comments reported by the Prime Minister in his recent visit to Scotland. I would be grateful if in this context the Minister could inform the House whether the Government are open at least to the possibility of implementing any of the recommendations that may arise from the report of that committee in this Bill.

The Scotland Bill Committee majority report sets out a detailed proposal for the devolution of wide competency over the Crown Estate. Again, in the context of the comments made in Scotland by the noble and learned Lord’s right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I would like to ask the Minister what discussions he and his colleagues in Government have had with Scottish Ministers since the publication of the Committee’s report, specifically in the issue of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Does he believe that any of the proposals put forward within the Scotland Bill Committee majority report meet the Secretary of State’s three tests—namely, of being based on sound evidence; capable of establishing broad consensus; and, whereas clearly benefiting Scotland, not detrimental to the interests of the UK as a whole? Those are the three tests that are apparently to be applied in the future to anything that is fit for further devolution.

I close by reminding the Minister that the Calman Commission was crystal clear in its opposition to the devolution of legislative competence for the Crown Estate in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will be able to give this House his assurances that the Government would not seek to go against this recommendation at this late stage in the legislative process.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

My Lords, I want to address Amendment 45, to which the noble Lord has just referred. This amendment inserts into Clause 22 a commitment to ensure that before a person finds himself or herself in the role of Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland, that person should be well qualified to do the job. The reason for this is that the resources and responsibilities of the Crown Estate Commission in Scotland are very great—its value is believed to be about £207 million—and I understand that last year, its revenue surplus was more than £9 million, to which the Treasury was entitled under the Civil List Act 1952. The actual Crown Estate is very considerable in Scotland, and has many responsibilities for farms, forests and estates, some of which have many sites of special scientific interest. But the responsibilities do not stop there.

The various Crown regalia include the areas on the coast between high and low tide, and it is no surprise that the Crown Estate has the rights to the foreshore and the seabed, as well as rights for minerals and for salmon fishing. The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, may be one of the few in this House who will be aware that in Orkney and Shetland, which he used to represent as an MP, the Crown Estate had absolutely no salmon rights at all. This is because in the past feudal law did not apply there, but udal law did. However, I must say that the Crown Estate has been extremely busy elsewhere, and is actively helping to develop ports and harbours which will benefit the tourist industry which is so important to Scotland. It has, in addition, many major investments in renewable energy, and may invest up to £20 million more during the next few years.

I have a very high regard for the Crown Estate commissioners and wonder whether it might be appropriate to recognise in this legislation their expertise in carrying out their important duties. At present, no detail is put forward in the Bill relating to the qualification of the person who might be appointed. This probing amendment would ensure that the holder of this office will remain highly qualified. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, for adding their support to this amendment.

It has not escaped us that the Secretary of State for Scotland recently made a significant statement about the Crown Estate. He established a coastal communities fund, a grant-giving body, which comes into effect from April. He is hoping for innovative bids. This is funded from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. The fund is UK-wide and relates to charities, businesses, social enterprise and local organisations. It allows for the support of economic development relating to the environment, education and health. I understand that £4 million will be allocated every year in Scotland. That is an indication of revenues raised in Scotland being put to very good use. Is it not the case that, with the Crown Estate Commission having such an important role, the person who looks after its interests should be properly qualified? If the Minister in his wisdom considers this amendment is not strictly necessary, I hope that he will give us all satisfactory reassurances.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. This may appear to be simply a matter of terminology, but a very important point is being made and it is not one just of consistency. The use of the phrase “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” in the Bill implies that there is a Scottish Crown. It is not a Scottish Crown estate; it is the Crown Estate in Scotland. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, makes that clear by suggesting that the commissioner should be referred to as the “Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.

That is deeply worrying and I do not know what is going on in the Scotland Office. This sloppy attention to language is creeping in. It has a sort of nationalist feel about it. I should check with the clerk that it is within the rules of order to refer to the Crown here, but it might be appropriate to point out that the English Crown was taken over by the Scottish Crown in 1603 in a reverse takeover.

On an issue related to this use of language, the First Minister the other day referred to how after independence there would still be a United Kingdom, which is absolute nonsense. The United Kingdom was created in 1707 when the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Does the noble Lord mean 1606, not 1707?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is nice to have something on which to disagree with the noble Lord. In 1603, we had the union of the Crowns. In 1707, we had the union of the Parliaments. The kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 because the United Kingdom was created. Therefore, it is illiterate as well as misleading to suggest that there would still be a United Kingdom. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would cease to exist. Whether or not the monarch went on to become the head of Scotland as head of state, the relationship would be similar to that enjoyed by Canada and Australia, but it would certainly not mean that the United Kingdom continues. For many people this may seem a kind of historical fact, but it is very important that we understand this, particularly when we have people in high office who seem determined to mislead people. I repeat that if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, there will be no United Kingdom. I do not know what a kingdom represented by England, Ireland and Wales would be called.

To return to the subject of the amendment, the use of the terminology “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” is wholly wrong, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which seems entirely sensible and very necessary.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, I am not certain that I fully agree with my noble friend.

[A noble Lord]

That is a first.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

Indeed. Let us try to identify what we are talking about. The Scottish Crown Estate is a pre-union institution. It was put together over many hundreds of years, developed particularly by King James IV, and one of the things that Scotland brought to the union. Therefore the reference to a Scottish Crown Estate commissioner sounds wholly correct. As regards the BBC—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I hate to mention this, but since then we have had the union of the Crowns and the union of the Parliaments. When the Scottish Crown Estate came into that union, it became part of the United Kingdom with a single monarch, and it is the Crown Estate in Scotland. I know that the noble Earl has very considerable historical roots, but we have to use the terminology that is appropriate for our time. Does he not agree?

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

No, I do not. No matter what the noble Lord says, the Scottish Crown Estate existed. I was going to make a point about the BBC. That is undoubtedly a British, 20th century creation, and therefore the idea of a BBC Trust member for Scotland is quite appropriate, but I do not think it is right to enter into the pretence that the Crown Estate is a British institution in Scotland.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, I wonder whether I can clarify the history on this. The union of the Crowns in 1603 formed the kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was formed in 1800 when a separate treaty with Ireland was also brought in. That gets the history absolutely correct.

[Lord Sanderson of Bowden]

My Lords, I wish to intervene in this debate particularly in relation to Amendment 45, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The qualifications of the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland are absolutely vital. I have a certain amount of knowledge of this, having worked with four of the most recent Crown Estate commissioners for Scotland. The most important thing to remember is that they have to have an extremely good knowledge of farming and to know the countryside inside out. I am not so keen on what my noble friend has put in about the “law of Scotland”, but I am sure that all good farmers know about that. The last three Scottish commissioners have all been practical farmers, people who know what is going on on the land. That, so far as I am concerned, is the most important part of what we are now discussing.

In the past few years, two of the recent members from Scotland have become first commissioners for the Crown Estate. However it is decided who should be the Scottish commissioner, one must bear in mind that if someone is very good, they will probably go right to the top. Although I am happy to see changes made to bring the Scottish Parliament more into the loop, if you like, we have had a good example recently. We do not need to look at the crystal, we have the book. We have these experienced men who have carried out their work on behalf of the Crown Estate extremely well. I for one would urge a little bit of caution as to how the person is chosen.

15:30

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

I do not for one moment want to contribute to the history lesson but can contribute on the basis that I served on the Crown Estate for eight years. I was actively involved when commissioners from England, Scotland or Wales were appointed to the board of the Crown Estate and can assure noble Lords that it takes the process of appointment very seriously indeed. Advice is taken on the process itself, but it is a deliberate policy of the Crown Estate to appoint someone of stature from Scotland, who is going to contribute on behalf of Scotland, has a good understanding of the Scottish rural and fisheries scenes, and as far as possible will build a good relationship with the Scottish Parliament. I am reasonably relaxed about the precise qualifications that the amendment suggests. It is quite possible to encourage a CPD programme, once the commissioner has been appointed, to ensure that the commissioner is fully equipped to represent all the interests in Scotland.

I should just add that the Crown Estate has been very active in investing in Scotland. The whole commission is very committed to the Scottish agenda and will no doubt continue to be committed to it. I will also correct an earlier comment—the Crown Estate certainly has fish-farming interests in both Orkney and Shetland. I have visited both of them on a number of occasions wearing my Crown Estate hat and tried to build reasonable relationships with the fishing communities there.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has talked about fishing in Scotland, and my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie talked about the Crown Estate Commission being set up before the Act of Union. There are some areas of the foreshore of Scotland and some fishing areas that do not belong to the Crown Estate because of historical precedent.

[Lord Lyell]

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his amendment and strongly support it. I had the honour to be the apprentice of the Earl of Mansfield, who was not just Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland but first commissioner for the United Kingdom, which shows that Scotland is often best throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that what my noble friend has said in the course of this discussion will be taken on board and that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept this very wise piece of advice.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been an interesting and useful curtain-raiser to our debates today and important points have been made. I do not intend to go down the history-lesson route but I will deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. It is an opportunity to explain why different terminology and a different process of appointment have been used. Quite clearly, there is genuine need for clarification of that matter and I hope I will be able to do that.

I will first take the issue of the qualification of the person who will be appointed as the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner. I thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his amendment. When I was Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, I had many dealings with the Crown Estate on issues of udal law, not least as to whether certain marina berths should have charges levied on them by the Crown Estate, or whether slipways passed over land that belonged to the Crown Estate or to the udal landowner. Some I won, some I did not. However, it indicates the breadth of the work the Crown Estate undertakes, including fish farming and marinas. Inshore and offshore renewable developments are, of course, becoming increasingly important within the area covered by the Crown Estate.

The position of the Crown Estate commissioner requires experience of operating at a senior board level as well as knowledge of one or more of the business sectors and activities in which the Crown Estate operates. These points were very forcibly made by my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden and by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who obviously speaks from his own experience of having been a Crown Estate commissioner.

The fact that my noble friend’s amendment relates specifically to land management and law would put an unnecessary restriction on who could be appointed. Of course, as we have already heard in this debate, there are areas of the Crown Estate’s business other than property or law with which it may well be an advantage for an appointee to have familiarity. The Bill provides for the person who should be appointed as a Scottish Crown Estate commissioner to have knowledge of Scotland and conditions there, but that person might in addition have a much broader range of experience and expertise that he or she can bring to the board. There might also already be commissioners on the board with expertise and experience in the areas specified by the amendment.

On the second leg of my noble friend’s amendment—the experience of the functions of the Crown Estate—I think it is fair to say, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will correct me if I am wrong, that few if any Crown Estate commissioners when appointed had direct experience of the functions of the Crown Estate under the 1961 Act. The right person for the job will need to have knowledge of Scotland and other relevant skills and experience. I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is important to achieve a balance of appropriate expertise on the Crown Estate board without placing undue restrictions or stipulations that could well rule out people who might otherwise be suitable candidates. I certainly think that the spirit of my noble friend’s amendment is in seeking to ensure that those bits of experience were brought to bear, but I hope he recognises that it will be impossible through the appointments process to have regard to other fields of experience as well if we put on restrictions.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister mentioned the appointments process, but is there a clear understanding or requirement that the process must be carried out according to the principles of public appointments throughout the United Kingdom? I know that there are growing fears in Scotland, because of the dominance of the First Minister and the way in which he seeks to impose his views on institutions and organisations, that it is vital that there is a properly constituted appointments process for all public appointments.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I certainly believe that there should be transparency in the appointments process. Of course, we will come on to the actual mode of appointment of the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner, which would involve consultation with Scottish Ministers. It is fair to explain why, in terms of nomenclature and mode of appointment, we have different arrangements for the Crown Estate commissioner as opposed to BBC Trust members, for example.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I should say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I think he was asking for rather more than that. I think he was asking for an assurance that the appointment would be subject to the normal Nolan rules and procedures, not just transparency.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I give way to the noble Lord, who may be able to shed light on this.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

As the first Crown Estate commissioner who will be appointed under Nolan rules, I can say that those rules apply absolutely to the appointments to the Crown Estate. It is a very open and transparent process and, in Scotland, an agency would be used and it would be publicly advertised to try to attract the best people to that post. If there are those who are considered appropriate, the agency would try to approach and encourage those with suitable skills to apply for the position.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. Indeed, the commissioners are appointed under the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments code. I hope that that gives the assurance sought by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth—but maybe not.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Can we have assurances that, after the Bill is enacted, they will continue to be appointed under the Nolan code? A lot of us fear—and this applies to the Crown Estate commissioner and even more to the BBC Trust representative—that if there is any undue political interference in that appointment, a lot of people in Scotland would have grave concern.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there is no intention to change the manner of appointments under the Office of Public Appointments code. However, I will come on to talk about the consultation process that is due to take place, which by its very nature, as it is between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Ministers, will have a political dimension to it. One of the purposes of appointments under the Office of Public Appointments code is to ensure that there is indeed transparency and open competition and to achieve, as well, a balance of skills and backgrounds and avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

The amendment would change “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” to,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.

Perhaps I may explain to my noble friend that “Scottish” is not intended to qualify “Crown”, or indeed to qualify the two words “Crown Estate”, but to qualify the three words “Crown Estate Commissioner”. There are Crown Estate commissioners and therefore “Scottish” is the adjective to be applied to them. Unless we put commas in, I am not quite sure how we could make it clearer than that.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

But the problem about “Scottish” being used as an adjective to qualify three words, or two words, is that it is not at all clear. It is extremely ambiguous as to whether the individual has to be Scottish and, if so, what definition is being applied. I think, for example, of the Duke of Atholl, who might be said to be Scottish but who spends practically no time in Scotland. Admittedly, his knowledge of Scotland may be quite considerable, but what does Scottish mean? I remember having a discussion about this with the Lord Lyon when I was gazetted. He claimed that I was Scottish because I had a Scottish name. Frankly, this is not sufficiently clear and the proposed amendment is much clearer.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the position is that it must be a person who knows about conditions in Scotland as they relate to the functions of the commissioners but it does not say that the person has to be of Scottish ancestry or indeed has to have a Scottish name. As we have already discussed and debated, they may have a number of other qualities and it should not be restricted simply to a knowledge of land management or the law. If we were to start to pin it down more than that, we would start to get into difficulties as we might be excluding people who have much more to offer and who have a lot of potential. Clearly, my noble friend is not satisfied, but if he has a better wording—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am a seeker after truth here, but the intervention of my noble friend illustrates the absurdity of the wording. It never occurred to me that “Scottish” would apply to the commissioner. What is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which is,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

gives absolute clarity that this is the person who will be responsible for Scotland in the Crown Estate. My concern related to the fact that it was suggesting that it was the Scottish Crown Estate whereas my noble friend thinks it might be the Scottish commissioner. Therefore, we have in this debate illustrated why the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is absolutely right. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but the problem with,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

is that it would suggest that the Crown Estate commissioner’s role was restricted to Scotland. That is not the case. The person is expected to play a part in the board as a whole and the person's responsibility should not be physically restricted to Scotland. That is why we believe that to use the,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

would restrict the role which that person could play on the board. That would be a very unfortunate thing to do. As we already heard, some of the previous Crown Estate commissioners who had a Scottish remit have gone on to be the first Crown Estate commissioner. It would be very disappointing indeed if we were to use a terminology that suggested that this person could not actually contribute to the work of the board when it related to matters outwith Scotland—or furth of Scotland, if I can use that expression.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If my noble and learned friend will allow me, if that argument stands then how have we managed to get away with the present incumbent being called the Scottish commissioner?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that we are getting away with it. I am actually trying to propose that it is the commissioner who will have knowledge about conditions in Scotland. There is a distinction, if one chooses to reflect for a moment—

15:45

[Lord Maxton]

If you follow the logic of the argument that the noble and learned Lord has just put, it implies that the representative for Scotland on the board of the BBC could contribute only if the discussion was about Scotland. That is nonsense and we all know it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I shall explain. The BBC Trust is constituted in a very different way and using the expression “the BBC trustee for Scotland” makes sense in that context. The amendment would not affect the appointments process—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland for giving way. When I came into the Chamber of your Lordships’ House today, the Advocate-General for Scotland was answering a Question about Wales.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because I have been asked to answer to your Lordships' House on matters relating to the Wales Office, as indeed I am asked to answer on matters relating to the Scotland Office, although I am not a Scotland Office Minister, and on matters relating to the Attorney-General’s Office as well. It would be unfortunate if it were suggested that the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland was only for Scotland and did not have responsibilities. To answer the noble Lord’s point, I do not exercise any functions as Advocate-General for England because it does not have an Advocate-General.

[Lord Sewel]

Would a way out be to change it to the “Crown Estate Commissioner from Scotland”?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, the Duke of Atholl may not actually have come from Scotland but may have had a lot to contribute. If someone has a bright idea that squares all these circles, I would be interested to hear from them.

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, would perhaps “Crown Estate Commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland” solve all the problems?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lady’s suggestion certainly sounds much more promising. It could mean that we were not putting an artificial restriction on the role that that person could play on the board as a whole. As other noble Lords have indicated in this debate, the contribution made by the Crown Estate commissioner who currently has responsibilities of a Scottish nature has been very important to the overall working of the board. If we were to limit it by territory, there are parts of the United Kingdom where the Crown Estate does not necessarily have any activity and therefore it would become very unfortunate. I shall reflect on what the noble Lady has said. It was a helpful suggestion that reflects the fact that the person ought to have a knowledge of Scotland and be able to make a contribution on it, but they should also have a broader expertise that they can bring to the work of the board. That is what we are seeking to achieve.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend so frequently, but his argument needs a bit of shoring up. As I understand it, the argument is that if the Crown Estate commissioner were the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland, he would not be able to participate on the board because he would appear to be concerned solely with Scottish interests. Can I take it, then, that the Government are planning to change the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland? On my noble and learned friend’s argument, that would imply that the Secretary of State for Scotland could not participate in Cabinet on matters that were across the range. That is an absurd argument, and my noble and learned friend might at least indicate that he will go away and think about it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the shoring up. The very fact that we have had this debate on the wording suggests that if we had proposed something else, I can imagine that he would have been one of those saying, “Of course, you mean that this person can make a contribution only in respect of Scotland and that is not acceptable as that person needs to have a wider remit”. As I indicated to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, her suggestion is worthy of further consideration and I shall consider it. If it answers the key point, which is that the person should have knowledge of Scotland and should not be restricted in terms of their qualifications—the broad totality of what is required for the board should be a factor in that person’s appointment, but the person might also have a special responsibility for Scotland or particular interests there—then that might well address the need without being unduly restrictive or indeed giving a misleading description of what that person’s role would be. I thank the noble Lady for that suggestion, to which I will most certainly give consideration.

Because of that wider responsibility, it is important that the appointment of all commissioners should be made by the sponsoring Minister, in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I reassure noble Lords that he will make a recommendation for the appointment of this particular commissioner only after consulting Scottish Ministers and listening carefully to what they say. That appropriately balances the need for both a Scottish interest and a UK-wide perspective on the appointment process.

There is particular concern over why there has been a different process for that appointment from that for the Scottish member of the BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has a different constitution from the Crown Estate. Under its charter, the BBC has obligations to broadcast to all parts of the United Kingdom and to have a member of its trust for each of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. That is very distinct from the position of the Crown Estate, which has no such requirements. Indeed, as I indicated a moment ago, it does not even have to have a presence in any particular part of the United Kingdom.

The appointment of all Crown Estate commissioners is by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Chancellor, reflecting the UK-wide responsibility of every commissioner. The UK Government will still need to discuss the Scottish appointments of both organisations with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the best people to represent Scottish interests are appointed.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about the status of the Crown Estate in the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s intention to consider the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee alongside the request that was made by the Scottish Government for further powers in relation to the Crown Estate. The Government believe that the Crown Estate operating on a UK-wide basis offers the best value across the whole of the United Kingdom, but we recognise the role that the Crown Estate plays in local communities and wish to work with it to ensure that it operates most effectively with them.

Particular to that is the coastal communities fund, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced the establishment of that fund, which will be financed by the Government through the allocation of funding equivalent to 50 per cent of the revenue from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. It is linked to revenue that is raised by the Crown Estate’s marine activities each year and the funding will be available on a bid basis. The Government will welcome bids from charities, businesses, social enterprises and local organisations. In that way, we can build a stronger link between the activities of the Crown Estate, particularly in coastal communities, including those that are affected by such activities. It is a very positive step, which recognises the role of the Crown Estate.

I have indicated that I will certainly give further consideration to nomenclature and thank the noble Lady for her helpful suggestion. However, I have also indicated that there is a distinction between the constitution of the Crown Estate on the one hand and that of the BBC Trust on another. The latter has a specific requirement to serve specific parts of the United Kingdom, which is why not only the nomenclature but the mode of appointment is different. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what proved to be a much more interesting debate than I expected. I made clear in my introductory remarks that these are probing amendments, which implied that I had no intention of dividing the House. Having listened to the argument, I am severely tempted to do so because it may turn out to be the high point of my career in the House of Lords but I will resist the temptation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who immediately got the point that underpinned the argument about nomenclature. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I always thought that the adjective qualified the “Crown Estate” commissioner, rather than “Crown”, which is exactly what led to the confusion that has been apparent in the debate. I have to say that I am far from totally persuaded that,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

bears the narrow interpretation or function that the noble and learned Lord has attributed to it. Try as I might to apply that argument consistently to many other titles, at least one of which I have held as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, it did not seem to me to stand the test of that destructive analysis.

However, I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord has, on behalf of the Government, indicated that he is prepared to take away the issue of nomenclature and think about it. There needs to be clarity of language in the politics of Scotland. We may sometimes misinterpret and play with words for the purposes of debate but people in Scotland use these words very carefully. I have learnt in my political career that where there are strong divisions of opinion—for example, in Northern Ireland—vocabulary and phraseology matter to people and are used in particular ways. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to take this issue away.

I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord’s explanation of the reason for the different phraseology as regards the process of identification, selection and appointment. I was not aware of that difference and had not uncovered it in my researches. I am grateful to all noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for tabling an amendment, the style of which may have been influenced by one of my colleagues. That was helpful as it gave the noble and learned Lord the opportunity to put on the record information about the appointments process which will benefit that process and the openness of government. This has been a worthwhile debate. As usual with this Bill, issues which are apparently comparatively straightforward turn out to be interesting and educational. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 44B withdrawn.

Amendment 45

Tabled by

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

45: Clause 22, page 15, line 9, leave out from “who” to end of line 11 and insert—
“(a) is qualified in land management or the law of Scotland; and(b) has experience of the functions of the Commissioners.”

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

In view of the reassurances given by my noble and learned friend, I shall not move the amendment.

Amendment 45 not moved.

Amendments 45A and 45B not moved.

Clause 22 agreed.

Clause 23 : Misuse of drugs

Amendment 46

Moved by

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

46: Clause 23, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations applying in Scotland may only be made if the Secretary of State has consulted with such persons as he or she considers appropriate.”

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment briefly as it is a probing amendment. It would ensure that the Secretary of State must consult on regulations made under Section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The reason for this is that the drugs concerned are controlled drugs and licensing provision should have proper consultations. If the amendment is accepted in principle, it would mean that the regulation-making power would be subject to the principles of openness and transparency. Consultations in this case are important in view of the importance of the subject and the new breakthroughs in research that are occurring all the time. Further, circumstances can differ widely from one area to another and consultations would mean that the Government would pick up whatever special circumstances existed in different areas.

I hope the Minister in his wisdom will feel able to look favourably on this matter and that he will stress the importance of good practice and best practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I hope my noble and learned friend will agree that it would always be appropriate in these circumstances to consult NICE.

15:59

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I speak only because of my support for a previous amendment that was withdrawn, and I shall explain that position. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, explained, the effect of the amendment is to impose upon the Home Secretary an obligation to consult,

“with such persons as he or she considers appropriate”—

I suppose in this case it is “she”—when making regulations under Section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act but, peculiarly, only when such regulations apply to Scotland.

At first, I was attracted to the idea of a statutory requirement to consult. I was so attracted that I and my noble and learned friend sought to move a complementary amendment imposing a similar obligation on Scottish Ministers in the exercise of the new powers relating to licensing that they will enjoy when the Bill in enacted. However, after more detailed research, I have come to the conclusion that the imposition of such an obligation is not necessary in either case, which is why I have withdrawn from the Marshalled List the amendment that stood in my name and that of my noble friends.

I will not detain the House further, but the reason for that is because my research has revealed an extensive commitment to consultation by the UK and Scottish Governments and the Scottish Parliament that it would appear has been rigorously observed over a long period. As noble Lords would probably agree, whether voluntarily or by practice that does not require regulation or legislation, good practice can be developed and it is best left that way. That is my view but I shall leave the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to explain the detail.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Clause 23 gives Scottish Ministers the power to license Scottish doctors to prescribe three controlled drugs—cocaine, diamorphine and dipipanone—for the treatment of addiction. The Calman commission recommended that responsibility for the licensing of controlled substances used in the treatment of addiction should be devolved to Scottish Ministers as part of their responsibility for health and well-being. The UK Government consider that Scottish Ministers are best placed to consider the particular circumstances in Scotland when deciding which doctors should have the authority to prescribe or administer the three controlled drugs used in the treatment of addiction. That relatively narrow devolution is set out in Clause 23.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his interest in this clause. As I have indicated, the Government certainly want to ensure that the Scottish Government have the necessary powers and abilities to tackle drug misuse effectively. That is why we have introduced Clause 23. However, it is perhaps important to indicate that while Scottish Ministers can consider the particular circumstances in Scotland when deciding which doctors based in Scotland should assume the responsibility to prescribe or administer specific drugs, they do so pursuant to regulations made under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary.

My noble friend’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate persons before such regulations were made. The power to make regulations and the responsibility for the form of those regulations is reserved to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is already required by statute to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before making regulations made under the 1971 Act. As a matter of good practice, the Secretary of State will consult key partners, and often the public, before implementing changes to regulations made under the 1971 Act. The Home Office has recently completed a three-month public consultation on proposed changes to, and the consolidation of, the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. I am afraid that I cannot tell my noble friend Lord Maclennan whether NICE was consulted but, as I can ascertain, that would seem to be one of the bodies that might have been consulted. In the context of the consultation, officials from the department met their counterparts from the Scottish Government to discuss the proposals.

The Bill is devolving the licensing function to Scottish Ministers, and they will consult whoever they think appropriate while exercising that function to license doctors in Scotland. The making of the regulations remains reserved to the United Kingdom and the Home Secretary and I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. I am sure that this point will have been noted by others, not just in the UK Government but by Ministers in the Scottish Government.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness very much for his reassurances and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

Amendment 46A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24: Power to prescribe drink-driving limits

Amendment 47

Moved by

[The Duke of Montrose]

47: Clause 24, page 17, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) Section 89 of the Road Transport Act 1988 (tests of competence to drive) is amended as follows.
( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that tests under this section reflect the content of regulations relating to drink driving limits made by Scottish Ministers under section 9(3) or 11(2).””

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 47, I shall speak also to Amendment 50 in this group. We are dealing here with two further areas in which the Calman commission has taken up the wishes of the Scottish Executive to exercise more power: the setting of drink-driving limits and the setting of speed limits. Amendment 47 amends the Road Transport Act 1988 and would provide for regulations made by Scottish Ministers on drink-driving limits to be referred to in the regulations made by the Secretary of State with regard to the driving test—which, presumably, should still be the same across the United Kingdom. The amendment was suggested by the Scottish Law Society, among others, and is more or less a tidying-up exercise.

I notice that some of the other amendments have been tabled by noble and learned Lords opposite, and I feel slightly in awe of such learned names as appear attached to them. My amendments are directed solely at the Road Transport Act. It is interesting that none of those noble and learned Lords has objected to the devolution of powers on drink-driving, but some of the amendments in the group concern the devolution of speeding. It will be interesting to see what is brought up on that front. Of course, any variation will immediately bring complications for both learner drivers and visitors. The reason for my amendment is that any regulations made by Scottish Ministers with regard to drink-driving limits should be made known to any person submitting himself to a test of competence to drive.

Amendment 50 would provide that any regulations made by Scottish Ministers with regard to traffic regulation on special roads, general provisions as to traffic signs and temporary speed limits would appear in the driving test in a similar way to the issues I raised under my previous amendment.

Section 38(2) of the Road Traffic Act, which lays down the provisions affecting the Highway Code, gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers on his own to carry out the changes proposed in the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. I should not have thought that all those details about the Highway Code need to be in the Bill. I have received a briefing that may have emanated from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench which seems rather to agree with that; he may have a similar view, and I look forward to hearing what that is. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I think it is in order for me to speak to Amendment 48, which is in this group, at this stage.

First, I must comment on the amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. There is much talk in Scotland about so-called devo-max, which those talking about it find it almost impossible to define. This seems to me to be pretty close to devo-max. I cannot for the life of me see why we need to have different speed limits or different rules relating to drink-driving between Scotland and England. That will create particular problems for people who live on the border and are driving on roads which do not follow the geographical border. This seems to me to be absolutely devo-max and devo-plus. These proposals have come about because all the parties got together in the Calman commission to try to prevent the nationalists winning a majority in the Scottish elections and thought about everything but the kitchen sink that they could throw into the Bill—which, as usual with legislation these days, was not given great scrutiny in the House of Commons. Here we are in the Lords, looking at this stuff now. The Highway Code and the rules for driving motor cars are complicated enough without there being different rules for different parts of the United Kingdom, which is just plain silly. However, it is in the Bill and the Government appear to be committed to it, so we have to deal with it as it is.

Having said that, I am extremely grateful that the Calman commission, on which a number of my noble friends served, did not in its enthusiasm decide that it should give the Scottish Parliament the right to decide which side of the road we should drive on—I do not know whether it was suggested; perhaps my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas might be able to advise me on that. I make that point not just flippantly, because it is evident that the Bill as drafted gives the Scottish Parliament the power to decide the speed limit for motor cars but not that for HGV lorries. Had it been able to decide which side of the road to drive on, it could have been disastrous, because we would have had cars driving on one side and HGV lorries on the other, and we would have had a head-on collision.

I cannot for the life of me imagine why a Bill, which has been before Parliament now for nearly two years, has been through all its stages and been discussed by the Scottish Parliament, contains an anomaly whereby it makes provision for setting the speed limits for cars but not for HGVs. To give credit where credit is due, the parliamentary committee which looked at the Bill in the Scottish Parliament identified that anomaly. It is absurd that, at a time of great austerity and when local government has had its source of revenue through council tax frozen, we have a proposal that all road signs and speed limits should be able to be changed in Scotland but only in so far as they relate to motor cars but not HGVs.

I received a briefing for this Bill from the Whips’ Office whose contents I suppose I am not allowed to reveal because they are secret. It indicated that if I were to press the amendment my colleagues should resist it because, if we included HGVs as well as motor cars in the Bill, it would result in the road signs having to be changed. We would be in the absurd position where we would have to have road signs that related to the UK regulations for HGVs and road signs which were changed for motor cars, so we would have two sets of road signs. This is good news if you make road signs, but very bad news for the taxpayer.

My guess is that what has happened here is a typical intergovernmental dispute. I suspect that the Department for Transport is digging in its heels to maintain control over HGVs and the Scotland Office is saying, “Well, we’ve made this promise in Calman, so we’ll just leave it in the Bill and hope no one notices”. Amendment 48 establishes a principle which I am sure my noble and learned friend can happily accept because it certainly covers common sense, and I have pleasure in proposing it.

[The Duke of Montrose]

I do not disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but is it not true that the speed limit for HGVs is already low enough for the Scottish Executive not to wish to interfere with it? Is not their argument with private vehicles, which have a very much higher speed limit at the moment?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not have a clue, but whatever they think, Governments, as I well know, come and go, as do Ministers and Administrations. We are talking about the making of the law here and there should be consistency. It seems to me that when you are driving from London to Glasgow, the amount you are allowed to drink, what you are allowed to do in terms of the speed limit in a built-up area and what you are allowed to do on motorways and dual carriageways should be the same as they were when I learnt the Highway Code. The Highway Code should be clear to everybody and mucking about with it in this way is just plain daft. None the less, that is what we are doing. However, if you are going to give the Scottish Parliament the power to decide on a different speed limit, it seems a bit odd that it should apply not just to motorcars but to all classes of vehicles. That is a very simple point.

16:15

With regard to my second amendment, Amendment 49, and taking the point of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, if the speed limit is set at 10 miles per hour in a built-up area and I get done for speeding because I was doing 13 miles per hour, should I receive the same kind of penalty as I would if I were driving at 40 miles per hour with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour? In the same way, if the amount you are allowed to drink is reduced to zero and you have half a glass of wine and fail the breath test, should that carry the same penalty as applies in England? That is what the Bill provides. It is a nonsense.

[Lord Maxton]

The noble Lord has made a very interesting point. Of course, if his second point about drink-driving is true, the penalty if you are done for drink-driving having had half a glass of wine is losing your licence. Therefore, if you have the half glass of wine in Scotland and your licence is taken off you in Scotland, does that mean that you cannot drive at all in England?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I guess it does, and that is another absurdity but this is what happens when, for political reasons, politicians start mucking around with the powers that relate to Parliaments. The end result is confusion where there should be clarity, and clarity is very important in this area. If there is a case for reducing the speed limit—I think that there is a case for doing so in built-up areas and for increasing it on motorways—it should be done in the United Kingdom as a whole. In all the time that I served as a Scottish Member of Parliament in the other place, nobody ever came to me and argued the case for having a different speed limit in Scotland. People would argue about the regulations that related to where 30 mph speed limits would be but there was no suggestion that there should be differences.

Because I am very constructive when it comes to the Scotland Bill, as my noble and learned friend knows, I am very happy to accept that a decision has been taken on this. However, if you are going to make changes to the law and to the ability to change the law in respect of speeding, drink-driving and so on, the penalties should match the crime, and we are not providing for the Scottish Parliament to be able to produce the whole package. In short, this is a bit of a muddle. I look forward to my noble and learned friend’s answer and to hearing a commitment that he will sort out the muddle in the way that this House is very good at doing.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, my name is added to Amendments 47 and 50. However, I should like to focus my thoughts in general on all the amendments in this group, which specifically, following my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, covers the devolvement of drink-driving test thresholds to Scottish Ministers and the decision on speed limits north of the border.

Within the Bill I am broadly supportive of passing decision-making to Scottish Ministers on major issues such as raising taxes. However—and this is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean —my initial reaction to the proposals for potentially different speed limits and alternative breath-test thresholds on either side of the Scottish border was that they were petty, insignificant and unnecessary. Above all, I felt that any such change north of the border must surely be change for change’s sake, with the Scots just wishing to be different and having an implicit mistrust of the English authorities to set correct limits for both.

I regard us as being one nation for these purposes. In case we had not noticed, there is a seamless border between Scotland and England, so any change would necessarily mean increased bureaucracy, together with, as has already been mentioned, changes in the Highway Code, and, in particular, signpost changes everywhere along the border from Gretna to Coldstream and beyond, leading to increased costs. Above all, it would be confusing for the motorist. It has already been pointed out that if, for example, someone driving north is stopped south of Carlisle and breathalysed, and is then let off because of the limit in England, and he then unfortunately gets caught again when he is stopped at Beattock Summit, he could be over the limit there—assuming there is a lower breath test limit north of the border. The moral of the story, of course, is that one should not drink and drive; but the fact of the matter is that we should keep it simple for motorists and it is a very confusing issue.

However, that was my initial reaction and I have come round to thinking more positively about the potential differences north and south of the border. In so doing, I decided to look at the Irish experience—that is, the differences in road laws north and south of the border. Again, it is a seamless border. There are, first of all, broadly similar speed limits, the major difference being that there are kilometres in the south and miles in the north. The implications for that are that drivers have actually got used to the changes and highway codes have been changed without too much bother. The main thing is that rental companies have had to be aware of the changes and have had to, over time, issue new guidelines. Some of their cars have dual kilometres/miles per hour on their speedometers.

When it comes to the breathalyser tests, there are differences between the Republic and Northern Ireland. At present, Northern Ireland is the same as the rest of the UK, which has a limit of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood: beyond that, you get caught. In October 2011, the Republic’s threshold was lowered to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. In Northern Ireland, there is now talk of changing to the Republic’s levels. It is no bad thing, therefore, if Scotland also goes down this route, given devolved powers.

Why is this? It is because in Scotland, the road casualty rates, some of which inevitably result from drink-driving, are 34 per cent higher per head of population—both for fatalities and for serious injuries. We should bear this in mind. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents fully supports a reduction in breath test limits. It says this is a chance for greater financial benefits for the nation as well as benefits in health and well-being.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, but is he not making an argument for the whole of the United Kingdom? Is not the difference in statistics between Scotland and England, which he has highlighted, an argument about enforcement rather than the level of the limit?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I take my noble friend’s point, which is a good one that should be discussed. It brings up the point about discussions going on north and south of the border concerning that issue. One point to make is that a recent survey highlighted the fact that 79 per cent of Scots were in favour of lowering the limit.

Finally, as has been mentioned, if Scottish Ministers did decide to change either speed limits or breath test levels north of the border, there need to be certain safeguards in place. For example, if an English driver commits a serious offence in Scotland, it is imperative that a disqualification remains in place when he returns home. There is form on this. In 1998, for example, there was an agreement of co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and 13 member states of the European Union over disqualification. I understand that there is also an agreement between Northern Ireland and Great Britain over such recognition. I think, on balance, that devolution of powers to Scottish Ministers on road safety matters is positive only if—as seems possible—there are safer roads.

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, I just want to raise one little matter about the drafting of Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Surely it would be better if the provisions to set penalties for drink-driving and for random breath-testing were put in Clause 24, which concerns drink-driving, rather than in Clause 25, which concerns speeding.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, where I disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth is in our attitude to devolution as a whole. I would sign up for what is called “devo-plus”. I define that as meaning the greatest amount of devolution consistent with common sense. When we come to debate financial issues I will say more about that, in the light of Prime Minister Cameron's recent utterances in Scotland. Given that we are likely to come back to the issue in future legislation, if we take a definition of “consistent with common sense”, I say with great respect to my colleagues who served on the Calman commission that I am not certain that different categories of air guns, different drink-driving limits or different speed limits are consistent with common sense, and we would do better to remove them altogether.

My noble friend referred to those who live on the border. When I was first elected to the Commons, my constituency boundary was the English/Scottish border. My nearest railway station is across the border. When I come to your Lordships' House by train, which I do from time to time, I have to travel across the border. Let us suppose, although it is unlikely, that the Scottish Government decided to keep the drink-driving limit higher than it is in England, and let us suppose that I repaired to that excellent institution, the Cross Keys Inn in Ettrickbridge, before setting out on my journey. I could then find myself within the law for the first part of my journey and then fall foul of the law for the second part. A much more likely scenario would be that I met my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the train going north and we had a meal and a convivial glass of wine. I could then be perfectly legal on leaving the station and suddenly illegal as I neared my home. This is not consistent with common sense. When we come to a future Scotland Bill, I hope that we might drop these issues and deal with more substantial devolution questions that are of greater interest to the Scottish people.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, as I listened to the debate I wondered whether my noble friends had driven through Europe. The exact problems they explained to the House are those that one gets in Europe. Last week I drove through three countries in about an hour and a half. In each of them there was a different speed limit. This was well signposted at the side of the road and I did not cause immense problems.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is there not a proposal for harmonisation of speed limits and other matters in the European Union for precisely the reasons that the amendment ought to be supported? It goes with the European drift, which I thought my noble friend was very keen on.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, one of the countries was not in the EU.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

My Lords, three amendments in this group—Amendment 47A, 47B and 50A—are in my name and those of my noble friends. I do not intend to speak to, or in due course move, Amendment 47B. Before I get to the meat of the amendments, perhaps I could make a general point about the Bill and the proposals from the Calman commission. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said—I hope that I do not misquote him—that this was dreamed up by a group of politicians who got together to try to prevent an SNP victory. Perhaps I was slightly naive at the time, but I did not think that that was my task as a member of the Calman commission. I am looking at two of my fellow commissioners across the Chamber and I do not think that it was in their remit, either.

In relation to road traffic, we received and assessed evidence. I have just had a quick look at it. Much of it was received from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. It is true that we commented that it was unfortunate that we did not receive evidence from major motoring organisations representing a Great Britain-wide viewpoint. We took that into account when we reached the view that we did in relation to both drink-driving and speed limits.

16:30

At the moment, enforcement of the drink-driving limit is effectively devolved. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made an important point in relation to enforcement, when he intervened during the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. Of course, as Lord Advocate I was very close to enforcement issues. I personally did not consider that there was any weakness in the enforcement regime, at either police or prosecution level. That is not to say that we were ever complacent about it, and there were consistent attempts to ensure that enforcement was rigorous—and yet we still see a higher fatality rate in Scotland.

We received evidence from ACPOS, which told us that there was,

“a need for a Scotland-only solution to drink driving but that this need not necessarily mean devolution of powers”,

and it was certainly keen on a “Scotland-only solution”. When we came to view the issue, we were of course aware that the Scottish Parliament had responsibility for it in relation to criminal law.

In relation to speed limits, there is already a considerable degree of flexibility for local variation in Scotland, with local authorities having powers to set their own limits. Of course, I appreciate—and the noble Lord will no doubt say—that this does not affect the national speed limits on country roads and so on. That is undoubtedly true. In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about whether it is right to have differences and that people who live in border areas might find it particularly difficult, judgments have to be made as to where the balance lies and people can disagree over those judgments.

I can quite understand that from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who has represented a border constituency and still lives in that area and is aware of these issues, that would be a much more important factor than for someone who lives at the other end of the country such as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is not in his place any more, made an important point about the fact that people have experience of driving through different countries on the continent, and the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, in relation to Ireland was also very significant.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I cannot think of an example—perhaps my noble friend Lord Steel could help me—but there are roads in the Borders which go in and out of Scotland and England as you drive along them. If there were differences in the drink-driving limits or the speed limits, would we have signs every 100 yards saying “Now it is 30” or “Now it is 20”, or would we have policemen sitting in a lay-by in England or Scotland, depending on which had the higher limit, and would we have great arguments in the courts as to which part of the road you were on?

My noble friend Lord Caithness, who has now left, talked about driving across Europe. We are not talking about driving across Europe; we are talking about country roads in the Borders. What is the utility that is being achieved here? The arguments that the noble Lord is making, with which I have some sympathy, are arguments about what the limits and rules should be; they are not actually arguments for it being different in different parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

I am not familiar enough with the borders to say to what extent roads come in and out of Scotland and England. The picture the noble Lord seems to be painting is that every 100 yards it meanders over the border. Of course, I am aware that a river forms at least part of the border. I actually thought that there were more significant difficulties with Northern Ireland and the Republic. I remember reading stories about people having part of their house in the Republic and the other part in Northern Ireland. Of course, you would not drive through a house. Nevertheless, roads probably do meander more over there than they do between Scotland and England. I take the noble Lord’s point; clearly there may be times when there are issues with that. I should think that there will be a common-sense approach between police forces on both sides of the border, as there already is in relation to jurisdictional difficulties, wherever they might arise.

[Lord Sanderson of Bowden]

I may be able to help the noble and learned Lord. The road that I use to go to Berwick—and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does the same—goes through a small village in Scotland, in which the speed limit is 40 mph. When you go into England, it is 30 mph. I happened to get caught going at 35 mph in the village of Wark, so there are differences at the moment on these roads.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

I am obliged to the noble Lord for that information.

A number of issues are raised by these amendments as a whole. The first is one of road safety. That has already been raised in the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. It was also raised in the amendments that we have put down. There are two particular issues here. One relates to the Highway Code, the other to the driving test.

Paragraph 95 of the Highway Code says:

“You MUST NOT drive with a breath alcohol level higher than 35 microgrammes/100 millilitres of breath or a blood alcohol level of more than 80 milligrammes/100 millilitres of blood”.

It then tells you why you should not do that; alcohol will give,

“a false sense of confidence … reduce co-ordination and slow down reactions … affect judgement of speed, distance and risk”.

Paragraph 124 and the accompanying table in the Highway Code reflect the speed limits, and say:

“You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle”.

It is of course clear that if Scottish Ministers exercise their powers under the Bill, and vary the limits in either case, that will have a knock-on consequence for the Highway Code and for the driving test. It is important to ensure that people are sufficiently aware of the differences where they exist. It is important that we do not have some kind of Scottish edition of the Highway Code that reflects only the Scottish position but have instead a code that is still a United Kingdom code but that reflects differences in these limits where they exist. On the speed limit, for example, the accompanying table could be quite simply amended to show these differences where they exist.

The Calman commission obviously missed a trick when we decided not to give the power to the Scottish Parliament to change the side on which the traffic moves. Driving on the left seemed to us to remain important.

The other issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was HGVs. The Calman commission did not distinguish between different types of motor vehicles. I am unclear why that distinction is there and why it remains, and I certainly look forward to a good explanation, shall we say, from the noble Lord, of why that should be. It really does not make sense to have that kind of distinction. He may say that long-distance truck drivers are used to driving over the border, but that raises the question as to why we are devolving it at all. In fact, these very people are more likely to be aware of the differences where they exist. Therefore, if he were to advance that argument, it would not be an argument that I would accept.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also raised an important issue about penalties. The Calman commission simply looked at the offences and the limits on the blood alcohol and breath alcohol levels and the speed limit. I do not think that we mentioned penalties. However, there is an important point here. A reduction in the limit is more important when one talks about the alcohol limit. For example, there has been talk of a reduction to zero. If that happens, the penalty would be an automatic 12-month ban. Even someone with a minute level of alcohol would be subject to that automatic 12-month ban unless the Scottish Parliament had the power to vary not just the alcohol level but the penalty.

While this Bill devolves responsibility to the Scottish Ministers to set the blood alcohol level, that devolution might be constrained. Ministers might take the view that, while they are in favour of a reduction in the blood alcohol level, the penalties that would necessarily be imposed because they did not have the power to vary the penalty would mean that the penalty would be disproportionate.

Perhaps there is an issue about the ability to amend primary legislation, but this is a very real issue that the Minister has to take away and look at seriously. Otherwise, we would not properly devolve this matter at all and would be giving only one part of a solution to the Scottish Ministers. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that issue as well as on HGVs, and I look forward to hearing from him.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would explain to me what considerations he has in mind that justify the ability to set different blood alcohol levels north and south of the border. It seems to me that the people who live north and south of the border do not have greater sensitivities to these things. The purpose of the law is not to deal with the problem after the event but to prevent people driving with too much alcohol. The commonality of the law north and south of the border makes it clear to drivers what is acceptable. I cannot think that before they set off to cross the border, people are going to check precisely what milligram limits are acceptable on one side or the other. If there is any doubt about the limits of susceptibility, that ought to be discussed by doctors across the United Kingdom before the law is changed.

16:45

[Lord Lyell]

My Lords—

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

Perhaps I could first respond to the noble Lord’s intervention. I have to say with the greatest respect that I do not accept the proposition he is putting. In the first place, the number of cross-border journeys that are taken in relation to the entire number of journeys made in the UK is minuscule. Typically, people are caught drink driving over very short distances because they are driving home either from the pub or after having gone out for a meal. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is not in his place, but let us say he goes from Ettrick over the border to catch his train, having enjoyed a good meal. Before he catches his train, he gets caught because over the border there is a different limit.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give way?

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

I will in a moment. The answer is that you should know what the limit is before you set out on your journey, and that should be the case for everyone.

[Lord Maxton]

There is another problem, if we take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. If the noble Lord has a decent meal in the evening with a few drinks, and gets up the following morning and drives his car, he may then be stopped because increasingly, particularly in holiday periods, the police are stopping drivers early in the morning and breathalysing them. Of course, people are not aware of the dispersal rate of alcohol in their bodies.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

The Highway Code is quite explicit: you should be aware of the amount you have drunk the night before. I had people around for a meal recently. They were not driving, but when I offered them another drink, they said that they could not take it because they would be driving the following morning. That is sufficient for me. With respect, I get the impression that people are more and more aware of both the drink-driving limits nationally and the necessity of ensuring that they do not drink in the evening if they are going to be driving the next day.

[Lord Lyell]

The noble and learned Lord is making one point. We have heard a great deal about the limits and the penalties. My noble friend Lord Caithness was driving in Europe and went through three countries. In many countries across the Channel, the limit may be 50 milligrams or thereabouts, but often the penalty is either what I would call a light rap over the knuckles or three months. But if the level is 80 or 100 milligrams, which is what we have, quite often it will be one year or even more. Ever since, I think, 1967, the level has been 80 milligrams and 12 months. If we are going to have lower limits as there are in some Scandinavian countries—in Finland, but not Sweden or Norway so far as I am aware, it is zero; I do not know what the penalties are, whether they fluctuate or vary—would my noble and learned friend the Minister put that into the frame when he comes to respond to this?

[Lord Sewel]

I do not think the real issue in respect of penalties is about proportionality but to do with the type of case we have heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and my noble friend Lord Maxton, of the person living one side of the border who finds himself on the other side and commits what is an offence on that side but not on the other side. The imposition of the penalty then affects him where he is resident—he would lose his licence for the whole of the United Kingdom although he has committed no crime in England. That sort of situation will not enjoy public confidence.

[Lord Cameron of Lochbroom]

As the debate continues, it seems we are missing something. If I think back to my days in the law, we had a book called Road Traffic Offences, which dealt with the whole substance of road traffic law, which included regulations in respect of licensing and also of course the issue of penalties. Here, we are, in part, trying to add on to a United Kingdom Act—the Road Traffic Act 1988 in one case, and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in another—little bits that will apply only to Scotland and which devolve power to make certain changes in the whole structure of road traffic law in that way. As an individual who has to obey the law, I would find it very difficult to find where to go to in order to understand what my obligations are in driving. Leaving aside the issue about licensing and the like raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the United Kingdom licence is a licence to drive anywhere—yet we are asking individuals throughout the United Kingdom to have regard to regulations made by two separate bodies, each with their own responsibilities, which are giving rise to a whole series of different and very difficult questions that have already been brought to mind in this debate. I wonder whether—

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point about two different jurisdictions, can he perhaps clear up for me the difference in relation to corroboration between Scotland and England? As I understand it, at the moment, because we have UK traffic legislation, only one policeman is required to provide evidence in an arrest. However, were Scottish legislation to apply and there was a different alcohol or speed limit, would that be subject to a different form of corroboration, since it came from Scots law rather than UK law?

[Lord Cameron of Lochbroom]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I would not wish to give any definitive opinion as it is a long time since I have had to deal with these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, is probably better able to do so, as he has a more modern understanding of road traffic law as a recent Lord Advocate in Scotland. However, these questions arise over a whole series of issues apart from road traffic. We are getting into an area where I wonder whether the kind of devolving of powers that is being sought here is in fact creating more problems that it would do if the whole issue of road traffic legislation—instead of being under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1988—were left as a separate Act that applies within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. That would be much clearer for members of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

The noble and learned Lord threw me that one and I will just take it up. It is true that there are a whole range of United Kingdom statutes that nevertheless require different evidential standards on both sides of the border. There is the Misuse of Drugs Act, for example, where corroboration would be required in relation to those offences that were prosecuted in Scotland but not—I think I am right in saying—in England and Wales. The same, of course, is true of the Road Traffic Act. If I may say so, that possibly just reinforces the point that different jurisdictions will have different rules of evidence and in theory, or at least in principle, there is nothing to stop them having different penalties and limits for particular offences.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has given rise to a number of important issues. I share with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, his analysis of how the Calman commission went about its work. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose suggested that we were trying to deliver what the Scottish Executive wanted us to. If only the Scottish Executive had made any connection with the Calman commission—they studiously did not give us any evidence or indication of what they wished—their engagement might have been productive.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, indicated, this was done on the basis of evidence. It was recognised by the commission that there are already different speed limits; there are already powers to set speed limits on local authority roads devolved to local highway authorities through road traffic regulation orders. They are free to use their knowledge and assessment of local roads and may set different speed limits of 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 miles per hour where they think it appropriate.

There was a view on drink-driving that it was part of criminal law, which is already devolved—but perhaps more importantly there are serious alcohol abuse issues in Scotland. I do not think that anyone is running away from them. The view was that this might be one other measure that could be part of how alcohol abuse could be tackled in Scotland.

Before we get on to some of the more specific issues on speeding and drink-driving, I shall take up the important points that have been raised by my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Younger as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, on the highway code and the driving test. The amendments to which they spoke seek to ensure that provisions of the highway code reflect the content of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers on speed limits and the drink-drive limit under the powers devolved to them in the Bill, assuming that those powers are actually used and changes made.

I fully agree that the highway code should reflect any changes made as a result of the powers being devolved, but it is important to note that there is no other legislation on the content of the code, either in the Road Traffic Act 1930 or in the supplementary provisions in Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It would be disproportionate if the only specific statutory requirement on the content of the code were the few provisions in the Scotland Bill when there is no other such requirement to include any specific items of English, Scottish or Great Britain legislation. The code provides guidance, but it is not a comprehensive description of all road traffic legislation. However, I assure my noble friends that the mechanism exists to ensure that the highway code is accurately and adequately updated. It was referred to by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose that Section 38(2) of the 1988 Act gives the Secretary of State the power from time to time to revise the code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions in the code in such manner as he or she thinks fit.

Section 38(3) places the Secretary of State under a duty to lay proposed alterations to the code, other than those that are merely consequential on the passing of an amendment or repeal of provisions, before both Houses of Parliament at least 40 days before she proposes to make the changes.

Under Section 38(4), if the House resolves that the proposed alteration should not be made, the Secretary of State must not make the proposed revision to the code. Perhaps significantly, Section 38(5) of the 1988 Act states:

“Before revising the Highway Code … the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit”.

That would include the Scottish Government as was the case during the last major revision in 2005 to 2007.

17:00

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sorry, I am rather confused. Which Secretary of State are we talking about here? Is it the Secretary of State for Transport?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Yes.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

So the proposition is that the duty lies on the Secretary of State for Transport to make amendments to the Highway Code, which may have been made by the Scottish Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Yes, it is the Secretary of State for Transport—I hope that I said “she”—and that would be the case. There are regular revisions of the Highway Code. As I might have said or was about to say, Scottish Ministers were consulted during the last revision and it is intended that they will continue to be consulted.

It would not be helpful to have two separate editions of the Highway Code. I think I am right in saying that one contributor to the debate strongly urged that we should not have a tartan edition of it as well. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby. There should be one edition of the Highway Code, but of course it should reflect the differences that are there, and there is indeed a mechanism for doing that. The Government are therefore of the view that an amendment providing for an update to the Highway Code in the Scotland Bill is unnecessary.

Again, with regard to driving tests and the content of regulations, changes made to speed limits are somewhat parallel. Section 195 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 already requires consultation with representative organisations prior to making regulations relating to the driving test. This would include the Scottish Government. I understand the point that questions in the driving theory test about speed limits and drink-drive limits should reflect any new Scottish limits. As with the Highway Code, the driving theory test is regularly updated and significant changes to road traffic legislation can be included. Like the Highway Code, currently the content of the test is not a matter for legislation. To start adding specific requirements as to what the test must reflect, which may be subject to change in the future through primary legislation, would be inappropriate.

Nevertheless, I accept that important points have been made about driver awareness of any changes across the United Kingdom. To that end, I confirm that it is standard practice for the Scottish Government to be consulted when changes are proposed to the driving test. The theory elements of British driving assessments are already amended to reflect legal changes with substantial effects on what is covered in the assessments. I confirm that a change to the national road speed limit or the drink-drive limit, whether it were across the remainder of Great Britain after the transfer of power or in Scotland, would be such a change and would be reflected.

[Lord Maxton]

I have one small question. I take the point about local authorities imposing speed limits as they wish, but motorways of course come under the Highways Agency. If I am right, and if there is therefore a variation in a motorway speed limit, as there can be—there is, for instance, on the very good new M74 through Glasgow, where a 60 limit goes down to a 50 mile an hour limit—who imposes that? Who is consulted, and who is putting that speed limit on?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, motorway maintenance, for example, is certainly devolved to the Scottish Government. I rather suspect that the motorway speed limit is set under UK legislation. If I am wrong, I will either clarify it before the end of this debate or write to the noble Lord, either to confirm or to clarify. I certainly know that the maintenance of the motorway network is a responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

The amendment which noble Lords opposite also propose would require the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State to jointly make regulations governing the enforcement of the alcohol limit for driving if the limits in Scotland and England differ.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before we leave the Highway Code, let us say that this legislation has gone ahead and, for the sake of argument, that the Scottish Parliament has decided to make the speed limit 60 miles an hour rather than 70. If I am a youngster taking my driving test in Hampshire and am asked what the speed limit is on country roads and I say, “70 miles an hour”, will I pass the test or do I have to say, “It is 70 miles an hour in England and 60 miles an hour in Scotland.”? Listening to him, I do not know how my noble and learned friend will answer that question. I would like to think that the answer is that you have to give both, but how will that youngster know that and what will the mechanism be by which this will be communicated?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think the answer is that the noble Lord would fail the test, because in fact it is 60 miles an hour in England. It is 70 miles an hour only on motorways, not on country roads, so with all due respect he might actually have found that he failed the test regardless of whether the country road is in Scotland or England, but I take the more general point that he was making.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What is the answer?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The answer is that it would be in the Highway Code and the question would stipulate whether it meant the speed for motorways in Scotland or in England. These are not insuperable problems. This reminds me of the days of the Calman commission when some of these issues were being teased out. I thought that if, prior to the union between Scotland and England, there had been no difference in the law on marriage with consent and someone had suggested that in Scotland you could marry without your parents’ consent at 16, people like the noble Lord’s ancestors would have stood up and said, “What about Gretna Green? People will be flooding to Gretna Green to get married!”. Well, so they did, and the heavens did not fall in and the union stayed together; indeed, it has been very good for tourism in that part of the south of Scotland. You can pick up these little points and tease away at them, but they are not going to end the union. The union allows for these differences if they are thought proper and appropriate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

This is all very amusing, and I take the point that I should have said dual carriageways—motorways, rather—with regard to the speed limit, but amid all that bluster my noble and learned friend gave the answer: it would be in the Highway Code. How will it get into the Highway Code if my noble and learned friend does not accept these amendments? Are we relying on the Secretary of State for Transport finding out what is going on in the Scottish Parliament and communicating that? How will this be achieved?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend is building a mountain out of a molehill. These matters are not exactly going to be slipped under the carpet. As I have indicated, Scottish Ministers were fully consulted in the most recent consultation on the revision of the Highway Code, and there is no reason to suggest that that would not happen again. Indeed, there might be even better reasons why that should happen if these powers are devolved. In the course of these debates my noble friend has put his finger on a number of important points, but I sometimes think that he is trying to make difficulties where in practice none would exist. A young person, or indeed an older person, who has not passed their driving test has to learn the Highway Code to take the theory test, and there are a whole host of questions to learn. Reserved matters change, and that is reflected subsequently in the Highway Code, but people are expected to be prepared for the test that they are about to sit.

I pick up my noble friend Lord Steel’s point on people crossing borders. My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he had driven through three countries in Europe where the speed limits changed. I recall driving through different states in the United States where speed limits changed. It was picked up that we are talking not about main roads—the M6 or the M74—but about country roads that could cross borders. I suspect that the same applies to boundaries in some other countries as well. There is certainly a boundary between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and matters are resolved there, just as when you have local speed limits.

I can think of one particular local speed limit on the west side of Shetland. I never understood why there was a 40 mile an hour limit there, in the middle of what was otherwise a 60 mile an hour limit, but you observed it, or tried to, and then when you passed the de-restriction sign you went back up to 60. It did not actually cause any practical difficulties. You can have such a variety of speed limits in local areas and around schools in built-up areas. The limit could be 20 miles an hour, and it does not seem to cause any difficulties. People see what the speed limit is—there have to be signs—and they obey it.

[Lord Sewel]

There is a fundamental difference between comparing the Scotland/England situation with that of Northern Ireland and the Republic. They are different states; that is the important issue. I am still concerned about someone crossing the border committing an offence on one side that is not an offence on the other side but losing their licence on a UK basis.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I give the example of the United States, which is one country where there are different speed limits in different states as you cross them. The noble Lord also mentioned licences. However, the point is that certain things are crimes in Scotland but not necessarily crimes in England. Just because you commit and are found guilty of a crime in Scotland, it is not a defence to say, “Ah, but in England I wouldn’t have committed a crime and, therefore, wouldn’t have been fined or gone to prison”. You must accept the law in the place where you are. If you go out to drink and drive, you should have regard to what the limits are. For the sake of argument, if the limit in Scotland was lower and you knew that you would be driving in Scotland, you should have proper regard to what the law is there.

As someone who was brought up some eight miles from the English border, when I was 18 we certainly knew the difference between the licensing hours in Gretna on the Scottish side and Longtown on the English side. In fact, there was a pub much closer, just across the border on the other side of the A74 from Gretna Green. Local people know what the different laws are on both sides of the border. As I say, if you are drinking and driving you should have proper regard to what the law is in the country in which you are driving.

[Lord Sewel]

Is the Minister’s position that if, as in the case that I cited, a person drives across the border and commits a crime in Scotland that is not a crime in England, it is perfectly understandable that, if the situation allowed, he should lose his licence in Scotland but not in England, where he has done nothing wrong?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, at the moment you could be in a position in which you gain penalty points, which could cumulatively lead to you losing your licence, because you have breached a 20 miles per hour speed limit set by a local authority. Just because a local authority in Hampshire would not necessarily have designated a 20 miles per hour limit for a similar area, that in no way means that the penalty points that you have accumulated for speeding—perhaps outside a school in Lanarkshire—should somehow be discounted. The point is that if the decision made by the Scottish Parliament was that the law should reflect the problem of alcohol abuse in Scotland, it follows that people are aware of the penalties.

[The Marquess of Lothian]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. He quite rightly said that there are signs to tell you whether the speed limit is 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. I live in the borders as well and sometimes, to get from one part of the Scottish borders to another, I go through England. Is he suggesting that there should be signs to tell us what the drink driving limit is on both sides of the border?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am suggesting that the noble Marquess, being a responsible citizen and knowing the circumstances, will know that the law is different in Scotland and England. After all, let us recall that the Scottish Parliament introduced a ban on smoking in public places well ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom, yet there appeared to be no problem with visitors to Scotland not knowing that the ban existed in Scotland, albeit that at the same time it did not exist in England. These matters will not be dealt with clandestinely. You can bet your life that if the change is made it will be well broadcast. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Younger indicated, a change was made in the Republic of Ireland that was well known. I am sure it was well known throughout the island of Ireland. Living in Scotland and working in London, I was certainly conscious that that particular change had been made.

On the question of penalties, there is of course no maximum limit to a disqualification. These matters are best taken into account by the court. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about the minimum disqualification period, especially if it were to apply in the event of there ever being zero tolerance of alcohol. He makes a point that I certainly wish to reflect on because it is a different point. If there is a maximum limit, no special arrangements need to be made as it is properly a matter for the court to take into account when determining the circumstances of any given offence.

17:15

I shall try not to disappoint my noble friend too much on the question of speed limits applying also to HGVs. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, said, the Calman commission made no distinction in that regard. Indeed, I do not think that it was ever invited to do so. I should indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, that motorway speed limits are set by the Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974. They are set by the UK Government but may be subject to exemptions. If there are relevant exemptions, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.

As regards the speed limits, I know that I will hugely disappoint my noble friend and other noble Lords in saying that the explanation that was proffered concerned the development of signage, as he perhaps anticipated. I am aware that that will not satisfy my noble friend. In the light of what he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, have said on this point, it is only proper for me to take that issue away and have further discussions with officials in the Department for Transport as I can see the force of the argument that he has presented. I hope on that basis of the reassurance that the matter will be further considered, he will be prepared not to press his amendment. I also hope that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose is reassured about some of the points that he made and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in the debate. As noble Lords are aware, we have explored many avenues, although possibly not all, that could be exhausted on this topic. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, mentioned the main themes that have run through the debate such as road safety and which side of the road we drive on. However, it seems to me that if the alcohol driving limit is reduced to zero, using certain brands of cough mixture might get one into trouble.

I was grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for addressing my proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988. I purposely avoided tabling amendments to do with the Highway Code. It seems to me much more important at least to get the matter clear for people sitting the driving test. I shall read my noble and learned friend’s response, which was very detailed as this matter requires a detailed response. We have all been trying to avoid muddle. That theme seems to run through this group of amendments. My amendments do not seek to gainsay the recommendations of the Calman commission, but it seems to me that if any of these amendments are accepted, the two amendments standing in my name would need to be accepted also to avoid muddle.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, who did a formidable job of making bricks without straw. I am very disappointed that he did not tell us the Department for Transport’s arguments for having different speed limits for cars and lorries. Despite all the towns and byways that he mentioned on which separate speed limits apply, I am not aware of any town or community in Scotland that can set a speed limit for lorries as well as cars, which is what is proposed in the Bill.

I am most grateful for the assurance that my noble and learned friend will look at this. I take it from what he said that he is also looking at my Amendment 49 on penalties. I shall certainly be happy not to press my amendments and I entirely agree with my noble friend the Duke of Montrose that his amendments are also worthy of further consideration.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendments 47A and 47B not moved.

Clause 24 agreed.

Clause 25 : Speed limits

Amendments 48 to 50A not moved.

Clause 25 agreed.

Clause 26 agreed.

Clause 27 : Implementation of international obligations

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

51: Clause 27, page 19, line 43, at end insert—
“( ) Before commencing discussions with representatives of foreign governments or inter-governmental organisations, Scottish Ministers are required to obtain consent to the discussions from a Minister of the Crown.”

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, we suddenly seemed to be making rapid progress there, so we should now take a little time to contemplate an interesting issue before we get on to the important matters of finance that I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, is here to deal with. Perhaps I may give him advance notice that under one particular item, I might feel it necessary to raise the issue of whether or not the problems that Rangers Football Club currently faces would have been affected in any way if these changes to the law in Scotland had been implemented by now. That is a matter for later in our discussions, but I thought it might be helpful if I intimated that to him now.

Some of my more fainthearted friends, whom I will not name, advised me to withdraw the amendment; they thought it went a little too far. I must confess that it is not the most felicitous of amendments that I have drafted during the course of this Committee stage. My friends and colleagues, anxious for my well-being, warned me against a possible cybernat offensive if I moved the amendment. Perhaps I may tell them that that offensive has already taken place just by the very fact of tabling the amendment. I must say that if the provisions for ageism had already been brought in by the Government opposite—and they have not yet been implemented—some of the remarks could have been actionable. That is not to mention some of the other things that were said.

Perhaps I may therefore take this opportunity to remind people outwith Parliament of the purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill, which, as I understand it, is for the tabling of amendments—not necessarily to move them and vote on them—to provide debates around particular issues. We have had probing amendments, amendments put forward for debate and withdrawn, and amendments that have not been moved. That is the right thing that should happen.

I want to make three preliminary points on this amendment. I have tabled other amendments, which I intend to withdraw, putting “Devolved” in front of “Government” in every part of the Bill—the “Devolved Government”. The reason I tabled those amendments was to have an opportunity to debate the difference between devolution and independence—there is a complete difference. Some people try to conflate them—the nationalists, Salmond in particular, try to conflate it for their political purposes—but there is a major, substantive difference, a complete difference. It does not matter how much devolution we have, we still remain part of the United Kingdom. Sovereignty is still with the United Kingdom. Once Scotland makes the crucial decision to become independent, it is irrevocable. We would no longer be part of the United Kingdom. That is a major change, and we need to keep reminding people beyond this Chamber of that.

That is my first preliminary point. The second is that we need to get our courage. I am very glad to have seen the recent launch, reported in the Scotsman today, of the rainbow coalition between the different parties in Scotland. It is about time that the unionists, the federalists and the devolutionists got together. Incidentally, I should like to hear more from the federalists—traditionally, the Liberal Democrats—about the federal solution, which, as I have said before, is, in my view, the long-term stable solution for the constitution of the United Kingdom.

I am slightly fed up with the accusation from some of the nationalists that it is somehow wrong if we join forces with the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in a joint campaign—the phrase “the toxic Tories” has been used deliberately. There is a smear campaign to try to divide us; that is the purpose. I disagree with the Tories on 99 per cent of what they do, but even a Tory is not wrong always. They can be right from time to time, and when they are right, we should embrace them, work with them and encompass them in our activity.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, is not new Labour a monument to that principle?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I did not hear that; my noble friend Lord Maxton was talking.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I said: is not new Labour a monument to that principle?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

It is a monument? That is a good question for a start. That has implications in itself. As my former Secretary of State will recall, I was always asked if I was new Labour or old Labour and I used to say, “slightly shop-soiled Labour”.

Salmond and the nationalists relied on Annabel Goldie and her Tory group for support for their budget every year for the four years when I was in the Scottish Parliament. They did not see it as wrong to have that kind of coalition. Let us work together where we agree with each other and let us not to be ashamed of it.

17:30

My third preliminary point is: do not be afraid of the cybernats and do not be afraid of Salmond. I keep hearing from people south of the border who have suddenly discovered this man Salmond, this great Messiah. That trend is at its peak at the moment and he is showered with accolades. Ironically, he was nominated the United Kingdom politician of the year. He seemed very proud of that; I do not think he saw the irony in it. He has been showered with awards, by even Mr Murdoch, who is one of his new-found friends, his latest best friend. I have known him a long time—not Murdoch, Salmond. Some people here, especially my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd of Duncansby and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will recall that when Donald Dewar was First Minister and Alex Salmond was leader of the Opposition, he did not land a punch on Donald Dewar. Donald Dewar was head and shoulders above him. Salmond was fighting and getting nowhere, drowning not waving. Then he withdrew from Scotland and left Swinney to tackle Donald Dewar; he returned to Scotland only when, sadly for all of us, Donald Dewar died, and Salmond saw the opportunity again.

Through a combination of guile, luck, ability and cunning, he has been able to get where he is today. But do not be afraid of him. If we believe, as I think we do, that our cause is right, we can stand up to him and defeat him. He is already showing signs of weakness. Even Donald Trump has changed his view about Alex Salmond. It is clear now that Salmond’s judgment in urging Fred Goodwin to take over ABN Amro was less than clever. On his lack of action on sectarianism in not following up the initiative of my noble friend Lord McConnell but letting it drift and then suddenly discovering that it was a problem, he has been found out. But, above all, he has been found out when the spotlight of the real issues of independence has been focused on him. He has melted under the heat of that spotlight on whether Scotland would keep the pound and the Bank of England would have its role or whether it would join the euro, and he has been shown to be wanting on EU membership, on national debt and a whole range of things. So we are ready for the fight. I commend the Secretary of State for Scotland on having said that the referendum could and should be held sooner rather than later. Let us take that fight to Alex Salmond.

Now, as far as the amendment is concerned—[Laughter.]

[Lord Sewel]

Ten minutes!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

They were my preliminary remarks.

[Lord Lyell]

Before the noble Lord moves on, would he suggest that the First Minister might take over the Scottish rugby team as coach?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Well, he tried to get on television to talk about rugby, purporting to be an expert on it, and blamed the BBC for withdrawing his invitation. In fact, the BBC did not invite him; he invited himself and then the BBC said, “We don’t have a place for you, we’re afraid, because we’ve got people who actually know about rugby to talk about it”. It would be better to have someone who knows about rugby to manage the Scotland rugby team, but I have no doubt that the First Minister would think that he could do it.

I return to the amendment. When I was a Minister in the Department for International Development, I travelled the world, inevitably. It was part of my responsibility to go to the poorer countries of the world to see the problems and what we could do about them.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

Just for the sake of facts, I should point out that my noble friend travelled the world before he became a Minister. [Laughter.]

[Lord Maxton]

That is a bit unfair.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, was a friend of mine—I shall see him afterwards. But he is absolutely right. That was because I was an opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, defence and international development for 13 years.

It is important for the purpose of the argument and for this amendment to deal with when I was a Minister representing Her Majesty's Government. Even then, my private secretary had to submit proposals for travel. It was co-ordinated by the Foreign Office and there was some logic in that. But for three Ministers from different departments suddenly to turn up in the same capital at the same time, with each not knowing that the other would be there, could cause chaos and make us look inefficient and stupid. There needs to be some co-ordination; it is a practical matter.

Of course, the First Minister thinks that he is too grand. He thinks that he can do whatever he likes because he wants to pretend that Scotland is effectively independent at the moment and, therefore, there is no accountability to the United Kingdom Government for anything. At the very least, he should consult the Foreign Office before he and other Ministers go overseas to make sure that there is not a clash.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am grateful to my “noble friend” for giving way. Does he think that if his amendment had been in place it might have beneficially affected the understanding of the al-Megrahi case?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is a very interesting point. I had not thought about it. It needs some time to be thought about. Perhaps, by the time we get to the end of this debate, my former honourable friend could answer his own question, because he is a barrister and has more understanding and knowledge of these matters than me.

At the very least, I accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Browne—I shall name him now—that perhaps my amendment has gone a little too far by proposing that Scottish Ministers should get the approval of the UK Government, but at least they should consult them. At least, the Foreign Office should know when Scottish Ministers go overseas and give them help. After all, I found that the Foreign Office could give even Ministers in the Department for International Development advice, guidance and help in relation to our travel overseas.

I worry about the pretence of independence. It was the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who said that Scotland is in danger of sleepwalking into separation and he is absolutely right. We in this House get attacked as old fogeys—all this ageism—and as being non-elected. It does not matter that, for 40 years, I was an elected member either as a councillor, an MP or an MSP—they have forgotten all about that—but now, in here, we have no right, according to some of the cybernats, to talk about it. Perhaps we do not have a right in that sense, but we have a responsibility to warn people about sleepwalking into separation. The pretence that there is no difference between devolution and independence, that we are effectively already there and just have to take that little further step, is not helpful.

I urge us all in this argument—I have used just one example—to be bold. We should not be defensive about this union. This has been the most successful political and economic union anywhere in the world and we should be proud of it.

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says,

“obtain consent to the discussions from a Minister of the Crown”.

Should he not be specific about which Minister? Would it not be better to say the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, is absolutely right. The amendment was written rather hastily. It could benefit from that redrafting and it could benefit from the redrafting that my noble friend Lord Browne suggested to me privately—it is not private anymore, I know. If we were to discuss it further on Report and I was to table it again, it would certainly incorporate changes of that kind.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, perhaps I may marginally disagree with my noble friend’s answer to the noble Lady. There may very well be different Ministers for different occasions. If, for instance, we were dealing with fishing and the Scottish Minister wanted to travel as part of a delegation or whatever, it might be different. It would not necessarily be the Foreign Office he would be dealing with; it might be the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Therefore, my noble friend may very well be right in proposing the words “Minister of the Crown”, because it could depend on which function was being undertaken.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene on this amendment but I could not quite resist it. On a couple of occasions this afternoon I have felt great sympathy for my namesake, Alice Liddell, who wandered through the looking glass, particularly when we were discussing the variation in speed limits on border roads. However, I began to feel that too when listening to some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Foulkes—not least his point about Rangers Football Club. I think I shall try to make a point of being elsewhere when we come to that bit of the debate.

However, there is a serious point behind what my noble friend has alluded to in his amendment, although I am glad that he has drawn attention to the fact that its wording might not be as effective as it might be. Despite the enormous elephant in the room of the debate in Scotland about the future of secession or separation, we have to remember that this legislation is about the operation of Scotland within a devolved arrangement—in other words, within the United Kingdom. There is an important point about the consistency of foreign policy and how that foreign policy is articulated in other parts of the world.

I have been at the receiving end of Scottish Ministers popping up in other parts of the world and, frankly, it is a matter of walking on eggs. There are some very serious issues confronting us at the moment, not least in relation to Syria. We have just seen the difficulties in Libya and we also have to bear in mind that it was Mr Salmond who called the intervention in Kosovo an act of “unpardonable folly”. That kind of mixed message on British foreign policy does not help anyone, particularly those who are in international delegations seeking to convince the world to go in a particular direction. It would be a sign of the maturity of the devolved settlement if the Scottish Government were prepared to enter into a mature debate with the Foreign Office over areas where there are issues of interest in relation to foreign affairs. The Scottish Government, particularly under my noble friend Lord McConnell, have done a considerable amount in Malawi. That is an excellent example of intervention, particularly given Scotland’s history in relation to Malawi and the very strong ties between Scotland—particularly the University of Glasgow—and Malawi. These initiatives are of great value, but freelance activity is not helpful to the dissemination of British foreign policy.

I am hoping from the tenor of what my noble friend has said that it is his intention to withdraw the amendment. However, I do not think that the sentiment should be completely lost that there is a sound reason for a degree of co-ordination and, indeed, for a co-ordinated foreign policy. Every one of us in this place and in the House of Commons who travels abroad representing Parliament has a self-denying ordinance not to criticise our Government or our country. It would be quite helpful if some of the devolved Administrations within this country also acknowledged that convention.

17:44

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I was only kidding, so I hope he does not go after me following this debate. I remember when we, including the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, entered the other place when we were freshly elected. When the rest of us were having difficulty finding our way around this big Palace of Westminster with all its nooks and crannies, the noble Lord managed to get to the Falkland Islands at just about the same time as the commandos. Therefore, travel has been part of his parliamentary life.

I think that we have to be careful. I do not canvass any more because I am a Cross-Bencher but I am already hearing from reliable sources that people on the doorstep are getting concerned about what Alex Salmond is saying he wants for Scotland. For example, Faslane is in my previous constituency, in which I was mainly brought up. There are a lot of employees at Faslane from Springburn, the Robroyston area and Bishopbriggs, where I live at the moment, and they are expressing concern about the possible closure of that facility. Therefore, men and women are talking about the First Minister’s grand ideas. However, the worst thing we can do is to attack the First Minister or anyone else on a personal basis. I agree with Johann Lamont, who said, “I will share a platform with anyone who is willing to fight for the United Kingdom and support the Scottish Parliament”. That is the road that we should be going down.

I am glad that this amendment is going to be withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We would be kidding ourselves if we expected the First Minister and the senior members of the Executive in a Scottish Parliament, who have certain rights that the United Kingdom Parliament gave them, to go almost cap in hand to a Minister of the Crown to get permission—I think the term is “consent” but the meaning is the same—to go abroad and speak to officials. We have to be realistic. We have all-party groups. There has been concern in both Houses that four or five people can gather under one roof and say that they are an all-party group. We have all-party groups covering subjects such as horse-racing, dog-racing and many other things, but many of them are linked with a country. That reminds me that I had better declare an interest as a member of the British-Italian group—something of which I am proud. It would be strange if the First Minister of Scotland had to get consent from a Minister of the Crown, yet the All-Party British-Italian Parliamentary Group could send a delegation to Italy or go to see the ambassador, who is the official representative of Italy’s Government in London.

It should also be remembered that there have been devolved Parliaments in Canada for many years. In fact, the constitution of Canada was held by both Houses only recently. However, no one would deny the right of the representatives of the Canadian provincial Governments—if that is the right description—or indeed the Speakers from those Governments to visit their opposite numbers here without going to Ottawa and saying to the Prime Minister or the appropriate Minister of the Crown, “We want to go to the United Kingdom”. They would not dream of doing that. The same would apply to Australia.

Therefore, although many of us disagree with what the First Minister is saying, there is a danger of us saying to Scottish Ministers that we are putting shackles on them before they can go anywhere abroad, yet any of our number in this House or the other House, or jointly, can go without asking anyone’s permission. There was a joke about a Member of Parliament who had a habit of travelling, and when the students were getting arrested in Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks, so did that Member of Parliament. His constituents did not say, “What was he doing in Tiananmen Square? He should have been here in Liverpool or in Westminster”. I make that point not to attack that Member of Parliament, who is dead—God rest his soul.

I make the point that if one person in this House or another place can take it upon himself to go to a country abroad and no one would say a word about them doing so, why are we going to put that pressure on the properly elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament? I hear parliamentarians saying that the Executive is too powerful. It rolls off the tongue. I know the amendment is going to be dropped, but if we bear in mind that this amendment belongs to the House, why is the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, saying he is going to drop it? It is the property of this House. If we pass this amendment, we would be giving an awesome power to Ministers of the Crown, who we often say have too much power as it is.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment because it has enabled there to be a discussion about the potential role of devolved government in the protection of interests in overseas discussions. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, said. I cannot believe that it is helpful, in seeking agreement across borders on issues that might affect us, for British representatives to be unable to speak with one voice at the official negotiating level.

The proper time for those discussions is prior to the engagement in the international debate. It is not meant to put a ban on representation by individuals who have some democratic authority. The amendment may well be defective in that respect, as the noble Lord has recognised. However, let us consider the situation in reverse. If we, as a British Government, were under the impression that we had to deal not just with the Spanish Government on fisheries policy but with a Catalan Government as well, it would hugely complicate our negotiations. I am bound to say that so long as the nation state remains, we should be dealing internationally and not with devolved Governments.

The representation of points of view is quite a different matter. It would have been helpful—to answer the question that was thrown back at me—if there had been a full dialogue between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government about the al-Megrahi case. I am not sure that there was not, in fact, such a dialogue; it as remained rather obscure, but it is certainly important to Britain’s position vis-à-vis some of our allies that we were not thought to be in complete ignorance of the Scottish Government’s position. It led to some deterioration of understanding between the United States and the United Kingdom that there was no absolute clarity about who was essentially to take responsibility for the release and return of al-Megrahi to his homeland.

[Lord Morgan]

I will make one or two remarks as a non-Scottish person, although the purpose of this amendment in part appears to be to give the Scottish National Party a good kicking. That is a very desirable objective in many ways. Coming from Wales, I am very glad that we do not have a party with the bitter Anglophobia that is frequently revealed by the Scottish National Party. In Wales, we concentrate on other things, such as beating other countries at rugby and speaking our own language.

In wishing to criticise the Scottish National Party, I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has just said. We must be careful not to give the impression of imposing a uniform pattern on the ongoing process of devolution. It is about difference; it is about differentiation; it is about pluralism—and it is very difficult to impose any kind of check on that. I recall that Mr Gladstone famously said, “You cannot put a stop to the onward march of a nation”. That can apply to nations within the British Isles as well.

The question was raised by various noble Lords about what kind of foreign representations we were proposing to monitor or have Foreign Office checks on. There are already, of course, as other noble Lords have said, enormous ranges of foreign contacts, particularly with the European Union. It would be very difficult to distinguish between foreign contacts that needed control from Big Brother at Westminster and other kinds of contact where that was not appropriate. The real point is that there is a kind of mistaken assumption that a devolved Scottish Government—whether it be devo-max or even going beyond that, if that actually took effect—would somehow impinge on the sovereignty of the British Parliament.

The word “sovereignty” was used by my noble friend. Views of sovereignty have moved on a great deal since it was brandished by Dicey at the end of the 19th century as a kind of inalienable set of powers that, if they were diminished, would inevitably disappear. There are all sorts of ways in which the sovereignty of this Parliament is fundamentally affected and transformed. At the present time, human rights legislation has done that, our contact with Europe has done that, and devolution has certainly done that. In the famous phrase, this is a process and not an ongoing policy that comes to an end.

If you look at the concept of sovereignty within the context of some other countries, you have a very different view of sovereignty. It emerges as a much more flexible concept; it is not like a cake that you take a piece out of and that piece never reappears. Look at the länder of Germany, which pursue an enormous range of contacts on industrial, economic, agricultural and social matters with other countries, enormously to their success. It has been a feature of the success of Germany, particularly the länder such as Baden-Württemberg, that their economic prospects have flourished because they have been allowed to be independent in this way and not controlled by a central Government. This is the purpose of devolution, and I think this is more likely to be about the success of devolution than about differentiation. In wishing to criticise the severity and extremism of the Scottish National Party, we must be careful that the extended implications of devolution are not criticised as well, because they are enormously valuable for the well-being of our country.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, had to say on these matters and I will not repeat the arguments. I would just like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Maclennan. One of the big low points in my political life was seeing the saltires flying in Libya when al-Megrahi landed there. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has been kind enough to say that perhaps his amendment is not the most felicitously drafted. Its substance, however, is that Ministers in the Scottish Parliament can of course make representations and meet delegations and travel abroad, but they should not pursue an independent foreign policy.

Until now, we have enjoyed a Civil Service that has kept Ministers in check and within the bounds of their responsibilities. I say with regret that there is a certain amount of evidence that that is not happening in Scotland at the moment. The Scottish National Party is perfectly entitled to have a policy that states that Scotland should withdraw from NATO. Why it has that policy, I do not know; everyone else is queuing up to join NATO. However, it is not entitled to advance and advocate the policy within the confines of the devolved Parliament, because foreign and defence policies are not the business of that Parliament.

18:00

If we cannot rely on the sense of responsibility of the elected Members, we must have rules to deal with that. In the old days, the rules that worked particularly well were those on financial accountability that lay with the accounting officer of the department concerned. The response of the noble Lord who was a Cabinet Secretary to some of the complaints that were made by all the parties about the behaviour of the Civil Service in Scotland was disappointing to say the least.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, tabled the amendment out of sheer frustration. He is on to a good point, but unfortunately it is a bit of a blunderbuss. It has served to give us a good opportunity to debate these issues. However, it is very important, if we are to have a devolved Parliament, that it sticks to its last, does not create confusion and does not have a leader who thinks that it is his job to pursue competing policies. I am all in favour of competition, but competition between Parliaments on foreign policy is going a bit far.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I will privately reveal that I have not been briefed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on why the amendment goes too far; I worked it out for myself. The idea of seeking consent seems to be a little insulting. Co-ordination is what we are talking about. The idea of writing into law a requirement for co-ordination seems very odd. I admit that the Foreign Office that I worked in completely failed to co-ordinate the travel plans of Ministers of both political persuasions. It is very difficult for the Foreign Office to attempt the task, and it is universally ignored by the rest of Whitehall. The person who can achieve the task is the ambassador who is lucky enough to have a couple of ministerial visitors. If he tells A or A’s office that B will be in the House at a certain time, A will decide that his plans require him to come at another time. In my experience, the collegiate atmosphere of any British Government has meant that it is perfectly easy to separate visits one from another. Therefore, this is unnecessary.

The innuendo was made that the Scottish nationalists are going around arguing with other NATO Governments against NATO. I have not seen any evidence of that. I would be surprised if it were true.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps the noble Lord would care to read the Scottish nationalists’ manifesto.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Yes, but the innuendo today was that they must not be allowed to talk to foreign Governments because they would try to persuade them in some way to leave NATO. That is a big jump. Of course it is in the Scottish National Party manifesto; we have all read it. However, again in this debate, I have been worried by the splendid attack of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He said that he is up for the fight. It is easy to have this kind of fight when the opponent is not in the ring. We ought to be careful about insulting somebody who is not here. I am happy to be insulted because I am here. However, the fight should be conducted out there on the hustings. Here, we should try to avoid insult and innuendo.

[Lord Maxton]

To be fair—and not even to be fair—the fact is that the Scottish nationalists are not here through their choice, not through the choice of the House. If they wanted to be here, putting their case, they could be—instead of relying on the one Welsh nationalist in the House.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

It may well be true that it is their choice. If so, it is a great mistake. I hope it is the view of all in this House that it would be very good if they were here. While they are not here, we should try to avoid insult. It does not do us any good when our debates are reported in Scotland.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I did not say anything that was insulting, and I do not do innuendo. I am quite direct. I said that the First Minister should not use his position to make the case against Britain being in NATO. There is nothing insulting about that. Nor is it an innuendo. Equally, the First Minister, who is paid from my taxes, should not go around the world arguing against our nuclear deterrent. He should concentrate on his duties as First Minister. There is nothing insulting about that, and there is no innuendo.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am sorry but I am not aware that the First Minister is going around the world arguing that people should leave NATO or that Britain should leave NATO. I am sure that he is saying that, if elected, he would choose to leave NATO. The innuendo is the implication that he is undercutting the policy of the British Government policy by saying that Britain should leave NATO. I do not think that he is doing that. I do not know what he is doing; he does not have somebody here to tell us, which is a pity.

I intervened on the amendment to ask the Minister whether there has been any proposal from the Scottish National Party for the inclusion in the Scotland Bill at this point—because Clause 27 is where it would fit—of a provision that would clarify or increase the role that it should play in EU negotiations, in the delegation that comes from these islands or in the preparation of the positions that the delegation will advance. I ask that because I do not know the answer. Last summer, as I recall, the Scottish Government indicated that they wanted something of the sort. I do not know what they want. I would like to see the proposal, if it is around. Are the Government sitting on a suggestion from Edinburgh that has not found its place in the Bill because they did not agree with it? If the Scots came forward with something at this stage, would the Government insert a clause in the Bill?

It is worth addressing the question of whether, as you give a bit more devolution, you should give a larger role in the preparation of a position for certain councils. I do not know whether that would extend to the presence of a representative such as a Minister from the Scottish Government in the ministerial team. I remember days when that was the case. When we first joined the EU in the 1970s, we were always represented in the Fisheries Council by a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and by a Minister from the Scottish Office, operating in tandem. I will not comment on whether that was a good arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will have a better memory of it than I.

The German Länder are represented in the back row of many councils that deal with domestic affairs; they do not have a speaking part. I would not recommend that anybody look at Belgium, but if we do, we see that in many councils the Walloon and Flemish Ministers attend alternate meetings. That is ideal for those negotiating from a different point of view from that of the Belgian Government, because it means that the Minister never knows what happened in the previous council and it is possible to score some runs at his expense.

When devolution happened, a concordat was prepared in London and negotiated with Edinburgh that laid down detailed rules on what kind of issues the Scots should be consulted on in full. I do not know how well that has worked; I have been away. If it is not working well, it could be looked at again; there is no issue of principle there. As we devolve a little more, maybe we ought to devolve a slightly bigger role in the preparation of such things.

These are my questions for the Minister. Has anybody asked? Has anybody specified what is wanted? What would the Government’s attitude be?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I was a Minister who attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in the 1970s, although I did not belong to the Ministry of Agriculture; I was representing the consumer interest. I recall a number of Ministers coming to these councils but they all belonged to the same Government. Prior to our participation in these debates, we had clarified what our objectives were in common and we did not seek to confuse the other members of the council by putting forward entirely different points of view. That is the risk of having people who are seeking to separate one part of the United Kingdom from another.

The noble Lord has inquired of my noble and learned friend as to the Government’s position. It would be very interesting to know what he considers should be the position.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I draw a distinction between the situation with a degree of devolved authority—maybe a little more if this Scotland Bill becomes law—and the position of an independent Scotland. That is a totally different question. I would think it extremely unlikely that a delegation consisting of representatives of the London Government and the Edinburgh Government negotiating in Brussels in a situation of devolution but not independence for Scotland could not work out in advance and in private what was the best line and who would make which point. I do not think it very likely that the representatives from Edinburgh would see it as their task to undercut the United Kingdom interest because that would—while devolution persists—also undercut the Scottish interest.

[Lord Sewel]

One of the difficulties in relation to Europe and getting a common view—almost parity between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers—would be around fisheries policy. The position of the SNP Administration in Scotland is that—and God knows how it can be done; I do not think it can—Scotland would leave the common fisheries policy. That creates a totally different negotiating framework in that policy area from a Government who say, “We are staying in but we have to reform and modify the common fisheries policy”.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, as I attended 108 meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council I must just very briefly intervene. Of course, it was very common in the council that a Minister from the Scottish Office—a Scottish member of the UK Government—led for the United Kingdom. This was quite right, because of the huge fishing interest of Scotland. That was perfectly reasonable. I do not remember any case where there was anything complicated about that.

I should add that some other member states did something quite different. For example, a representative of the regional government in Belgium spoke for Belgium on a number of occasions, and I think on one or two occasions a representative from a German Länd spoke for the German delegation in the council. That was not the British position but the position of two other member states.

[Lord Stephen]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that indeed that has happened: a Member of the Scottish Parliament has represented and has led for the United Kingdom at a European committee. Therefore, the pattern that the noble Lord has described is unusual but it has happened.

18:15

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I apologise profusely to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for missing the opening of the debate. I was quite distraught, actually. There was a ministerial meeting on another matter. I had looked forward to being here for this debate.

I only rise because my name was mentioned and my presence here without opening my mouth would be looked at askance. I do not want to go into the fighting with regard to the profile taken by the SNP Government; I want to follow the question of when it is legitimate for a devolved Government to try to have their own voice. Clearly there are opportunities to deal with other countries—for example, in education, in getting students from other countries to come to your universities—where the circumstances may be different in Scotland or Wales, and those opportunities can be taken. Likewise, with regard to industrial development, Wales did very well indeed in combining with the motor regions, including Baden-Württemberg, and there is industrial benefit to be had from the bilateral relationships.

Sometimes it can get a little bit more complicated. The former First Minister of Wales, Rhodri Morgan, led a delegation to Patagonia, where there is of course a Welsh community. The interests of the Welsh community in Patagonia, if one considers them in the context of some recent developments, may not be exactly the same as the interests perceived in this Chamber. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. I do not think that anyone would say for a moment that the First Minister of Wales should not have those links with Patagonia; it is a question of how the thing is then undertaken.

We have also seen it working the other way round. Because of the existence of the National Assembly—and I suspect this is true in Scotland with the Scottish Parliament—there are opportunities for people coming from overseas to link up with people with whom they can do business on a bilateral basis. That is not a problem at all in terms of the UK.

The last two or three contributions have touched on the European Union, and that of course is where problems can arise. In Wales we have had the opportunity to lead the UK delegation from the National Assembly in matters such as the sheep-meat regime, which was led by Elin Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs; Wales has also led in minority-language meetings. There are opportunities like that. However, the problem arises—and we do not do ourselves any favours if we hide away from it—that there will be some circumstances where the interests of Scotland or Wales may not be identical to the interests, as perceived from London, of the UK as a whole. Fisheries may be one; I am not close enough to that to know. Colleagues from Scotland are much closer to that.

It may be that even on party-political balances—we in Wales have a Labour Government now; there is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government here—the perception will be different and the profile that people want to project to the outside world may be different because of that. The question is: how can the line be drawn within a devolved settlement that is reasonable in all circumstances? That is what we need to address, to get the balance right there, rather than perhaps fearing that the thing can go to an extreme that causes difficulties for all concerned.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords—

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

I can quite understand the noble and learned Lord’s wish to progress matters.

I am not entirely clear where to start. The amendment before this House is that:

“Before commencing discussions with representatives of foreign governments or inter-governmental organisations, Scottish Ministers are required to obtain consent to the discussions from a Minister of the Crown”.

It seems that we have ranged a little beyond that.

Perhaps I should start by declaring that I have had discussions with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. He is at liberty to tell the House what these were. I did not actually warn him about cybernats. I should perhaps advise him that he should not read what they say because they will just make him upset—and at his age he really ought to be careful.

I will try to pick up some of the points that have been made, and make one or two of my own. First, it seems desirable to ensure that there is good co-operation between the UK Government and Scottish Ministers when they are engaged overseas. That has not always happened, and even when the Scottish Ministers were of the same political persuasion as the UK Government it did not always happen. I am not saying that there were any undue difficulties, but sometimes the co-operation broke down. I must however say that, personally, I was always grateful for advice from the Foreign Office. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, when he was Attorney-General, and I represented the United Kingdom at a conference in China between the European Union and the ASEAN countries on the issue of serious crime. I was due to chair a session of the conference which included the Attorney-General of Burma. I was unclear as to what role I should take in relation to the introduction of the Attorney-General of Burma, and I remember being very grateful for the advice that I got from the Foreign Office on that.

Secondly, it is right that both Governments respect the jurisdiction of the other, and that we recognise the frustration where it is felt that Scottish Ministers go beyond their responsibilities, particularly where it appears that they are pursuing a broader political strategy. However, Scottish Ministers have legitimate areas of activity which involve interaction with foreign Governments and intergovernmental organisations. They have responsibility for implementing directives of the European Union in the devolved area. They need to address vital European Union interests, not just in terms of directives but in terms of policy, and in doing so they interact not just with foreign Governments but with other devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, referred to the experience of the German Länder, and the way in which they go about their business.

Ministers also have responsibility for promoting trade, tourism and investment, and that of course necessarily brings them into contact with foreign Ministers and Governments. They also take an active part in intergovernmental organisations and conferences. I recently participated in a conference at the London School of Economics on what was called sub-state diplomacy. I found that quite instructive in finding out the way in which devolved Administrations work, not just in Europe but in other places; learning how Quebec, under both nationalist and liberal Governments, had promoted Quebec, and looking at the experience of Catalonia and the Belgian states in Europe.

It seems unrealistic, if I may say so, to suggest that each time Scottish Ministers were to speak to Ministers of other Administrations they should first get the consent of the Government. First of all, if you are at a conference and you are approached by a Minister of another Government it is not always possible to get that consent. Do you say “I’m very sorry, I can’t speak to you because I need to get consent from the relevant Minister”? As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, sometimes not even the Foreign Office is able to co-ordinate.

With respect I also ask: what exactly are we attempting to do in this amendment? What sanction do we impose on Scottish Ministers if they do not get consent? We risk giving the Scottish Ministers a tool with which they can claim, yet again, that they do not have the respect of the UK Government, and that they are being gagged while they go about what they consider their legitimate business. That is not just a question of consent. If my noble friend is thinking of coming back with an amendment that they should advise or consult before they do that, the same question arises. What sanction does my noble friend suggest should be visited on a Scottish Minister who does not consult, get consent or obtain whatever other permission is required by this amendment?

We should think long and hard. I endorse a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, said, because he made much the same point in his interesting comment, which of course comes from his long experience, mainly in the other place but also here. We should listen very carefully to these voices before we go down this road.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it has been useful to have this discussion on foreign relations and the devolved Administration and devolved Parliament in Scotland. I share a lot of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, that in fact what this amendment proposes is largely unrealistic. He questions the sanction; we can readily anticipate how it would be spun if indeed it was accepted. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, accepted himself that the amendment was flawed. That said, the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, indicated that certain sentiments were associated with this that we should not lose sight of and quite properly referred to the initiative pursued by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, when he was First Minister, in promoting Scotland’s links with Malawi. That was done in full consultation and co-operation with the United Kingdom Government and has been widely applauded and respected. It shows that it is possible to have that kind of relationship. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, indicated, there are legitimate areas of responsibility that fall on the devolved Government in Scotland involving interaction with foreign Governments.

It is important, therefore, that the Committee should be aware that there is a memorandum of understanding or concordat on international relations, which deals with devolved Administration engagement with other Governments and which is therefore relevant to the Scottish Government’s interaction with foreign Governments. Two areas are identified that are of relevance here. Bilaterally, the Scottish Government may, in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, make arrangements or agreements with foreign Governments or international organisations on devolved matters,

“provided that such arrangements or agreements do not purport to bind the UK in international law, affect the conduct of international relations or prejudice UK interests”.

Indeed, I can think of educational agreements that have been reached. It also says:

“The Scottish Government is, however, obliged to consult the FCO in advance about any contact, correspondence, or proposal that is novel or contentious, might create a contingent international liability or may have implications for international relations”.

On international organisations it is sometimes appropriate—and this is recognised in the concordat or memorandum of understanding—for,

“Ministers or officials from the devolved administrations to form part of a UK negotiating team”.

In these circumstances,

“The UK lead Minister will retain responsibility for the negotiations and will determine how each member of the team can best contribute”.

This brings us to the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and that was spoken to by a number of other noble Lords following his intervention. He asked what the position is. The Scottish Government—his memory served him well—have put forward a proposal to have a statutory right to attend and speak at all Council meetings that relate to devolved matters. It was one of the six proposals that the Scottish Government put forward in the summer of last year. My colleagues in the UK Government are considering this request along with the other requests from the Scottish Government and will respond, but it should be clear that a statutory right to attend would inevitably have an impact on Welsh and Northern Irish representation.

Perhaps we may therefore look at what happens in practice. At present, Scottish Ministers can and do attend Council meetings when devolved matters are under discussion and do so as part of a United Kingdom delegation. My noble friend Lord Stephen indicated that there have been occasions, although perhaps not many, when a Minister from the Scottish Executive, as it then was—and still is—has led. Indeed, on more than one occasion he represented the United Kingdom, albeit as a Liberal Democrat Minister in a coalition Government representing the United Kingdom. When I was the Justice Minister in Scotland, I sat alongside Mr Blunkett when he was Home Secretary. At an appropriate point when Mr Blunkett thought that the matter under discussion was more relevant to Scotland than it was to England, I spoke on behalf of the United Kingdom.

The crucial point is that we spoke to an agreed United Kingdom line. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is right that on issues such as fisheries there often can be great tensions, but every effort is made ahead of the Fisheries Council to ensure that there is a United Kingdom line to which whoever speaks is expected to, and does, follow.

18:30

[Lord Wigley]

I understand the practicalities and that it is desirable, if at all possible, to have a united line, but does the Minister not understand that there may be a genuine difference of aspiration and that the needs of Scotland may be different from the perceived needs of the United Kingdom? Does that not put the representative from a Scottish Government in a difficult position? They will either speak against the interests of Scotland, which they represent, or speak up for Scotland and go against the agreement.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that is the stuff of the negotiation that takes places ahead of these Council meetings. It is important that there is that good co-operation. It would not be sustainable for someone in the United Kingdom Government seat at the table to articulate a policy contrary to the United Kingdom view. Obviously, one can imagine that if a Minister from the devolved Administration did not like it, he would not be jumping to be at the meeting speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.

However, these negotiations take place and I recognise enough noble Lords here from my days in the Commons who took part in the fisheries debates. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was the Fisheries Minister and knows full well what the run-up to the December Council meeting in particular, and others, can be like. There is a negotiation to take place and a line has to be agreed in advance, not just between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government but between the Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations as well.

[The Duke of Montrose]

Perhaps my noble and learned friend will tell me if I am wrong, but my impression is that currently the Scottish Administration feel that they should have the right to send the representative Minister in fisheries negotiations.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I indicated, the request was for a statutory right to attend. In a hypothetical situation, even if they were to be the UK Minister, they would still have to articulate what had been agreed at a quadrilateral meeting as the United Kingdom line. It is important that we recognise that for the most part this process works and has worked well. It is sometimes not the perception that one gets, but a lot of hard work and effort is put into it.

It is also the case that, when Scottish Ministers hold meetings overseas, the United Kingdom’s diplomatic missions overseas offer them the same level of support as they would to United Kingdom Government Ministers and delegations. I certainly can vouch for that. Indeed, that was my understanding shortly after I took office as the Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Executive in 1999. The then First Minister, the late Donald Dewar, indicated to me that the then Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, had made it very clear that he wished Scottish Ministers visiting foreign countries to be accorded the full facilities. Certainly, it was always my experience that the help was very considerable.

It is also important to remember that, when representing devolved issues, the devolved Administrations can play a valuable role in promoting commerce, industry and culture. When Scottish Development International, a part of the Scottish Administration, arranges visits with a ministerial involvement, it works to try to bring jobs, employment and investment to Scotland and the United Kingdom, something which would be beneficial to the United Kingdom as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, referred to the Länder. Certainly, one of the strengths of devolution is that, whereas perhaps in the past the United Kingdom Government could not readily relate to or have engagement with Catalonia or Saxony, that is a level of engagement that Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers are able to have, which benefits the United Kingdom as a whole.

I fear that this amendment would introduce a statutory requirement which—I have already indicated that I share the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd—would not work. As I have also indicated, there is a memorandum of understanding, or concordat, in place to ensure that any engagement with Scottish Ministers is conducted in a constructive way. I hope that that will reassure Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has facilitated an opportunity to discuss these issues and I hope that he will follow through on what he indicated and will withdraw his amendment in the light of these assurances. This has been a useful debate.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for a helpful reply. As he said, it has been a good debate, notwithstanding the manifest flaw in my drafting of the amendment, for which I take full responsibility. Now that the Minister has drawn our attention, or reminded those of us who have seen it and been involved with it previously, to the concordat on international relations, it might be useful to draw it again to the attention of the Scottish Government in the gentle, kindly way in which he is used to doing.

Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd that even people of my age—even people at the age of my noble friend Lord Maxton and upwards—can come up with ideas occasionally. He was worried about sanctions. Let me underline that I am not suggesting this but, for example, if any expenditure incurred by a devolved Administration were ultra vires—in other words, they were doing things for which they had no responsibility whatever—sanctions could be available.

I should like to say how much I appreciated the intervention of my noble friend—perhaps I may call him that—Lord Wigley. Perhaps I can put it this way: we are not used to quite such sensible nationalists in our parts. I thought that his contribution was very diplomatic, sensible and helpful to the debate.

Now we come to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who I suspect, from what I know of him and from his contribution, is not quite used to the hurly-burly of Scottish politics. He will know—if he does not, I will tell him—that all of us here involved in the hurly-burly of Scottish politics are willing to make our arguments in any ring that is made available. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested one the other week. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I have discussed it.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

The noble Lord is underestimating the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. When he was ambassador in America and I was on a visit to Washington, he invited me to stay. He added to his invitation, “You’ll have had your tea”.

[A noble Lord]

He is a Glaswegian.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I knew that he was not from Edinburgh but I did not realise that that stretched to all parts of Scotland. I know what a distinguished diplomatic career the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has had but, with due respect, although there are not any Scottish nationalists here—there is a Welsh nationalist—as my noble friend Lord Maxton said, the invitation has been made to them. Some people within the SNP, notably Mr Peter Wishart MP, would like them to accept. I hope that they will and I urge them to accept the offer to have SNP Peers. Just because they have not accepted, that should not gag this House from debating this matter. We are part of the British constitution and the legislation of this country. It would be wrong to inhibit us because they do not take up the offer.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a good point about the role of the Civil Service in encouraging the SNP in some of their policies in relation to the break-up of Britain. I urge him to take a look at my Amendment 73, because it will give him another opportunity to debate this issue in more detail, particularly some of the astonishing actions of Sir Peter Housden.

I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Morgan, who is a most distinguished Labour historian. I accept his admonition to be careful in this. I would also ask him to have a wee look at what some of the more extreme nationalists are saying. To use the old phrase, some of my best friends are nationalists. I even had some at my famous birthday party, which my noble friend Lord Browne revealed in a previous debate, and I get on with them very well. But we should look at some of the outpourings of the more extreme nationalists. They talk about “English colonialism” as if Scotland has been colonised by England. They liken Scotland to India or some African states and say, “We must throw off the yoke”, when all of us know that many of the colonialists were in fact Scots, not English.

[Lord Morgan]

I am sorry to interrupt the entertaining remarks of my noble friend. I am glad that he made the point that we do not have that kind of bitter Anglophobia, but there is a danger of throwing out the nationalism of the SNP with the national sentiment of Keir Hardie and the founders of our party. We are the pluralist party, and that is very important.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I accept that. My title, as my noble friend Lord Morgan knows, is “of Cumnock”. Keir Hardie lived there and is buried there. That is why I chose it as my title. One of his planks was home rule. There are some others that I do not agree with quite as much, but with home rule I certainly do.

[Lord Morgan]

Temperance.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Indeed. Temperance is one other. I accept what my noble friend said. I shall move on because the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will raise important matters for discussion in relation to finance that we want to participate in.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, raised a very interesting question with regard to Al Megrahi. My noble and learned friend Lord Boyd knows much more about it than any of us here and I do not want to go into the detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I did not like seeing the saltires waved when Megrahi arrived at the airport in Tripoli. I thought that the way in which the Justice Minister in Scotland dealt with it was entirely wrong. However, to suggest, as some people have, that it was Tony Blair who told Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to release Al Megrahi is just manifest nonsense. Even if he had, which he did not, can you imagine them doing his bidding on this? However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. It is important in relation to co-ordination between the various parts of the United Kingdom.

I want to say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that I forgive him for his disarming intervention, which I really enjoyed. He and I have been good friends for a long time. We were talking about membership of NATO in relation to policy differences. There is also the question of the deployment of Trident. I do not know if I am giving away a secret when I say that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will shortly be publishing a report which might be of interest to noble Lords. I also thought that his suggestion in relation to Canada might have some advantages. We could look at precedents with regard to protocols between provinces and federal Governments as we move towards a more quasi-federal or federal solution here in the United Kingdom.

Last and certainly not least I turn to my noble friend Lady Liddell, the Secretary of State emeritus, who as always made a most helpful contribution. She reminded us that the Malawi co-operation was in fact agreed with the Department for International Development. Interestingly, I was one of the Ministers in DfID when it was agreed. When the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments work in areas that are complementary to the work of the United Kingdom, we help each other and it is really enriching. I can see the Whip making an interesting face at me, so finally I must say that I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed.

18:45

Clause 28 : Taxation: introductory

Amendment 51ZA

Moved by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

51ZA: Clause 28, page 20, line 29, at end insert “, and
(c) section 29(2)(f)”

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I shall try to be brief. The issue is covered by a number of other amendments grouped with this one. I was absolutely astonished when I reached page 2 of the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times this week. There was an article by Jason Allardyce which informed me that the First Minister, as a result of negotiation, had been able to get extra powers to raise income tax in Scotland and arrange extra borrowing. No mention was made of this orphan Bill and the fact that this is the product of the Calman commission. So far as I know we have still not had a formal response so we have not heard from the Scottish Parliament whether it is prepared to give legislative consent to it. That tells you everything you need to know about the gymnastic qualities and abilities of our glorious First Minister.

One of the things that is sad about this sad little Bill is that it is actually hugely radical in what it proposes. It will give enormous powers to the Scottish Parliament. It is devo-max, and as we have had reason to discover in our debates earlier today, it is devo-max on issues such as speed limits and so on to the point of absurdity. In this part we are dealing with the heart of huge changes that are being made, but which do not seem to be part of the debate in Scotland. Indeed, we are in an absurd position where the debate is about what further policies could be added when this Bill provides for them. Picking up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in one of his interesting newsletter blogs to his civil servant colleagues, I think that the Permanent Secretary in the Scottish Government described it as,

“lost in the mists of time”,

and no longer of relevance.

I have to apologise to my noble and learned friend. As always I had fantastic help from the Public Bill Office, but I do not think these amendments are brilliantly drafted. What I want to do is in effect get rid of the provisions that give the Scottish Parliament the ability to invent completely new taxes. Not only are we going to have a Scottish income tax, but completely new taxes can also be invented. They can invent a window tax and they can have a local income tax. My noble friend Lord Sassoon is shaking his head; I will happily give way as it might save some time if he is going to tell me that that is wrong. The only thing that stands in the way of those taxes being implemented is an Order in Council which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

I am not going to start on another history lesson, but I thought that the whole point of this place—perhaps not this House but certainly the other place; and this place until 1911—is that it is not possible to raise taxes without the consent of Parliament. This provision in the Bill muddles that principle by allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide on a new tax—let us call it a local income tax, a window tax or something of that kind— and all it would require is the agreement of the Executive in London, which then has to put the proposals to both Houses of Parliament.

When it comes to the politics of this, is that really a proper check and balance on the ability to raise taxes on the people? It seems it would be politically extremely difficult in circumstances where, say, an SNP Administration decided to introduce a local income tax for either House to be able to oppose that with any political credibility. It is one thing to say, as those who argue for devo-max do, that the Scottish Parliament should be able to get all the revenues raised in Scotland and be responsible for expenditure; but it is quite another to provide for the invention of new taxes and for the only control on them to be an Order in Council, which is then subject to a resolution by both Houses.

In short, I do not believe that this clause should be in the Bill. I am very interested as to what new taxes the Government have in mind might be introduced by the Scottish Parliament, which it would fall upon the people of Scotland to pay. I am told that if you do an opinion poll in Scotland, there is great support for new powers—if you ask the people, “Would you like the Scottish Parliament to have new powers”, you will find there is a lot of support for that. However, if you ask the people of Scotland, “Would you like the Scottish Parliament to be able to invent new taxes, which would fall upon you?”, I wonder whether there would be the same level of support. If you asked them, “Would you like the Scottish Parliament to be able to invent and implement new taxes which you do not know about and which have not been discussed?”, I am not sure that that would command support. I find it extraordinary that this hugely radical change in the powers of the Scottish Parliament has not even been discussed in the Scottish media. I would wager that only a handful of people in Scotland are aware of it and of the implications.

This whole clause is not only unnecessary, it is constitutionally improper and I cannot for the life of me think why it should be there. I look forward to my noble friend telling me what problem this clause is meant to remedy and why it should be here. My amendment would simply prevent this happening without proper accountability. I think this is one of the most radical parts of the Bill and seems to be completely undesirable. I do not know whether Calman recommended it or not but I would be very surprised if such an open-ended provision was recommended, given that the Calman commission was so careful in its analysis. I will just forewarn my noble and learned friend of one thing. I am sure that in his briefing he will have lots of sentences that say, “This fulfils our manifesto commitment to implement the Calman proposal”. Well, there are other recommendations in Calman that are not in the Bill and which the Government have set their face against. So I would be careful about using that particular argument. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)]

I advise the Committee that if Amendment 51A in this group is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 51B due to pre-emption

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 51A, which is in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is absolutely right when he draws our attention to the central constitutional importance of the clause. We are dealing with a fundamental constitutional issue—the power to create taxes, which is a defining characteristic of a sovereign parliament. At the moment, the new Section 80B proposed for the 1998 Act reads:

“Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend this Part so as to … specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax of any description”.

Through this amendment, I want to ensure that any change in the tax powers of the Scottish Parliament will be subject to the scrutiny that you have with the primary legislative process rather than that which applies to secondary legislation. The Order in Council route is totally inadequate to secure the degree of political scrutiny that is appropriate and necessary. The granting of a power to enhance the taxing powers of a devolved parliament is not something that should be done lightly, casually or trivially. It should be done only through the process of primary legislation to ensure the absolute, measured, considered and examined scrutiny of any proposal. The order route is inadequate because we do not amend Orders in Council—this House is, rightly, reluctant to vote down orders and they see a very abbreviated form of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is it not an oddity that this House is not meant to consider taxation at all and yet the Bill provides for this House to approve the order?

[Lord Sewel]

Yes, and also, if we look at the way in which this has developed, I do not know how we come to this order solution. If you go back to 1997, the tax-varying powers then were subject to a separate question in a referendum and were incorporated in the Scotland Act as primary legislation. The Government today are bringing forward a whole series of tax-raising powers to be given to the Scottish Parliament in primary legislation. Why is it suddenly decided that any new taxes that are not specified in the Bill are going not to be subject to primary legislation but only to what I consider to be the absolutely unacceptable method of secondary legislation and Orders in Council?

I mentioned the 1997 referendum, and we know there are amendments standing in the name of some colleagues dealing with the referendum on taxing powers. I am not in favour of a referendum on taxing powers—although I took a referendum Bill through this House, I am not awfully in favour of referendums. My concern is that taxation and the power to create new taxes are of such fundamental constitutional importance that we run a very grave danger if we devalue the standing of that power and use a way of obtaining them that may be convenient for the Government but is wrong. It must be the job of the United Kingdom Parliament to be able to scrutinise any proposals for new or additional taxes in any part of the United Kingdom, through the proper parliamentary process.

19:00

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the two noble Lords who have spoken on this section have made one point with which I very warmly agree—that we are now coming to the real meat in this Bill. This afternoon we were dealing with what I call “tinkering devolution”. This is not tinkering—it is much more serious. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, since the last day we discussed this Bill, there has been a very important development with the Prime Minister’s visit to Scotland and the announcement that he made. He said that if we turn down independence in a referendum, the door would be open to better and greater devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. One of the problems with Mr Cameron—and, indeed, with Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg, too—is that they were all at primary school in 1979, when a similar promise was made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. That was never fulfilled, as we oldies well recall.

My submission to the House today is that the circumstances today are quite different from those in 1979. Alec Douglas-Home was an honourable man, but he was not in a position to influence Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hostility to devolution. One reason why the Secretary of State, Michael Moore, is absolutely right to argue for a swift decision on independence is that we could then have two years left in this Parliament with David Cameron as Prime Minister to fulfil his promise, even though Alex Salmond does not like it.

Talking of Alex Salmond, I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes said earlier. Those who criticised Mr Salmond for his abusive rhetoric towards a BBC producer a couple of weeks back were, I submit, rather missing the point. I have to admit that I both admire and like Alex Salmond. You could put that down to prejudice stemming from our common youth in Linlithgow, where I first saw him as an angelic choir boy in my father’s church. That is not an adjective that I have heard applied to him in recent times. But admiring or liking him does not mean agreeing with him. When I switched on my television on that Saturday afternoon to watch that dreadful Calcutta Cup match, the last thing that I wanted to see was the First Minister popping up to give us his inexpert views. He should be concentrating on governing the country and not looking for camera calls wherever he can. What I admire about him is his chutzpah—but it is also slightly worrying, because there is a touch of “L’État, c’est moi”, as Louis XIV of France was reputed to have claimed. We are told by some people that to be anti-SNP is to be anti-Scottish. It is time that they understood that the rest of us actually resent being told that to be pro-Scotland you have to be pro-SNP. That is not the case.

I have been told by other broadcasters that the Salmond rugby experience was not unique for them and that the SNP heavies have made more regular calls and complaint to newsrooms than all the other political parties put together. That runs at times close to intimidation.

[Lord Maxton]

Does the noble Lord not think that the strangest thing about that whole incident was Alex Salmond complaining that the BBC was somehow biased against him. I suggest that anybody who listens to “Good Morning Scotland” as I do on a fairly regular basis every morning would know that the exact opposite is the truth.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I was going to go on to say that we are actually seeing a trend towards the attributes of a one-party state, where news bulletins are led by stories of what the dear leader has been doing today. That is a real danger.

There is also the question of vagueness of what independence really means for us financially. Until recently, the official position of the Scottish National Party was in favour of joining the euro, until the problems of the eurozone suggested instead that there was safety in keeping sterling, presumably with all the Bank of England controls. Some independence, that—not for them, apparently, the genuine independence of the Irish punt or the Danish kroner.

On the subject of Denmark, a former Foreign Minister of that country is a good friend of mine and a fishing companion. There was one occasion when the two of us went fishing in Iceland as a guest of the Prime Minister. My respect for them and their countries does not lead me to wish to see a Scottish Foreign Minister with similar limited global influence. I would rather have Scots such as Robin Cook and Malcolm Rifkind, both of whom I disagreed with but who wielded strength as Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom. That is the proper role for Scots in future.

I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, mentioned Trident, not in the context of defence policy but in that of economic and financial policy. The SNP’s little Scotland approach is best seen in its attitude to the Trident missile programme. We Liberals were never in favour of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent in the first place, and we do not wish to see it replaced. The SNP said that it would remove the base from Faslane to have it anywhere so long as it is south of Carlisle. My view is that until we succeed in getting rid of it altogether, it might as well stay where it provides many jobs and helps the Scottish economy.

I still believe that most Scots would like to see maximum devolution consistent with common sense, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was right in describing opinion polls. That means substantially greater financial powers than in the clauses that we are now discussing. I regard this section of the Bill as only one small step in the right direction. It is not a new view of mine or one occasioned by the rise of the SNP. When I took office as presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, I argued from day one that no self-respecting Parliament can exist permanently on a grant from another Parliament and that we should move to the point where the Scottish Parliament has the power to raise the money that it spends on all these devolved issues. This Bill is a significant but small step in the right direction.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can the noble Lord just say what new taxes he thinks the Scottish Parliament might invent using this power?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I have no idea. The important point is that it should have the power to raise funds as it wishes for all the devolved issues. It is no good going on talking about refining the Barnett formula and changing the grant system. It is up to the Scottish Parliament to devise its own taxation methods and raise the money for its own purposes. That is what I would like to see happen, and this Bill moves us slightly in that direction.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has just expressed. I cannot see the fundamental point of principle that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can see. He spoke of this procedure proposed in the Bill as not providing the necessary and appropriate degree of scrutiny. The people who would be taxed are the people of Scotland who elect the Scottish Government. I cannot see any particular point of principle in saying that they may not determine the form of their taxation. States in the United States of America have a considerable degree of freedom. Local taxes are different all over the United States. In many cases, they have a balanced budget requirement. The people of Scotland, speaking through their representatives in Scotland, cannot determine the level of the Scottish deficit.

[Lord Sewel]

The argument that the Scottish Executive should have control over the level of taxation is one thing, but the creation of new taxes is a totally different thing.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I cannot really see that distinction. I would be more worried about the level if the level affected the balance of the deficit of the United Kingdom. The levels would have to be adjusted so that the tax take in Scotland remained the same proportionate to expenditure in Scotland. But as for the creation of a new tax, going by a different form, if the Scots chose to lower taxes in form A and raise them in form Y, provided that they came to the same amount and had the same effect on the United Kingdom Exchequer, that seems to me entirely up to them. I cannot see a point of principle there.

[Lord Sewel]

The problem of the deficit is really a red herring, because the deficit would be controlled by borrowing powers.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

If the deficit is not important to the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, what is the answer to mine? It is perfectly possible for the Scots, and reasonable, to decide the form in which they should be taxed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I could help the noble Lord by asking him a question. If his position is that the Scottish Parliament should be free to invent any tax and raise it at any level as part of the devolved settlement, why do we need to bother with having both Houses of Parliament approving it?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I agree that the Bill proposes a very eccentric procedure. I was going to go on to say that, first, on practical grounds, I would hope that no one would set up differential tax systems inside the United Kingdom. Secondly, I would not disagree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, against the particular procedure for vestigial approval which is laid down here. My argument is on the point of principle of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Those who should be in the lead on the forms of taxation in Scotland should be the Scots; that seems to me to be clear.

I am disappointed with this bit of the Bill—

[Lord Sewel]

The noble Lord has challenged me on a point of principle. The argument surely must be that macroeconomic policy under the devolution settlement is reserved and, within that, it is absolutely right and proper that the United Kingdom Parliament examines any proposals for new taxation on the basis of how it impinges upon macroeconomic policy, and whether it is fair and would inflict great harm on any part of the economy of the whole United Kingdom.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Yes, that is reasonable. We certainly agree on the macro point. We disagree on whether there is a point of principle about forms of taxation. I would like to pick up on the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about the Prime Minister's speech in Edinburgh. Here, I disagree with the noble Lord, who says that we should proceed to have the referendum as soon as possible, which would give us a couple of years to work out what devo-max means. I do not know why we do not put into this Bill what we think devo-max means, with a sunset clause. I follow the argument that the referendum should have only one question but there is a genuine problem in that the Sir Alec point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, certainly applies in Scotland. People up there do not really believe that the London Government intend, once one has had the referendum and if its answer is no to independence, to confer a further substantial degree of devolution.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

May I finish my argument? That is not widely believed up there. One could set out the definition that this Parliament believes would be right for further devolution. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to agree with me because he does not want any more, but the Government indicated that there would be consideration after the referendum of a further degree of devolution—your Prime Minister said it. I understand why that will not happen unless the referendum says no to independence—that is obvious—but I cannot see why one cannot specify that now.

19:15

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. He is quite right: I think this is a dreadful Bill which was introduced for political reasons, and that the best thing we could do with it is bin it—drop the whole thing and get on with the referendum. That is my position. However, it is a minority position, and we have the Bill and we are considering it. We are considering a clause on which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who after all was the midwife of the Scotland Act and believes in all this stuff, and I are agreed that it is a huge transfer of power. To me, that is devo-max.

I have no idea what the Prime Minister was thinking of when he said that there would be more devolution after it had been decided that Scotland would remain in the United Kingdom. I cannot think of anything that could be added that is not already in this Bill. This clause which we are considering, for example, provides enormous scope to introduce new taxes, so I would say that this is devo-max. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the people of Scotland do not know about it, because nobody is actually reporting it. We are all debating something that is already here in this Bill, and which was actually delivered by the previous Labour Government—with the support of my party, which I must say was very foolish. Having said that, what does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mean when he says that we should have something added? What would he add to this Bill that would be devo-max? Can he tell me?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

That is a very fair challenge and I have no complete answer. In respect of taxation, I would argue that devo-max should be precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, does not want: that the Edinburgh Parliament should be entitled to decide on the forms of taxation. There would need to be the macroeconomic control, which he and I would need to discuss, but the forms of taxation within a given tax take—or rather within a given deficit control, because that is where the control would be—seems to be something which should be devolved in principle. I have made my point and I do not see the point of principle here. I would argue that the difficulty with devo-max is: who is going to specify it? I cannot see Mr Salmond's interest in specifying devo-max, because he wants independence—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I wonder whether, when the dialogue is complete, other people might answer your question.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Perhaps I should try to finish my remarks.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

If the noble Lord will allow me, surely the point he is making is valid. If the post-referendum decision is not to go independent and we take the Prime Minister at his word that more is on offer, it is possible for all the parties—including the SNP, as the Scottish Government—to join in working out the best form of devolution-plus, as I prefer to call it, which enables the Scottish Parliament to raise the money that it spends.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I suppose that my motive, as one who believes in the union and does not wish for Scottish independence, is that it seems that the chances of a vote for Scottish independence would be much reduced if the credibility of the devo-max option had been enhanced by its prior specification. I cannot see who is going to do that and I am rather sorry that we seem to be going to miss the opportunity in this Bill to do it, subject to a sunset clause.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Perhaps I can say a few words on this amendment, as one of the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, describes as being “up there”. I am living in Edinburgh, I am a resident, and I will be voting in whatever referendum we have. I am looking forward to it. I do not think of it as “up there”; it is where I live and what I am part of. This is the amendment on which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I are going to disagree—at last—because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel. We need full fiscal responsibility in Scotland, and we need to move towards that. Some people call it full fiscal autonomy; I call it full fiscal responsibility.

Is it devo-max? As other people have said, I do not know what Salmond means by devo-max. If he means other functions such as welfare or pensions being transferred to Scotland, I am totally against that. It would be catastrophic and cause tremendous problems in breaking up the system that has existed for so long in the United Kingdom. However, full fiscal responsibility is different. Having been in the Scottish Parliament, I know that at the moment it has responsibility for spending the money but not for raising the money. That means that you are irresponsible, and that at any time when you do not have any money you blame Westminster and say that the Barnett formula is not giving you enough. This is the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to: how do you get to full fiscal responsibility?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and we might both get vilified for this, that David Cameron was right. He was right to say that once Scotland rejects separation, and we must reject it, the door will be open for discussions. There will be a dialogue between Westminster and Holyrood about the new form of devolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland is right that we need that yes/no vote as quickly as possible so we can reject separation and move on to discussing what kind of devolution we want. We could have a referendum with devolution options, but it would be far better if the federalist, unionist and devolutionary parties were to work out an agreed formula for the new enhanced devolution and full fiscal responsibility through a convention—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am delighted to be able to disagree with him. Could he table an amendment on Report that includes the elements that he thinks would be added after the referendum that would provide more devo-max devolution? I cannot think of anything, and he has already reserved his position on welfare. What would it contain? This is already in the Bill.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

When we get to the Minister’s reply, I think we will find that it is not already in the Bill in the form that I would like. We need to work out exactly how much is needed to fund the planned expenditure of the Scottish Parliament and to look at ways in which that can be funded through taxes raised by the Scottish Parliament. Some people in Scotland, MSPs and others, including Peter Duncan of the Conservative Party, have come out with a scheme that they call devo-plus. I do not agree with it fully but it deserves looking at. It is one of a number of options that should be looked at for funding Scottish expenditure with income from within Scotland.

[Lord Sewel]

Way back in the mists of time, I used to construct a series of social surveys. One of them was a series of questions on the powers of local government. We asked people two sets of questions: the first on which powers were at which tier of local government; and the second on whether local government should have more powers. The initial answer to the latter question was always yes. Then we asked what powers they wanted to see local government have, and about 90 per cent of them were powers that local government already had. That is the problem with the “more powers” argument: it assumes that people are fully aware of the powers that the Parliament already has. I simply do not think that that is the case.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I wish I had not given way; that intervention was not all that helpful to my argument. If the noble Lord, Lord Steel, David Cameron and I can agree on a way forward, there must be some hope that this rainbow coalition will find out what is best for Scotland and for Britain, and will avoid the dangers of separation and of breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the way forward. I have spoken for quite long enough now.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate because I have not had the opportunity to do the groundwork in order to understand what my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendments are all about. The House is greatly in his debt for bringing to our attention the most extraordinary proposal contained in the Bill. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I got the impression that he was arguing that we should support the Bill because we know that it is a bad Bill and that the financial provisions will not be adequate for Scottish needs. I am happy to let him intervene and correct that if I am wrong, but if he does so I know that several other people have now argued almost exactly the same point. Personally, I believe that if a Bill is bad you should not pass it, which is why in my Second Reading speech I called for it to be withdrawn. To pass a Bill because you know it is bad seems to be fundamentally wrong.

We know that the Bill will not meet the needs of the Scottish finances because in order to do so it would have to ensure that as the Barnett formula was withdrawn over time, Scottish incomes rose at the same level at least as UK public expenditure has done over the years. Research done by a couple of academics, Professor Hughes Hallett and Professor Scott, discovered that in the eight years to 2008 there was a differential between those two measurements of 0.21 per cent per annum. Over a period of time, Scottish incomes were not rising as fast as UK revenue.

There are countless arguments which could explain why the Bill cannot work and that the finances provided by this 10 per cent tax discretion will be inadequate, but that alone seemed to be a telling one. I noticed that the answer given by the Treasury in previous discussions in another place—I would be grateful if my noble friend Lord Sassoon addressed this matter in his wind-up—was that that had been true over the past eight years but would not be true over the next five years because public expenditure has been heavily reined in. I suspect that incomes in Scotland are also being pretty heavily reined in, particularly because there is a higher preponderance of public servants whose numbers are likely to be reduced and whose incomes are being controlled, and partly because the Scottish economy is in a very much poorer state than the rest of the United Kingdom’s.

One could dilate on a whole load of other reasons why the finances will not work, but the provision in the Bill to create a new tax seems to have been inserted subtly and quietly by the Government because they, too, know that the provision will be inadequate. With the Bill we are not talking about a provision to help Scotland take control of its finances and create a new accountability; in fact it is to demonstrate the complete inadequacy of provisions of this kind for Scottish accountability. That means that it is not a Bill at all but a Trojan horse.

Many noble Lords seem keen to use the failures of the Bill, which they all discern, as a springboard to bring in another Bill to create devo-max, if you like to call it that, more high taxation and other measures. Almost every measure that the Scottish Government might like to control in due course, like pensions responsibility and social welfare, will reveal further inadequacies in the Scottish capacity to provide for them once they are transferred out of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords are creating this springboard towards separation where, under what they call devolution, we shall be independent in Scotland in all but name, and possibly ultimately in name as well. That would create a situation that is not what we are supposed to be debating, so the whole debate is being conducted under a cloud of self-deception in the hope that no one will notice that failure is built into the provisions of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth has put his finger on this point extraordinarily effectively, and I am ashamed that I had not noticed it myself when reading the Bill. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to address this issue and explain why the provision is there and how he thinks it will be used in future.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, that we owe a debt of gratitude to both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for the amendments that they have brought forward to this part of the Bill and for the way in which they have put forward the arguments that have opened this debate.

This is the heart of the Bill. It is an important constitutional Bill, as I said in my opening remarks today when the Committee convened. I also said that noble Lords could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the management of its passage through the Houses of Parliament. I regret that. To the extent that I have agreed on occasion to days and dates for the management of the Bill, on reflection I now regret doing that because it is such an important constitutional Bill. No Members of the Committee should be mistaken that this is not a Bill of constitutional significance and of potential practical significance for the people of Scotland. However, without the provision that noble Lords seek to delete with their respective amendments, I do not believe that the Bill could be described in these terms at all. What was left of the Bill would be far less significant. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, said in his evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee that without this provision, this would be,

“a smaller, less impressive Bill”.

Those are the words that he used and they are recorded not only in the evidence that he has given but quite clearly in volume I of the fourth report of Session 2010-12 of the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, to which I shall refer later on because it raises a number of other important and serious issues that need to be addressed before we conclude our deliberations on the Bill. He said that it would be a smaller and less impressive Bill, and that view is reflected in the Select Committee’s report.

19:30

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that this provision and the Bill are small steps towards the sort of devolution that he thinks is necessary not only to keep Scotland in the union—I know that he is a unionist—but also for the Scottish people. I do not agree with that; this is a very significant step. I regret that we have developed what appears to be a ghost debate about these issues. The contribution made most recently by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, in which he appeared to be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the Prime Minister David Cameron on this issue, clearly demonstrated what is going on in this debate. He is talking about something different from what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is talking about. I have no clue what the Prime Minister is talking about. The three of them can appear to be in agreement only because there is an utter lack of definition of what each of them was talking about.

To some degree I commend the initiative that has become known as devo-plus but there seems to be a competition to find a suffix to “devo” to come up with something different that will resonate with the Scottish people. Fundamentally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The answer lies in the Bill. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said entirely accurately that there are precious few people in Scotland who understand the significance of the Bill or the potential of this legislation. I have to say that when the Prime Minister visited Scotland recently, he was among those people who did not understand what was already in the Bill. If he had, he would have spent time explaining the potential of the Bill to the people of Scotland, including the opportunity—which already exists in the Bill—for Scotland’s ambitions for the control of its fiscal policy. I will explain that in a moment. Instead, he offered the people of Scotland something ill defined for the future, which subsequently had to be explained away in what appeared to be an off-the-cuff remark.

I am a politician so I will make a political point here. This is not the only time that I have seen the Prime Minister not understand a piece of legislation that his Government are taking forward. Indeed, I have seen him do it at the Dispatch Box. It is deeply dangerous to talk in vague terms about these issues and then leave the debate in Scotland to be dominated by those undefined words when there is no shortage of people in Scotland who will define them for him and will define them for their own purposes. That is the compelling reason why we need to stop talking in general terms across the devolution parties about the level of agreement that there appears to be among us, and start putting together an explanation of what we collectively want for the Scottish people for the future and talk to that, instead of constantly competing with each other. We can then fill this space, which the ill defined devo-max currently fills.

I am conscious of the time. This debate has perhaps taken longer than many people expected because it stands between them and their dinner. However, there are very important issues here and this may be the most important debate that we have on the Bill. Therefore, I intend to go through the points that I want to make with some degree of care.

In Part 3, Clause 28 creates the framework within the 1998 Act for the devolution of financial powers. Significantly, as well as devolving legislative competence over new specified devolved taxes in relation to land transaction and landfill, Clause 28 provides a mechanism for the devolution of additional taxes by statutory instrument, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. As this has dominated our debate in Committee, it undoubtedly raises an important question about whether devolution of UK-wide taxes should be permitted without primary legislation being brought before and approved by this Parliament. I have to say that I do not think that is necessary and I will go on to explain why. There is a much more significant disagreement between me and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, than there is between him and my noble friend Lord Foulkes or anyone else in this Committee. The Bill is right in this regard but it is not properly understood. It can be improved but it will not be improved by taking this clause out. I will explain why.

First, I will deal with my noble friend Lord Maxton’s point that the ability to raise taxes defines the characteristics of a sovereign Parliament.

[Noble Lords]

Lord Sewel.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I thought my noble friend Lord Maxton said that. I am sorry; it was my noble friend Lord Sewel. If I had had a private conversation with the noble Lord, I might have been able to reveal that beforehand. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in part of his contribution that was very helpful, blew that out of the water. States in the United States of America have, within the federal structure, the ability to raise taxes without being sovereign. Across the world, I am sure there are many other examples that I do not know about of devolved Administrations having the power to raise taxes within constitutions that deny them sovereignty. I am certain that I could find them if I had the research facilities available to me.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will not make a smart-alec point—although I should not say “Smart Alec” in this context in this debate—about other states that can raise taxes. I follow the noble Lord’s argument, which I absolutely respect. However, I respectfully suggest that he needs to distinguish between the ability to raise taxes and the ability to create new taxes. The point that his noble friend and I were making is that this clause gives the Scottish Parliament the power to create completely new taxes. His noble friend argued, as I did, that that is distinct from being able to raise taxes. There are states in the US that can set the sales tax but, as far as I am aware, do not have the freedom to invent completely new taxes. However, I might be wrong about that.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Someone had to create the sales tax in the first place. I might be wrong but I do not think that in the United States the creation of a sales tax is a federal function that is then devolved to the states.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

May I just answer this point first, if noble Lords will allow me? I am perfectly willing to try to dredge up examples as I stand here, but it would be pointless. I fundamentally disagree, as does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the difference between creating new taxes and raising taxes is as fundamental as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says it is. There is very little meeting of minds between us in this, but there is no meeting of minds even in relation to that.

[Lord Sewel]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The comparison to the United States is very ill judged. The United States is a federal system. The United Kingdom is a unitary state with devolved Administrations, which is fundamentally different when you talk about sovereignty.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

We have already had the benefit of a very interesting contribution from my noble friend Lord Morgan, which I will read with care, about the Protean nature of sovereignty. I merely responded to the point that I understood my noble friend Lord Sewel to make—that the defining characteristic of sovereignty relates to taxation. He seems to be conceding the point that it does not. I am sure that if we all read what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said this afternoon and perhaps read more extensively what he has probably written on the subject, we will conclude that it does not. I make the point in passing that I do not think taxation is the defining issue of sovereignty.

On the genesis of the power, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked whether it was recommended by Calman. The true answer to that is that it was not, but the power has its roots in the recommendation of the Calman commission, which concluded:

“The Scottish Parliament should be given a power to legislate with the agreement of the UK Parliament to introduce specified new taxes that apply across Scotland”.

I am not entirely sure whether that statement has a sufficient shock effect for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as I think he indicated that he would be surprised if Calman recommended that. However, there can be no doubt that the Bill goes further than this. As I said, the power was not recommended by Calman but it has its roots in the recommendation of the Calman commission.

The Bill goes further than the recommendation, not only prescribing a much wider power for the creation of new Scottish taxes, which is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but allowing for the future devolution of existing UK taxes, as Scottish Financial Enterprise and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, to which I have previously referred, have pointed out. However, there is also no doubt that the breadth of this provision answers a specific call for the further flexible development of the devolution settlement. That is why it is so important to the Bill and of such great significance and cannot be dismissed as a small step. I say that with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. It is a very significant step in the devolution settlement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that it is a pity that this measure has not been accorded due significance in public debates by those who should have known about it.

The significance of the Calman commission’s recommendations as a whole lies in providing a framework for the continued development of devolution in a legitimate and managed way. I support that. However, I argue that if we agree with the principle of greater financial accountability for the Scottish Government—we on these Benches broadly agree with that; I do not think there is much discontent about that on our Benches—the decision over whether additional taxes should be devolved in the future comes down to a decision about the practical impact of such a devolution for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

Thus, this is not in my view an issue of constitutional principle. The issue of constitutional principle is whether we agree to the devolution of taxes, which is what the Bill is specifically about. Thereafter, it is a matter of the practical requirements of such a power. I hope that noble Lords who think they disagree with me will bear with me as I think that I will answer the point that is milling round in their heads about why this argument is deficient. It is for this reason that we have tabled Amendment 51B, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval for draft regulations on the conditions that must be met by any proposed tax for it to be devolved and the specific consultative procedure that must be followed by the Scottish and UK Governments. It has become a habit in this Committee for noble Lords to say that the drafting of measures may be deficient. The drafting of the relevant amendment may indeed be deficient, but this is the best that I could do. If the Committee and the Government are inclined to support it, we can make it much better between now and Report.

I believe that much of the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Sewel and others about the wide-ranging nature of the power in new Section 80A could be allayed if the Government set out in more specific detail the criteria that will be expected of any new candidate for devolution and a clear process by which those criteria will be applied. I regret that we have got this far without that becoming apparent for the reasons that I am about to go into. The big problem is that Parliament is being asked to approve the allocation of a significant and wide-ranging power to the Executive with practically no information about how this will be used in practice and the safeguards that will exist to constrain it.

Indeed, the Select Committee, to which I have already referred, understood this well. It concluded in its report that it was,

“disappointed that, when pressed, the Secretary of State could not give us examples of the type of tax which could potentially be acceptable … We are also concerned by the absence of any clear process or mechanism by which the criteria will be applied”.

In his evidence, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, set out extensive and broad criteria that he said would need to be applied to any tax for it to overcome the hurdles necessary for devolution.

The Select Committee went on to ask the Government,

“to provide a more thorough and detailed explanation of how this process would work, during the passage of the Bill through this House”.

We should bear in mind that the committee is talking about the other place. I commend the report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee more generally to noble Lords. I do not know how many of them have had the opportunity to read it, but I commend it. I particularly commend paragraphs 92 to 96, although I do not intend to read them out at this time of night, and the evidence of the Secretary of State, Michael Moore, because it reveals significantly the basis of a mechanism for dealing with this issue.

Noble Lords should not underestimate the importance of the power provided by Clause 28, and I do not think that they will do so after this debate. It provides a real and tangible mechanism for the continued strengthening of the devolution settlement and the devolution of further powers. In many ways it is the antithesis of the further undefined devolution that has been alluded to by the Prime Minister of late and, indeed, by the First Minister in his flirtation with the concept of devo-max, whatever that might be.

19:47

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I hope that the noble Lord might help me. Is he saying that he thinks this clause is too broad in its scope and that there should be some kind of constraint by way of criteria as to which taxes could be invented? As it stands, a wealth tax, a further tax on inheritance or a roof tax could be implemented, although a poll tax is probably less likely. Is he saying that, speaking for the Opposition, he favours some kind of procedure that would constrain the ambitions of a devolved Administration in this respect, or is he saying that this measure goes to the heart of the whole Bill and that it constitutes devo-max?

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am not saying that this is devo-max; I am saying that this is the Bill. The Bill is a very significant piece of legislation and a remarkable advance in the potential devolution in Scotland. However, as the noble Lord has pointed out, it is misunderstood and has not been properly explained. Broadly, it is not supported or championed in the observations of those who have brought it to this Parliament. More specifically, it has not been championed by the Prime Minister, who has suggested in fact that it is just a small step and that greater steps can be taken in future.

The people who drafted the Bill and are responsible for it may not have intended to do this, but they have given us the answer to the challenge for the future post the referendum on the issue of separation. They may not know that they have given us the answer but they have. Now they need to build the other part of the mechanism that allows this Parliament—the sovereign Parliament—to play its proper role in deciding what the criteria are in advance of specific proposals of the sort of devolution that can take place. In other ways, they should spell out, as Michael Moore did in his evidence to the Select Committee, the criteria that need to be applied and would need to be met before a tax—either a new one or a part of the United Kingdom’s existing taxation—could be devolved.

We need to amend the Bill to provide that mechanism. I believe that it can be provided by regulation, which is why the amendment has been drafted in the way that it has. At the risk of boring noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I do not think it is an issue of principle, once we establish the principle, as we will by passing the Bill, that taxation can be devolved in this way to the Scottish Parliament. It is a mechanism to make sure that that is done properly and in a way in which the various parts of this deal take their proper responsibilities. That is the bit that we are missing because this Parliament is entitled to be confident that any devolved taxes will be used for the benefit of the Scottish people and the union. It is for this reason that we believe the Government have a duty to enshrine conditions to this effect in some form of legislation—regulations would be quite sufficient. This would provide a clear regulatory framework that can be approved by this Parliament and then used flexibly in the future in the context of a changing settlement between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament —between the United Kingdom and the people of Scotland.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, whom I welcome to our Committee’s deliberations—I do not know how much previous experience he has had of Scottish political matters, but over the next few hours he is in for a crash course—that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee raised these issues in its report on the Bill almost a year ago today. I therefore hope that having had the benefit of a year to consider the matter further—and I am sure the noble Lord has been thinking of nothing else—at the very least he will be able to provide this House with some sort of detailed explanation of the mechanism and criteria to be applied on the use of this power. If he cannot do so, it would be helpful if he provided us with at least some hypothetical examples of taxes that could meet such criteria.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, one thing on which I think we are all agreed is that we are getting to the heart of the Bill. There is a range of views about how significant the changes are in Clause 28, but we all recognise the importance of what we are discussing.

The Government are quite clear that the Bill delivers substantial new powers to the Scottish Parliament—powers that have been included as a result of careful and detailed consideration. I want to focus on what is in the Bill, not on what hypothetically might be in it. The Government have been clear that any consideration of further powers to be devolved is for after a referendum on independence. Let us therefore concentrate for now on what we have in front of us.

I should also say at the outset that as an intruder from outside Scotland and a Briton from elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, suggested, my observation is that to date devolution in Scotland, of which the Bill is part of a continuing process, has been delivered as a result of lengthy discussion, analysis of evidence and cross-party consensus. That was how the settlement was delivered in 1997 and that is how the measures in the Bill have been developed. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s confirmation at the outset that he believes that the tax-raising powers granted in this clause are appropriate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The tax-creating powers in the Bill, as the noble Lord acknowledged, were not recommended by Calman. A phrase, “specified taxes”, was put in there to deal with the uncertainties over an aggregates tax. No one has been consulted or is aware—as far as I can see, and that is what my amendment relates to—that the Bill provides for the creation of completely new taxes. I do not know where that came from. It is certainly not part of the Calman recommendations and has not been subject to any extensive discussion or consultation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lang, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, said that he was not aware of the issue until he looked at the Bill in detail—and he is one of the best-informed people in Scotland on this matter.

[Lord Sassoon]

If my noble friend would bear with me, we will get to this point and to other points he has made. If he wishes to repeat the points he has made previously, he can do so ad nauseam. However, I say to him respectfully that we have got the point loud and clear, and I will come on to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, the genesis of this power is in Calman. It is a power that has been debated and approved of by committees in another place in this Parliament, as well as in the Scottish Parliament—but I will come back to that. My noble friend completely mischaracterises the debate so far over this power to create new taxes.

We are discussing a number of amendments to an important clause, and I should therefore make sure that we are clear about the architecture of it before I come back to the heart of the arguments. Clause 28 inserts new Sections 80A and 80B into the Scotland Act. New Section 80A provides an overview of the new taxation provisions. New Section 80B introduces a power to add new devolved taxes to those devolved by Clauses 33 and 35, and makes certain consequential provisions applicable to devolved taxes.

Amendment 51A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would remove new Section 80B. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean seeks to remove devolved taxes altogether from the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, thereby preventing it from legislating on all tax matters besides local taxes. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, would provide approval of the criteria and procedures under which new taxes will be considered for devolution by this Parliament before the power could be used.

I propose to outline briefly why the financial aspects of the Bill introduced in new Section 80A, and which I stress my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment seeks to remove, will raise the accountability of the Scottish Parliament and benefit both Scotland and the UK as a result. I very much note what my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said about the importance of accountability. After I have dealt with those issues, I shall address in more detail new Section 80B, the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the arrangements that we propose for the approval of new taxes—the subject of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and on which he seeks assurances. That is a critical element of the construct to which other speakers in this debate did not give proper weight.

New Section 80A introduces the finance clauses in the Bill. It grants significant positive new powers to Scotland, and I should outline the measures in the clauses and why they represent such an important and beneficial step for both Scotland and the UK as a whole. The Scotland Act 1998 specifies that tax policy, aside from local taxes, is outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. The changes made by the Bill that are introduced in new Section 80A will amend the Scotland Act to enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on certain devolved areas of tax policy. The changes will give the Scottish Parliament a real stake in Scottish economic performance because a significant proportion of the budget for public services in Scotland will come directly from taxes set and raised in Scotland. Some speakers have suggested that it would be appropriate to go much further, but we are taking a significant step here. It will enable the full devolution of stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax and enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a Scottish rate of income tax.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, I am not very clear about the Scottish rate of income tax. I am a Scot; I live in Scotland—that is where my home is—but I am paid a pension by Parliament which comes from Cardiff. How does that become part of that? It is paid directly into my bank; as far as I know, they do not need to know where I live; so how do I get income tax variation for Scotland alone?

[Lord Sassoon]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, we are coming to income tax under the next clause. I am sure that we will come back to that extensively and properly later. This is the enabling clause that enables the setting of the Scottish rate as well as the focus of the amendment on the power of the Scottish Parliament, with the agreement of this Parliament, and subject to safeguards—to which I shall come—to introduce new taxes.

I hope that the Committee will agree with me and the Government that these changes will enable the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to respond better to the evolving needs of Scottish society and the Scottish economy; and that they will increase the Scottish Parliament’s accountability, as its decisions on public services will be directly related to decisions on Scottish taxes.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is nodding in agreement; I hope that that will continue right through this section of the Bill. No, he is saying that it will not; no doubt we will come back to football clubs and other matters later, but we agree so far.

Thirdly, these changes will bring decision-making over the issues that affect them closer to the Scottish people, which we believe is appropriate. New Section 80B will create the power for the Scottish Parliament to introduce new taxes, subject to the agreement of both Houses in this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was quite right to draw attention to the approval process. He seems to want to draw it even more tightly but, on the other hand, he points out—partially in answer to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who seems to think the approval process to be woefully inadequate—that the clause states that it must have the agreement of both Houses in Parliament, which is not necessarily the case with all taxes as it stands at the moment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On that point, perhaps my noble friend could deal with the argument here. If I may say so, he has put it as if it is not a major constitutional point. As a Member of the House of Commons, I was taught that the main purpose of the House of Commons was to vote means of supply; that is its main function. Therefore, the creation of new taxes is a matter which is dealt with thoroughly by primary legislation through a Finance Bill, which enjoys certain privileges. Those matters do not come to this House because this House has no part to play in matters of taxation, following the efforts of the previous Liberal Administration.

It seems to me to be a hugely novel concept that the House of Lords should be involved in approving the creation of a new tax. Can my noble friend explain why that is included in the Bill?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, again, I will get there in the logical flow of the argument, if my noble friend will permit me. He does not make new points; I have them on board; I will try to address them, but I think we should go through the logical steps of exactly what the construct will be, because this is a critical question. I do not dismiss it.

Why is it so important? The power will enable the whole of an existing tax to be devolved and allows for the creation of a completely new devolved tax. That is clear. It is a power recommended by Calman but which the Government are not in a position to devolve at this time so, to that extent, it is necessary to implement Calman.

[Lord Sewel]

Does the noble Lord accept that there are fundamental differences between using orders and using primary legislation? One of those fundamental differences is that an order cannot be amended. I should have thought that, on the creation of new taxes, it is likely that Parliament might wish to amend such an order when it comes before it.

[Lord Sassoon]

Again, perhaps I may be permitted to go through the complete steps needed to introduce any new tax.

The Government believe that we have a proportionate and appropriate package. We need to take all the measures in the round. In this case, to address the specific question of the role of your Lordships' House—I will not be drawn into taking all the points out of order, but the question of the role of the House of Lords is important—it is because the power addresses the constitutional question of who should be able to set a tax, not the rate of the tax nor the structure. The question of the introduction of the new tax is indeed one in which this House should have a role, which is included in the Bill and the clause.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend again, but this is central. For the sake of argument, let us say that this power is used by the Scottish Parliament to introduce a mansion tax or a wealth tax. Is my noble friend saying that this House could consider and reject it and that that is practical politics? It seems to me that part of the 1911 settlement was that this House did not get involved in those matters. In a sense, I am here arguing for more power for the Scottish Parliament, not less, because I think that this has not been thought through.

[Lord Sassoon]

The answer is yes and yes to my noble friend. The introduction of new taxes is a constitutional change to the United Kingdom and a power which will be introduced. I will go through the steps one by one, because we have not debated them all fully so far this evening. One of the steps is for the order to be approved by both Houses of Parliament; the Government believe that to be appropriate. So that is a yes. There may be questions about whether orders can be amended and other questions, but emphatically it is our intention that the order to implement a new tax has to be approved in both Houses. That is clear. My noble friend may look surprised, but that is the case. I hope that that gives him significant comfort.

[Lord Cormack]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but it would be invalid under the Parliament Act for this House to express a view and vote on taxes within the United Kingdom.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but those who drafted the Bill, who are quite clear about the centrality of this to the new constitutional settlement embodied here, are clear that it is a proper power to be exercised in the way intended under the Bill.

If noble Lords will forgive me, I would like to go through all the steps. As I said, this is a construct with a number of elements to it and we should look at it in the round. It comes to the heart of the issue that was principally raised in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.

There is a technical issue relating to the noble Lord’s amendment which we should get out of the way: the amendment would also impact on the provisions which allow for devolution of taxes on disposals to landfill and on transfers of land. The effect would be to prevent the Scottish Government collecting and managing such taxes or entering into agency arrangements with others to collect and manage the taxes for them. This would be critical if the Scottish Government were to be able to exercise their new tax powers effectively. I park that on one side but it is not an unimportant question.

I now turn to the central question of the power to devolve new taxes. I shall go through this in a way that I hope will give noble Lords some assurances that sufficient and proportionate safeguards are in place to ensure that this power is exercised to the benefit of the UK as a whole. I should also like to explain its importance in raising the accountability of the Scottish Parliament. There are those who are clearly concerned that the power goes too far but there are others who believe that the power does not go far enough. In the middle, we have the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who wants more assurance on the criteria.

First, I come back to the central authority that would be needed for new devolved taxes to be added. They would need to be added by Order in Council, which would be subject to the type A procedure set out in Schedule 7 to the Scotland Act. It is clear that this requires that no recommendation can be made to Her Majesty in Council until a draft has been laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament and by the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, there will be thorough scrutiny of any proposals under this power, including the opportunity for Members of this House to debate fully any such proposals.

What did not get so much attention in this debate were the criteria to be adopted when looking at any new tax. This was a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, focused his remarks but other speakers seem not to have taken full account of these criteria. They are laid out clearly in the Command Paper that accompanies the Bill. I believe that they set a clear framework of guidelines as to how the Government will consider the impact of any new tax proposed by the Scottish Parliament and hence decide whether to devolve it. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I may read out the criteria. They will include the potential for the new tax to create or incentivise economic distortions and arbitrage within the UK; the potential that the new tax might create for tax avoidance across the UK; the impact of the proposed tax on compliance burdens across the UK; and the compatibility of the new tax with EU legislation and rules, such as those covering state aid, the single market and the Human Rights Act. Therefore, there will be a considerable screening process before the Government decide to propose any new devolved tax.

I stress that the foremost consideration here is the need to ensure that any proposed tax will not impose a disproportionately negative impact on UK macroeconomic policy or impede to any degree the single UK market. Taxes will be judged against their potential to create or incentivise economic distortions or to generate avoidance or an impact on compliance burdens across the UK. It is those criteria that will give the Scottish Parliament the flexibility to adopt the policies that it considers to be best for Scotland, while preventing adverse effects on the rest of the UK.

20:15

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to consider the politics of this, as opposed to what the rule book says. I suggest that we look at the difficulty that the Government have at the moment in deciding whether to legislate on a referendum. That is clearly a matter for Westminster and not for the Scottish Parliament but the Government are doing cartwheels trying to find a way to use Section 30 because they do not want to be seen to be dictating to Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament, with this power, decides to create completely new taxes—perhaps putting up the top rate of tax to 60 per cent or removing the exemption for unearned income or whatever—does my noble friend really think that it will be practical politics for this House or even the other place to say that that is not going to happen because under criterion 4C it will influence macroeconomic policy? That is not real politics. A genie is being let out of the bottle here and we should not deceive ourselves about how radical this is as a proposal. I hope that my noble friend will address this for what it is and not for how it is presented.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, my noble friend’s examples concern changing the rates of existing taxes rather than new taxes. However, I think that it will work fine. With the process that has led up to these clauses in the Bill, Calman has looked at potential taxes for devolution. There has already been considerable discussion in Scotland and between Scotland and the UK Government. When it comes to the potential for new taxes to be added, I have explained the criteria which the UK Government have set down. On procedure, we are working closely with the Scottish Government to clarify the process that requests for new taxes will go through before they are brought before both Houses of Parliament. We have an administrative process to be agreed by the Joint Exchequer Committee, which brings together Ministers from both Governments. Therefore, I see a process here—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

With all these discussions that have taken place, can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Scottish Government have accepted these provisions in the Bill?

[Lord Sassoon]

Of course we await legislative consent, but there have been many detailed discussions; there have been the reports of committees in both Parliaments and the noble Lord knows perfectly well—better than I—where things stand. As to the question of what fits the criteria, I am not going to speculate about what future taxes might come forward, but one has the useful case study about the Scottish land transaction tax which fits the criteria very well. That points out precisely how other measures could come forward in future.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The Minister said this is following Calman: it is not following Calman at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, Calman recommended a power to deal with specified taxes. Why is the Bill completely open-ended on the subject of new taxes? If there are particular taxes that would fall within the criteria, why not say what they are rather than leave it open-ended? My noble friend criticised me for giving an example of existing taxes; I could think of other examples. Suppose Mr Salmond invents a new tax on oil and gas landed in Scotland, for example. One could think of all kinds of taxes, but to present this as arising from Calman is completely wrong. Calman suggested a limited ability in respect of those taxes which it was not appropriate to do at the moment for various technical reasons. The two I would think of are air passenger duty, which is actually not included in the Bill, and the aggregates tax. This, however, is much, much broader and more far-reaching. Why are we going for such an open-ended position?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, recommendation 3.3 of the Calman report states:

“The Scottish Parliament should be given a power to legislate with the agreement of the UK Parliament to introduce specified new taxes that apply across Scotland”.

In Calman, certain taxes were specified. In this Bill, we are building on that and building in a procedure which is proportionate and would require the agreement of both Parliaments in future to deal with specified taxes—taxes that might be specified in future. I have explained to the Committee what the criteria are. We have an amendment that sought to tease out what they are and I explained them. The critical one relates to the macroeconomic effect. It is entirely right that we take the Calman recommendation and think about how there might be new taxes to be specified in future. It is not some open-ended invitation for the Scottish Parliament to introduce things. There are very clear safeguards, including an appropriate parliamentary procedure in London.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I intervene with some trepidation in this fashion because I made clear in my remarks in this debate that I seek to support this Bill. However, the noble Lord is making it more difficult for me to support this Bill for a few reasons which I will explain, because I want to pose a significant question to him. First, he said in his introductory remarks—which I passed over but I come back to—that these matters were specifically debated and passed by the other place. He should be careful about deploying that argument, given the paucity of debate there was on any of these provisions in the other place because they were timetabled. Quite large chunks of this Bill were never scrutinised at all.

Secondly, he has repeatedly characterised my amendment—which I will not press this evening—as seeking further and better explanation. It is actually not: it is seeking a part of a construct which translates what he has said on criteria and mechanism—which he says is good and is in the White Paper and the Command Paper, and was in the evidence of the Secretary of State—into regulations that this House and this Parliament can debate and decide upon. That is different.

Thirdly, he encourages us to believe that the construct of co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments that has been put in place is already starting to address some of these issues. The joint Exchequer committee that he refers to has met once, on 27 September, which was after the Second Reading debate in this House. This was an issue that I raised on Second Reading; his noble and learned friend the Advocate General for Scotland sent me a detailed letter about what happened about these co-operative processes, but they are not functioning at all. They are barely functioning and no significant progress is being made in relation to the co-operative work that is necessary. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will address the two issues that I have raised in this intervention. The first was about criteria and process translated into regulation. The second was a question: what is happening between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government about preparing for the devolution of this power?

[Lord Sassoon]

I think that the noble Lord made at least three points. The first concerned the degree of scrutiny in another place. It highlights the very valuable, indeed essential, role that this House customarily plays. It is no different with this Bill. Of course, there was committee scrutiny as well as scrutiny in the formal stages of the Bill.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords—

[Lord Sassoon]

Perhaps I may answer the questions that the noble Lord has already raised.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I refer to scrutiny and point out, again with some diffidence to the noble Lord, that this is a constitutional Bill. Everything that happened in relation to the Bill happened on the Floor of the other place. The Bill went into Committee there. It was timetabled by the Government and many of these provisions were not debated.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I will not stand here and criticise or question the way that another place goes about its business. We are now giving the Bill—and this clause in particular—appropriate scrutiny, and I will take as long as I need to give appropriate answers to the questions that were raised.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

I refer to the contributions made already. Under the Bill, could the Scottish Parliament reduce corporation tax and increase taxes on oil and gas?

[Lord Sassoon]

If the Scottish Government came forward with new tax proposals, they would have to meet the criteria that I laid out, which would include provisions on the macroeconomic effect. Clear criteria are set out and it would not be sensible for the Scottish Government to come forward with tax proposals that did not meet the criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether the criteria should be enshrined in some way. It strikes an appropriate balance to have them clearly set out in the Command Paper.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords—

[Lord Sassoon]

I will give way in a moment. Perhaps I may try to answer some other questions first. The criteria are clearly set out and it is appropriate—

[Lord Sewel]

On this point, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned on a number of occasions the real politics of the Bill. Following my noble friend Lord McFall, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware of the phrase, “It’s Scotland’s oil”, and of how potent that would be in any debate if the Scottish Government brought forward an oil tax.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am not sure that it is profitable to speculate about what, at some time in the future, a Scottish Government might come forward with. I have set out that there are clear criteria that the UK Government will use to screen proposals. It is very important that the criteria are clear to the Scottish Government—and they are. Secondly—I will give way in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord McFall—it is also appropriate that they are set out, as they are, in a Command Paper, which will give flexibility as circumstances change. The criteria are fundamental and clear.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

Perhaps I may intervene again. I do not have a clue about what the Minister’s answer to my question was. Corporation tax has been a big issue in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is a contemporary issue in Scotland. I put it to the Minister again: could the Scottish Government come forward with proposals to reduce corporation tax and increase oil and gas taxes? I ask for a simple yes or no answer.

[Lord Sassoon]

The answer is a very simple yes. They could come forward with such a proposal, and the Government would judge it against the criteria. If it met the criteria, it would then go through the procedure of the two Houses of Parliament.

20:30

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I have a summary of the majority and the minority reports of the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The Minister will know that the majority report recommended that,

“the Scotland Bill be amended to devolve the full range of financial powers to the Scottish Parliament”.

I spoke with Linda Fabiani MSP just a couple of weeks ago and asked when this report was going to the Scottish Parliament, and she said not until after we have made a decision down here.

We have got deadlock on this. The Scottish Parliament will not consider this report until we have dealt with this, and we know that it is going to recommend something different. Surely, in view of all the criticism that we have had from both sides, and now from the opposition Front Bench, the Government would be well advised at this very minute to take this whole Bill away—we are going to look at it again next month—and reconsider this whole matter, after discussions with the Scottish Executive about how it will be dealt with in Scotland. Otherwise we will be in a stalemate.

[Lord Sassoon]

I thought that my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would not last terribly long. This is a general point, which he could raise on every clause of this Bill. With all due respect, I really do not know what it has to do with this clause in particular.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Why—

[Lord Sassoon]

I am not going to give way immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, because that would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, one of whose questions I have not yet addressed. I have a short memory so I would rather answer the questions that I have had before permitting another intervention. The third question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was about what progress was being made in the discussions. The joint Exchequer committee agreed that it should meet twice a year, so the fact that it met in September means that a further meeting is anticipated later in the spring.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Sassoon]

I listen to all the guffawing going on, but many noble Lords have been in government here and there and will know that there is much good and important work that can and must be done to make such meetings effective. That is what is going on, and good progress is being made, including on the process for introducing a new tax under this Bill.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The question I asked is so important on this issue because the Minister himself said this issue is the central part of the Bill. I thought of this months ago when I asked, in a Question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, why we were going ahead with the Bill. It has become obvious that a huge coach and horses has been driven through a central plank of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lord Sewel.

The best information we have is that the Scottish Parliament is going to reject the Bill. It is, you can shake your head as long as you like, Jim—sorry, Lord Wallace. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us what indications he has that the Scottish Government are going to accept this Bill as it is currently framed, if we agree it.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, forgive me if I stick to the clause as we have it. It is a separate matter, which relates to the whole Bill. I agree on the importance of this clause. Of course there needs to be agreement to the whole Bill in due course but what we are doing today—we are not making a great deal of progress but it is important and we should deal with these important points—is trying to make sure that some of these central clauses are got right. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, sees a coach and horses, because I have not seen one coming from my noble friend or anywhere else in this Chamber.

I would suggest that not all the speakers in this debate have talked about all the elements of the process by which a new tax would be introduced. I suggest that Members of this Committee might like to reflect on what the total package looks like. I believe that it is proportionate, including the criticality of those criteria which are appropriately laid out in the Command Paper. Incidentally, when it comes to the ultimate agreement to any proposals that come forward for new taxes, I remind the Committee that when the variable Scottish rate of tax was introduced in 1998, it was of course passed by this House, so we have precedent in relation to tax matters and Scotland on that variable rate, and on this House having competence.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Will my noble friend allow me one more go, at the risk of tedious repetition? Would my noble friend be happy if he thought that this power to invent new taxes was not circumscribed by the criteria, which, as he says, are set out in a Command Paper, which of course can be altered, and which is not part of the legislation? If there were no criteria there at all, would he be happy? If I suspect that the answer to that question is no, does he not see that the political reality is that those criteria will matter not a jot in circumstances where this power is conferred on the Scottish Parliament? That is the nub of what is exercising people on both sides of the House.

I do not mean this in any patronising way, but my noble friend has had a very distinguished career in the Civil Service and in banking. All of us have got battle scars from Scottish politics and know how it operates. He should take the fact that we all agree on this as a clear signal that these criteria that he is hanging on to will not exist in real politics if he proceeds in the way that he plans.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, while I am not steeped in as many years of Scottish politics, maybe the benefit of being a bit of an outsider and coming at this with fresh eyes means that I am able to observe a little of the history of this. Notwithstanding the attempt to say that tax proposals have not been brought forward in any way that has had discussion and consensus to date, including the ones that are the subject of this Bill, the history gives me confidence that this is a construct that will work. This is based on what we have seen in the devolution of powers to Scotland to date, and in the process that has led up to where we are with this Bill—which is not perfect and so other critical steps must be gone through. I do not see this obstacle that my noble friend is putting up. However, we will have to agree to differ on that.

[Lord Sewel]

I am grateful to the Minister. In citing the creation of the Scottish variable rate for income tax in the Scotland Act 1998, is not the Minister actually supporting my argument that the creation of new taxes and new powers ought to be through primary legislation?

[Lord Sassoon]

No; the point I made was that it went through this House, as would an order as envisaged here. Any number of points can be made. The principal point I addressed was the question of whether this House would be circumvented in some way by the introduction of a proposal for new taxes for Scotland. The answer is: unequivocally not, whether by an order or by primary legislation.

I would like to move on, because I have now laid out the full process here. It is important to register again the question of accountability, and the importance of the new accountability for the Scottish Government that is given here in the proposal that, for the first time, the Scottish Parliament will have the facility—with the approval of this Parliament—to set new taxes. It means that the Scottish Government will be able to find ways to deliver their desired policy outcomes and potentially raise additional revenue. As well as assisting policy-making in Scotland, the ability to propose tax solutions will itself increase the accountability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, which is of course the main purpose of the Bill.

The measures in Clause 28 will correct an anomalous situation whereby the Scottish Parliament can implement tax policy changes through only what Calman described as the backdoor of local authority taxation. At the moment, only local taxation is devolved to Scotland. Calman noted that the current situation incentivises the Scottish Parliament to achieve its policy aims through local taxes even though they might be more effectively achieved through devolving taxes which are reserved. Again, it is important that we reflect on that point.

Not only that, but introducing makeshift local taxes in lieu of the power to raise them nationally would mean that the UK Government and this Parliament would have no power to intervene even if there were implications for the wider UK tax system. The powers granted here would at least allow for a discussion of new taxes between Holyrood and Westminster that in many cases could result in better outcomes for both Scotland and the wider United Kingdom.

Although I suspect that we may come back to this matter in more detail in later clauses, I want to address in headline terms the question of my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton on whether Scotland will be better off or not. I know that there are questions about what the evidence from the past shows and how much credence should be given to that past analysis. But in simple terms, Scotland will be better off under the proposed arrangement if tax receipts grow faster than public spending than they would under the current block grant system and vice versa. It is not possible to say exactly what the impact will be but the key point is that this Bill delivers accountability to the Scottish Parliament and not a guaranteed financial settlement.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

I believe that the prediction my noble friend just quoted is for the five years from 2010 to 2015. I do not believe that but I accept that that is a Treasury view. However, the powers under this Bill will not come into force until about 2015. If my noble friend believes that the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Executive, are keen to have these tax powers, which we have been debating extensively this evening, simply in order to cut them, I cannot agree with him on that either. The fact is that they have vast ambitions for increased public expenditure. My argument is that they will have to increase taxation not just to increase expenditure but to keep the standard of living and government expenditure in the same place.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the directional effect that I have set out for the effect of what is proposed in this Bill compared to the current arrangements is clear. The question that people have is, on particular projections of growth and spending, what the effect would be. Of course, it is possible to give only the worked example of growth and spending based on the current spending settlement round and the current projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is no question that you can forecast for one period or any other period. It entirely depends on the assumptions you want to make about the performance of the Scottish economy and the policy decisions made by the Scottish Government about expenditure.

The key point I come back to is that it transfers a significant amount of responsibility and accountability for this balance to the Scottish Parliament, which of course is fully accountable to its electors. That really goes to the absolute heart of what we are talking about and it is why I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the point.

I think that I should bring this discussion to a conclusion—

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Earlier I was justly chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for calling this a small matter. As the Minister says, it is significant, but does he accept that it is still light years away from what the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Foulkes, and I were talking about earlier, and which we hope might become a future Bill? It would get rid of all this overriding supervision by the two Houses here and simply say to the Scottish Parliament, “You raise the money that you spend”.

20:45

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I come back to where I started, which is that it is the Government’s position that we have a Bill that is appropriate in the current circumstances. There should be a referendum with a clear question about independence. When that is out of the way, there may be other questions to be asked. For the moment, however, the Government believe that what is being proposed in this Bill is appropriate to the circumstances we are in. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean suggests that this whole thing has come out of thin air and has no support from anyone. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, explained the genesis of it and I have said a bit more about Calman. The Scottish Affairs Committee has welcomed the provision to devolve new taxes and the accompanying criteria, and they have been welcomed by both the previous and the more recent Scotland Bill Committees of the Scottish Parliament and by the Scottish Government. It is therefore completely wrong to suggest that they have come out of a clear blue sky and have no support—before my noble friend chastises me, I do not think that that is a mischaracterisation of his position.

Finally, Clause 28 will provide powers to the Scottish Government to enable greater fiscal responsibility and increase the accountability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It grants both Governments the flexibility to negotiate the best possible solutions for Scotland and for the whole of the United Kingdom. At the same time, we believe that proportionate and sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that powers to devolve new taxes will not unduly damage the coherence of the UK tax system and the single UK market. I therefore propose that Clause 28 should stand part of the Bill and I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, such is my respect for my noble friend Lord Howe, who has been waiting patiently, that I am not planning to respond to some of the points. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister who has dealt with some pretty intensive questioning very well, although I have to say that he has not satisfied me.

I shall just pick up on the last point he made. He presents me as saying that this has all come as a surprise to people. I have to say that I think that what this clause actually does has come as a surprise to people in this Chamber, and it will certainly come as a surprise to Members of the House of Commons because they never discussed it properly. That is what we are here for, and I think that there is more to be done. Of course there is still an opportunity in the debate on whether Clause 29 should stand part to explore these arguments further.

I am not satisfied with the response; none the less I do not propose to test the opinion of the Committee. I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 51A to 51C not moved.

Clause 28 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 9.40 pm.

Health and Social Care Bill

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Statement

20:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to an Urgent Question tabled in another place earlier today about the Health and Social Care Bill. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity again to set out the purposes of the Health and Social Care Bill. It is to give patients more information and choice, so that they share in decision-making about their care. It empowers front-line doctors and nurses to lead the delivery of care for their patients. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy, and strengthens the voice of patients and the role of local government in integrating services and strengthening public health.

The values of the Bill are simple: putting patients first, trusting doctors and nurses, focusing on results for patients, and maintaining the founding values of the NHS. We are constantly looking to reinforce those values, strengthening the NHS to meet the challenges it faces. We know change is essential: we will not let the NHS down by blocking change.

Throughout the development and progress of this Bill, we have engaged extensively with NHS staff, the public and parliamentarians. The Health and Social Care Bill is the most scrutinised public Bill in living memory. With over 200 hours of debate between the two Chambers and 35 days in Committee, we have ensured that Members and Peers have had every opportunity to examine, understand and amend the Bill to ensure it does the best possible job for patients.

We have made this legislation better and stronger. We have made significant changes to the Bill, including in response to the NHS Future Forum’s work, and we will be open to any further changes that will improve or clarify the Bill. For example, so far in the Lords, the Government have accepted amendments tabled by a number of Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers.

Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, wrote to their Liberal Democrat colleagues explaining their support for the Bill with those changes and some further amendments they wish to see. They said, for example, how we must,

‘rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS’.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The Bill is about quality, not competition on price. It will not permit any NHS organisation to be taken over by the private sector. It will put patients’ interests first. We will not permit any extension of charging. Care will be free and based on need. Where the doctors and nurses on the ground know that competition is in the best interests of their patients and where it is based entirely on the quality of the care and treatment provided and not in any way on the price of that care and treatment, then competition can play an important role in driving up standards throughout the NHS.

We will not see a market free-for-all or a US-style insurance system in this country. I believe in the NHS. I am a passionate supporter of our NHS. That is why I understand the passionate debate it arouses. But it is also why I resent those on the Benches opposite who seek to misrepresent the NHS, its current achievements and future needs.

We are using the debates in the Lords further to reassure all those who care about the NHS. I am grateful for the chance to reassure all my honourable friends in the House of the positive and beneficial effects of debate in the House of Lords, and of the work we are doing to secure a positive future for the NHS”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement. We are in a slightly odd situation here. We have a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister and a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House to MPs and Peers in their party concerning a matter of public policy involving a major piece of legislation currently before this House. I thought that we could not be further surprised by the parliamentary twists and turns of this Bill, but it is really a case of “Whatever next?”. Is it the first time that a serving Deputy Prime Minister has decided to send a letter suggesting amendments to his own Government’s legislation? This letter seems largely to concern Mr Clegg saying that he wants more amendments to the Bill and expects this House to deliver them so that Liberal Democrat MPs can support the said amendments in the Commons. It is not clear to me whether the Minister in the Commons, or even Conservative MPs, will do so as well. Remarkable!

I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Minister to answer this question, but I am going to ask it anyway. How exactly does he think that the Liberal Democrats propose to achieve this target set by Mr Clegg in this House when they are part of a coalition wedded to this Bill in all its glory—and Part 3, too—and the Lib Dems command 70 to 80 votes in the House on a good day? Who will deliver Mr Clegg’s amendments to Part 3 of the Bill, I wonder? Will it be done by consent with the Government or will it be by Division?

I would like to ease Mr Clegg’s dilemma in this matter and make a very generous offer. The Liberal Democrats can have our amendments to Part 3 of this Bill. We have a great set of amendments to Part 3 which would serve to deliver what Mr Clegg and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, say that they seek on competition and, indeed, more. So I look forward to the Minister’s response to my offer.

However odd the mode of delivery, it is important to ask whether this is a major announcement of a change in government policy and, indeed, was the text of the letter discussed with and agreed by No. 10 and Mr Andrew Lansley. This development has added to the considerable confusion about what government policy around the Bill is exactly, and I think that Ministers need urgently to clarify what precise changes are being proposed, what discussions have been held with the Deputy Prime Minister and whether these policy changes now represent government policy. I ask this because we know that Mr Clegg has to manage the challenge of the Lib Dem spring conference—and a challenge it is certainly shaping up to be. According to today’s media, the Liberal Democrat health activists are planning to put an emergency motion to the party’s spring conference urging their leadership to reject the provisions of the NHS reform Bill despite, presumably, the final changes advanced by Mr Clegg and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in this joint letter. Certainly this letter and that conference, combined with the growing tumult against the Bill—another royal college might bite the bullet and say that it wants the Bill to be withdrawn again; I think that there are only about two more to go—put the discussions that we will have on Part 3 in your Lordships' House next week in an interesting light.

This is an odd way to develop and announce policy—or is it shift in policy? Yesterday morning, the Minister, Simon Burns, was insisting the whole Government backed the Bill “as amended now”. At the same time sources close to Mr Clegg, whoever they may be, were insisting the changes that he is demanding are,

“significant and not simply reassurances”.

However, at the same time the PM’s spokesperson said,

“we do not see any need for further significant changes to the Bill”.

We need to know which of these is correct. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to enlighten the House.

This letter states that,

“we want to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS. That is why we want to see changes made to this bill that have been put forward by our Liberal Democrat team in the House of Lords to make sure that the NHS can never be treated like the gas, electricity, or water industry”.

That is exactly what I have been saying all the way through this Bill. The letter proposes four broad changes. The first is that we should remove the reviews by the Competition Commission from the Bill. In fact, amendments to that effect where tabled by the Labour Party. Imitation being the greatest form of flattery, I am very happy that the Liberal Democrats are tabling them again. Secondly, the letter suggests that we keep the independent regulator for foundation trusts, Monitor,

“to make sure hospitals always serve NHS patients first and foremost.”.

Well, hurrah! We have an amendment down that does exactly that. Thirdly, the letter proposes to,

“introduce measures to protect the NHS from … threat of takeover from US-style healthcare providers by insulating the NHS from the full force of competition”.

Mr Clegg might just have noticed the threat that competition posed when he signed this Bill a year ago. Finally, it proposes,

“additional safeguards to the private income cap to make sure that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profits before patients”.

Well, the amendments that the Liberal Democrats have promoted so far on this certainly need some thought and some change. We would agree with them and we shall see. This is all familiar to us on the Labour side, because those proposals were part of the substance of our amendments in Committee which were so soundly and roundly rejected by the Minister. Is he about to resile from his earlier position and embrace the Labour amendments? I would appreciate some notice if that is what he intends to do.

I have a few questions. The document issued at the Conservative away day last Friday said:

“If we changed or altered the bill now, we would end up in a no man's land, and chaos”.

Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government's position? Can he clarify whether the changes outlined in the Deputy Prime Minister's letter now represent government policy? His letter promises,

“additional safeguards to the private income cap”.

Can the Minister explain what these additional safeguards are, and why the Deputy Prime Minister feels that they are necessary? Why does the Secretary of State seem to have no regard for the views of health professionals and the public when it comes to making changes to this health Bill but is quite happy to make concessions to accommodate the Liberal Democrats before their spring conference? Will the Minister clarify whether these amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill are “significant”, as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister, or a “reassurance”, as stated by the Prime Minister's official spokesperson?

In 2009, the Prime Minister said:

“There will be no more of those pointless re-organisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos”.

It seems to me that the Secretary of State has seen a clear example of unmitigated chaos in the latest incarnation of his Health and Social Care Bill. Really, this is a most unloved and unwanted piece of legislation and the Bill should be dropped. In conclusion, the Minister has my deepest sympathy in dealing with this Statement, because it seems that it puts him between the rock of Andrew Lansley and the hard place of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Williams, and their colleagues—probably not a comfortable place to be. Actually, this is not the way to treat Parliament and its consideration of this Bill. It is not the way to treat the people who work so hard for the NHS and, indeed, it is not the way to treat our NHS.

21:04

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she was surprised by the letter in question. I can tell her that nothing in the letter was in any way a surprise to me, for the simple reason that it reflects the very constructive discussions that I have had with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, which are a natural part of good government. I can only conclude that she does not recognise that such discussions are a part of good government, but it certainly is the case with the coalition. As far as I am concerned, Mr Clegg needs no permission to bring members of his party up to date with progress on the Bill or to make it clear, as he does, that he is fully behind it.

The noble Baroness asked about the changes that Mr Clegg and my noble friend Lady Williams have outlined in the letter that they would like to see. I simply direct the noble Baroness’s attention to the Marshalled List for the Bill; there are a number of amendments already tabled and discussions continue on a number of other issues. Are the changes that have been made significant? I say to her that any amendments we accept are significant, and the amendments made to the Bill are largely about reassurance to those noble Lords who are unclear, uncertain or worried about the Bill and what it says. They are about delivering greater clarity and making sure that the Bill delivers on its intentions. I have been very happy to accommodate the concerns of Peers of all parties who have come to speak to me—not simply my Liberal Democrat colleagues—because the function of this House is to make Bills better, and we are certainly doing that with the Health and Social Care Bill. A prime example of that, surely, was the fruitful discussion that we had across the party divide on the Secretary of State’s powers and duties, and I believe that the resolution of that matter was very satisfactory.

With regard to the issues themselves, it would not be appropriate for me to give a running commentary. The place for debate on each issue is surely our debates on Report. We are in the middle of the Bill; we should not attempt to engage in substantive discussion on matters of policy now when we still have four more days of Report ahead of us. We are open to constructive discussions with Peers of any party to make the Bill better, just as we listened, contrary to the assertion of the noble Baroness, to members of the public and members of the medical profession in their thousands during the listening exercise last year. We listened, paused, reflected and amended the Bill extensively. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that nothing has changed in that respect, and my door is open to her as it is to anyone else.

21:07

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his ever-open door and his willingness to listen. Will he further explain to the House how he believes that the NHS will be stronger for the scrutiny from all sides of the House? How does he believe that the objections of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and other professional bodies have been met as a result of this cross-party scrutiny?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend. I feel that the debate and discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House have made this a better Bill, as I said a moment ago. Again, a prime example of that is the clauses relating to ministerial accountability. With regard to the Royal Colleges, we have made all sorts of improvements, such as those in response to concerns about the integration of services, education and training, research, health inequalities, ensuring that competition is never an end in itself and a number of other important issues. I am glad that these changes were all welcomed by a wide range of Royal Colleges.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has just said, if I came to him over the next couple of days and handed him a document about the problems that it is felt will be experienced in specialist services, would he then deal with it before the completion of Report and let me have an answer?

[Earl Howe]

I would be happy to talk to the noble Lord about specialised services, and I speak as the Minister in charge of that policy area. If he would like to contact my office, I would be very glad to see him.

[Lord Crisp]

My Lords, like, I suspect, every other Member of your Lordships’ House, I very much respect the way in which the Minister has handled the Bill and his willingness to engage in debate. I sit here as a Cross-Bencher listening to what seems to be the healing of a rift between the coalition parties, if I may put it like that, but I also see—my postbag is full of this, as I am sure everyone else’s is—a rift with the medical profession, the nursing profession, midwives and others. Even though this approach may deal with some of the issues that they have wished to raise, I do not see that it will deal with the much more fundamental issue of the loss of trust and unity that seems to have been created as part of the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister say something about how he believes that that will be handled? These issues go far beyond your Lordships’ House, as we all understand.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is right. The stance taken by a number of medical bodies and members of the medical profession is of course a matter of great regret to me and my ministerial colleagues. I say to them and to the noble Lord that once the Bill has been approved by Parliament, as I sincerely hope it will be, that will be the time to re-engage with the medial profession and work with it to ensure that the Bill delivers on the promise that we have held out for it and that we still believe in. The principles that the Bill embodies, which the medical profession has always said that it supports, can then be given substance in the form of the improvements that we would like to see delivered to patients. From all the comments that I have heard from doctors and others who are in doubt about the Bill, most of their concerns revolve around its implementation and what it will mean in practice, rather than the principles that it enshrines. We need to look forward collectively and work together to make the NHS work better.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I, too, applaud the noble Earl for the way that he handles this very difficult Bill in very difficult circumstances. I am sure he is aware that there is a lot of concern about the Bill in the field of mental health, particularly as private provision gathers pace. Can he give any assurance to mental health professionals and services up and down the country about what in the Bill might protect mental health services in the future?

[Earl Howe]

Several things in the Bill are new. One is the duty to reduce health inequalities, which is very important in mental health. Another is the duty to promote integration of services. Again, we have had many debates on that and there are mechanisms that we propose to use to support greater integration of services.

I also believe that the worries about competition are misplaced. Competition is a tool that commissioners can use, or decide not to use, in the interests of patients. It is no more than that. The Bill does not change competition law or increase the scope for competition to be used in the NHS. It leaves the decision-making to commissioners on whether competition does or does not serve the interests of patients. There is a lot of misapprehension about what the Bill does, not just among those in the mental health world but more widely. I hope that that reassurance is helpful.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I apologise to the Minister for being the cause of another late night for him. I apologise because, obviously, the Statement relates to some extent to the letter that I co-signed with the Deputy Prime Minister. I simply say, as have many in the House, that the Minister has shown amazing patience. Indeed, his door is always open; a number of us stumble our way through it and we are extremely grateful.

I shall say just two more things about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. First, a great deal of the concern that has been expressed in public was expressed before some of the very recent changes, which are not widely realised or well understood among the public or the media.

Secondly, it is probably fair to say that Chapter 3 has been the centre of much of the concern about the Bill. There are other things in it that many people will widely recognise and accept, not least the work on education, training and research. This is not yet widely known, even within the medical profession. It may be that there is a great deal to be said for making a further attempt to get across exactly what changes have been made to the Bill. I think that would carry with it a rather different attitude among the public and the media from what has existed in the past few weeks.

[Earl Howe]

I am very grateful to my noble friend and agree with everything that she said. Many of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill—not just those made in your Lordships’ House but those that were made last year—have not been fully appreciated, or appreciated at all in some quarters. The changes that we have made are not sufficiently understood even by those who recognise that amendments have been made to the Bill. Without naming names, I have spoken to very senior members of the medical profession who have had no idea at all about some of the amendments that we have made to bring greater clarity to the Bill and change it substantively. As my noble friend knows, we did that in particular with Part 3 of the Bill. There is no doubt that there is a job of work to do to put over the correct messages to the medical profession and to reassure its members that this Bill does not represent a threat to them or to the NHS—quite the reverse.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, although many of the comments that have been made relate to amendments that have yet to be presented to the House, particularly to Part 3 of the Bill relating to competition, does the Minister agree that there are other amendments relating to other parts of the Bill that are of broad concern to people outside the House: namely, those relating to public health issues and how public health will be delivered, and that we also need to address those amendments?

[Earl Howe]

Of course, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord. It is a matter of regret to me that the commentary on the Bill hardly ever focuses on the proposals it makes for public health, which have generally commanded widespread approval. However, I recognise that there are concerns around the detail of those proposals. That is why we are here as a Chamber to address those concerns. I am sure that when we come to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, this House will not be found wanting in the way that it explores those issues and resolves them.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

The noble Earl has repeated a Statement made in the other House by a Cabinet Minister responsible for health. We have also heard mention of the Deputy Prime Minister supporting the noble Baroness’s amendments. The Deputy Prime Minister is clearly a Cabinet Minister. Therefore, we have two Cabinet Ministers in the picture. If everyone is so enthusiastic about the Liberal Democrat amendments —the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was kind enough to tell us that those follow her proposals, and imitation is the best form of flattery—does it mean that everybody is happy? However, the only piece of the jigsaw that I am concerned about is whether that means that the Conservative Party will support the relevant amendments. If that is the case, they will all go through on the nod and everybody will be happy. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me whether I am wrong and I have missed something.

[Earl Howe]

Far be it from me to say that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, would ever miss anything; he is too wise a head for that. I see nothing strange or amiss in a party leader wishing to address his parliamentary colleagues on the eve of a party conference to bring them up to date on a major Bill and its progress in the House and to set out some of the remaining concerns that he has that we need to settle. These concerns came as no news to me as I have been talking about them regularly not only with Liberal Democrat colleagues but with other Members of your Lordships' House and members of the medical profession. I see nothing amiss in the letter spelling out those concerns. How we arrive at a resolution of those issues is yet to be seen. As I have said, amendments have already been tabled which we shall debate. It is possible that more will be tabled over the days ahead—I do not rule that out at all. However, the noble Lord should not forget that there are non-legislative ways of reaching the destination that some of my noble friends would like to get to. There are many ways of achieving some of these objectives. It is entirely possible that we shall agree amendments to do that but that is not by any means the only course open to us.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am a little confused about all this, and I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can help me. I received the letter yesterday. At the top it stated, “Keep this completely secret and do not tell anybody”. I switched on the television and there it was. I am confused because I watched and listened to the exchanges in the House of Commons this afternoon, which, I have to say, were a great deal more vigorous and bad-tempered in many ways than the exchanges here; and I congratulate the noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench who did a much better job of responding on this matter than her colleagues in the House of Commons.

However, here we have the Labour Party, which in government made major strides towards introducing competition, privatisation and commercialisation of the health service, and now has been very strong indeed in opposing those matters when it comes to the Bill. I do not understand that. The other thing that I do not understand is that if what the noble Baroness says is correct—that many of the things she and her colleagues have been putting forward at Committee stage and have been saying outside this House are now being put forward by Liberal Democrats in the amendments that we were told about in the letter from my noble friend and my party leader—why is she not standing up and offering her help, with some enthusiasm, instead of being so grumpy about it all and the way in which this has been done? There seems to be huge confusion on the Opposition Front Bench and in the opposition party, and I wonder if my noble friend can suggest any gentle therapy that it might take up to help it with this problem.

[Earl Howe]

I am very happy to pick up that challenge from my noble friend; in fact, I have been using all my charms and skills on the Benches opposite without any effect at all. I feel that I may have arrived at an impasse. My noble friend is absolutely right because the situation that we inherited from the previous Government was in many ways one that we embraced—it was they who opened up choice in the NHS and indeed put a right of choice into the NHS constitution. However, they did not roll out competition and choice in the way that was appropriate and right, because it cannot be right to impose competition on the NHS whether it wants it or not. It cannot be right for there to be preferential prices for the private sector, with the NHS being disadvantaged. It cannot be right to have an explicit target of increasing private sector provision in the NHS, which is what the previous Government had. It cannot be right for private providers to cherry-pick the easy cases and leave the NHS with the hard cases. We do not approve of fragmenting care pathways.

We do not think that the previous Government thought nearly hard enough about how this was all to be regulated, which is why we want a sector-specific health regulator. That is the reason for having Monitor and is why we think the provisions of Part 3 make sense because they are in the interests of patients and the NHS. I still hope that in our debates I can engender some movement on the Benches opposite to recognise that we are actually trying to improve the situation that we inherited for the benefit of everyone.

21:24

Sitting suspended.

Scotland Bill

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 17th Report from the Constitution Committee.

21:40

Debate on whether Clause 29 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

As your Lordships will see from the Marshalled List, I gave notice of my attention to oppose the Question that Clause 29 stand part of the Bill. When I gave that notice, there was at least one good reason for doing so. There are now at least three good reasons for doing so—perhaps more. I shall refer to only two.

The first has emerged from the debate that we just had. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, going to reply to this? Oh no, it is the poor noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will recall that many weeks ago I raised a question about the wisdom of proceeding not just with Clause 29 but with every clause, given what was happening elsewhere—given that the Bill and Calman had been overtaken by events. As I said in an intervention on the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, earlier, we now know that the Scottish Parliament will not be discussing either the majority or minority report from its committee until we have decided. The indication from the majority of the committee—contrary to what was said from the Front Bench opposite earlier—is that it did not support the provisions of the Bill but wanted it to go further. The minority supported it, but the majority wanted it to go further. It seems daft to press ahead with the Bill, including Clause 29, until we have some indication that, if we pass it, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will accept all its provisions. I hope that that point can be dealt with.

My second point is one of which I gave the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, some intimation. The clause mentions,

“amendments relating to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs”.

The noble Lord will be aware of the unfortunate situation regarding Rangers Football Club, which is in administration in Scotland, where Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is owed a substantial amount because of an arrangement that Rangers Football Club entered into to avoid paying tax. It set up a scheme so that when its players received payment, it was paid not to them as salary but to a company set up for their advantage. As the noble Lord will be aware, as a result, there is a major dispute between Rangers Football Club and the Revenue and Customs about whether that money is due to the Revenue.

There have also been suggestions that the Scottish Government might help Rangers Football Club in its difficulties. I make no comment about why that has arisen, who is to blame or whether the Scottish Government would be wise under any circumstances to make any payments to help the club. All I am asking is: do any of the provisions in Clause 29 or elsewhere in the Bill change the arrangements in which Rangers currently finds itself, or would the circumstances be exactly the same after the Bill’s passage? Those are the only two points that I want to raise. Foolishly, we are pressing ahead with the Bill, but I take this opportunity to ask that question and, I hope, to get an answer in relation to Rangers Football Club.

21:45

[Lord Lyell]

My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary patron of another Titan of the Scottish football game, which I call “Athletico Forfar”—Forfar Athletic. I get a trifle worried when I hear outpourings in the media in Scotland along the lines that something must be done to help Rangers Football Club. A great football club it may be, but I wonder how it got into that condition. The answer to that can wait, but perhaps my noble friend could write to me with an answer to the following question. Why in the winding up of a football club such as this—perhaps under Scottish insolvency law; I am not sure—is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs not a preferred creditor? South of the border, HMRC is an ordinary creditor. However, I had understood that north of the border HMRC was a preferred creditor and would therefore get the first bite in relation to the sums owing. If my noble friend could write to me on that at some stage, I should be most grateful. I thank him for his patience.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, for all the reasons that I set out in my first contribution to this Committee when it convened some time ago to consider the Bill, I want to see this Bill passed. Consequently, I support the devolution of the tax powers to the Scottish Parliament and I want to see Clause 29 stand part of the Bill because, without that mechanism, the amendments relating to the commissioners for Revenue and Customs will not be able to work. I do not intend to delay the Committee with any debate or argument about what I think is genuinely a technical part of the Bill in terms of the mechanism for the implementation of its provisions.

My second point is by way of a bit of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, whom I welcomed to the Committee earlier. He had an interesting baptism in the Committee. I am sure that he enjoyed the hour that he was at the Dispatch Box engaging, as he did, with my noble and learned friends and noble Lords around the Chamber. If he thought that that had a distinct quality about it, then he ain’t seen nothing yet if he succumbs to the invitation to engage in a discussion about the position of Scottish football clubs. We have already had a reference to behaviour on the internet with cyberattacks and so on, but the nature of the comments that will be unleashed on the internet if he is unwise enough to be attracted into debate and discussion about the health or welfare of any Scottish football club will be worse than he has ever seen.

[Lord Maxton]

Does my noble friend agree that perhaps that is why Mr Alex Salmond has decided that he is switching his loyalties to rugby?

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Taking my own advice, I am utterly reluctant to express any opinion that is even marginally related to any football club in Scotland. Most people in Scotland know where my allegiances lie, and engaging in this debate would make it even worse for me. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who has been engaged in Scottish football. His support for Heart of Midlothian Football Club is well known and he has made an important contribution to Scottish football over the years. However, I think that he probably has more scars on his back from that time than he has from any political confrontations in Scotland. I just give the Minister a bit of gratuitous advice: he would be wise to take these matters away and perhaps write some very carefully worded letters to my noble friend and his noble friend if he thinks that these questions need answering.

I want to raise a point that I mentioned in my contribution to the debate on the previous group of amendments. I do this by reference to my contribution to the Second Reading of this Bill, which took place on 6 September 2011. During my contribution to that debate, I asked about the progress of the high-level implementation group and the joint Exchequer committee, which are complementary elements. The joint Exchequer committee, led by Ministers, and the high-level group of civil servants—from both the Civil Service that supports the Scottish Executive and the UK Civil Service—are to work out the process and deal with the challenges and issues in preparation for the implementation of the provisions that we have been debating when this Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will.

I raise this because I have a suspicion—and I put it no higher than that as I share my motivation with the Committee—that perhaps from the Scotland side of this process of engagement there is less willingness to engage, and less capacity to engage, in the preparation for these issues than we will need if we are to meet the expectations that we all share that these devolved powers will be available to be used for the benefit of the Scottish people, broadly by about 2015. I do not expect the Minister to make any comments at the Dispatch Box about willingness, but I would be able to deduce from the detail of his answers whether there has been that willingness.

I raise this issue for one very good reason. There is an impression in Scotland that the Scottish Government are anxious to get their hands on these additional powers. In fact, they want more. It is not sufficient to say to the Scottish people that you want these powers; you have to explain to them what you are going to do with them when you get them and you have to convince the Scottish people that you are preparing yourself for these powers and for the use of them. I went on at some length at the beginning of this Committee about what I thought was happening in Scotland, and there was convincing evidence that the Scottish Government were falling down in all of those respects.

Therefore, can the Minister tell the Committee not just how many times the high-level implementation group has met but what progress is actually being made? Even if it has to be described generically, I will be satisfied by that, but I will keep pressing as long as this Bill is before this House to get more detail. What progress is being made to prepare the structure in Scotland to receive these powers or any powers that relate to the raising of taxation?

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I apologise to the Committee that I was not present through the earlier parts of the discussion of Clause 29, but my noble friend is making one of the most critical and crucial points in relation to these tax-raising powers. I would be interested if, when the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, replies to him, he could put some figures on to the costs of implementation. He will know well that one of the essential ingredients of analysing the effectiveness of any taxation is the cost of collection. In this case, it is not just the cost of collection that we need to know about; it is also the cost of disaggregation of HM Revenue and Customs and the cost to the overall UK taxpayer, not just the Scottish taxpayer. If the noble Lord does not have those figures available at the moment, I would be grateful if he could give them to us in due course.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My noble friend Lady Liddell—through me as a conduit—raises some very interesting questions for the noble Lord. I expect that, because of the nature of the amendments in further groups, we may get an opportunity to explore in more detail the issue of the cost of implementation of these provisions and of who should bear that cost. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s very pertinent question.

I have dealt with the high-level implementation group. I am interested not only in how often it meets but in what it does and in whether we are making genuine progress toward creating the infrastructure that will be necessary for Scotland to receive these powers. I have said before that almost all members of the Scottish Government voted in the Scottish Parliament for these tax-raising powers. Therefore, I expect them to be at least beginning the process of consultation with the people of Scotland on how they intend to use them. If they are to be ready to use them by about 2015, and if they are to give the people of Scotland a level of consultation that devolution has conditioned them to expect, they should be beginning to draft the documentation to put before the Scottish people that explains how they intend to use the powers.

It does not matter whether this is devo-plus or devo-max. Whatever powers the Scottish Government have in relation to tax, they should be getting ready to implement them. As I said earlier, there is an extraordinarily interesting debate and discussion to be had in Scotland about how stamp duty land tax could be used to help to inject energy into the economy in different parts of Scotland. I am not an expert in these areas, but I know from representing for many years a constituency in Scotland that using taxation revenue in a more localised way at least has the potential to generate economic activity. I would like this explored further. If the debate and discussion reveal that it cannot be used in this way, at least that would be a conclusion.

There are two aspects to this. First, there is the engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments and their respective civil servants on planning for this. Secondly, there is the question of fitness and preparation, and the condition that the Scottish Government are putting themselves in to exercise any devolved taxation powers. I see no evidence of any of this in Scotland.

I turn to the joint Exchequer committee, about which the noble Lord and I have already had an exchange. I asked about the committee at Second Reading and was told that it was anticipated that it would meet for the first time on 27 September. My earlier intervention implied that I thought that that was a bit late when one considered how long the process had been in gestation and how long the Bill spent in the other place and here—but I had to live with that. The committee met on 27 September. The noble Lord implied that when it met it made progress on some issues that were aired in the debate on the previous group of amendments, which dealt with some of the challenges that people had identified.

My information, which was provided very graciously by the Scotland Office, is that the committee met and there appeared to be some agreement on a set of principles on the block grant adjustment mechanism. Apparently, three principles were agreed that will apply to the mechanism for the adjustment. The first is fairness. It is not defined, but we all know what it means. The second is resilience in different fiscal circumstances. The third is the avoidance of unintended consequences, including the transfer of resources one way or another. It may be my fault, but the principles do not tell me very much about the nature of the agreement. They smack a little of motherhood and apple pie and do not seem to engage with some of the difficult and challenging issues that the devolution of tax powers to Scotland will inevitably generate, some of which we have already debated.

Certainly, if the committee is not to meet again for another six months, unless the high-level implementation group is drilling down into some of these difficult issues and starting to display a level of competence and ability in dealing with the infrastructure that is necessary for implementing this, these meetings of the joint Exchequer committee are not going to make very much progress. Before this House gives its approval to this Bill and it becomes an Act—I fervently hope that it will and I will do everything in my power to achieve that—I ask of the Minister that at least we spend some time getting some sense and some idea of whether Scotland, its Government and its Civil Service will be in any shape to actually use these powers if and when we pass them.

22:00

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, this is proving to be an education, not least because we have another debate in which there are some points on which I can see the direct relevance to the clause we are discussing and a number of other points on which I am struggling a bit. They are all important points; I am just not quite clear what the connection is with a clause that has to do with the powers of HMRC.

Of course, the football question is directly relevant, and we must deal with football. I declare an interest here as a season ticket-holder of Arsenal Football Club —things are looking very good.

[Lord Maxton]

The noble Lord might be aware that Mr Ally McCoist, the manager of Rangers, was complaining bitterly because one of the things the new owner of Rangers had done was to sell the shares in Arsenal Football Club which apparently Rangers had held for a very long time.

[Lord Sassoon]

There is another thing I have learnt this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

I appreciate that this is very dangerous territory. The important point about the football is that this is a clause about the powers and duties of HMRC in relation to Scottish affairs. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, was trying to set a trap for me by getting me drawn into the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer, because of course the powers we are talking about here define, among other things, where information can be shared and what the limits are. If he was setting me a trap, I am doing my best not to walk into it—he was not setting me a trap, good. He will understand that I cannot possibly comment on the tax affairs of any individual taxpayer. I will simply say that there is nothing in the Bill that would change the circumstances of an individual—or a company—who is overdue in paying taxes to HMRC.

My noble friend Lord Lyell asked whether there was a difference between preferred creditor and ordinary creditor status between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I must confess that it is not an issue I have in the front of my mind, and I will write to him. I am sure it is a very important question, not only for football clubs.

[Lord Lyell]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Sassoon]

I think that probably deals with all the football questions, and with probably just about everything else that was directly relevant to this clause. I will try to deal with some of the other things.

We came back to the big picture question of the legislative consent Motion. It is of course for the Scottish Parliament to choose to bring forward the Motion at any time; it is in its discretion. It must be in the Scottish Parliament’s interest to bring forward an LCM before the last amending stage in this House to allow the House and the Government to reflect on the LCM, and if it wanted to it could choose to pass the legislative consent Motion tomorrow.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Would the Minister like to speculate on why it is not doing that? Why is it deliberately delaying it? My speculation would be that it is playing a cat and mouse game with us, and that it wants to see us move ahead without having to reveal its hand fully. Maybe a better analogy would be a game of poker. This is not something that should be the subject of a gamble. It is a very serious matter. Would he not join me in encouraging the Scottish Parliament to consider the legislative consent Motion at a very early opportunity?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I will certainly not be drawn into speculation. I have already said that it must be in the Scottish Parliament’s interest to pass the legislative consent Motion in time for the Government and this House to consider possible amendments in response to anything it comes forward with, and, as I said, it could pass the Motion any day. However, beyond that there is nothing more useful that I can add.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the point of legislative consent, could my noble friend help me by explaining why we are proceeding with a Bill in the absence of a legislative consent Motion? If the Scottish Parliament decided not to pass it, we would all have been wasting our time.

[Lord Sassoon]

We have a Bill; it is important that we press on, and the legislative consent Motion could come at any time. This is idle speculation. It is important that the Motion gets passed, and we look forward to it, but it is in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. There is really nothing more I can usefully say. I certainly do not believe for one minute that we are wasting our time considering the important provisions in this Bill.

Let me move on to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, about the cost of all of this. The major cost will be to the systems that would support the tax changes and the possible new tax rate in Scotland. It is all set out in the impact assessment that is published alongside the Bill. However, for the Scottish rate of income tax, HMRC’s initial estimate is of £40 million to £45 million over a period of years up to the introduction in 2016-17. Clearly the final cost will be dependent on a number of decisions to be made at the implementation stage; and HMRC, HM Treasury, the Scotland Office, with the Scottish Government, will continue to work to determine the optimal implementation approach. The costs may vary in some way as those decisions are taken, but the indicative estimate at the moment is £40 million to £45 million.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I thank the noble Lord for giving us that figure. Does that figure include the 31,000 civil servants in reserve departments who operate in Scotland, and the impact of the HMRC element of those 31,000? Will they continue to be in Scotland? Could he also perhaps give an indication of where that cost will be levied? Will Scottish taxpayers or UK-wide taxpayers take up the cost of disaggregation?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, on the first point, this will be the cost in isolation of the changes necessary to enable the introduction of the Scottish income tax provision. Of course, for fully devolved taxes, the cost will depend on decisions taken by Scottish Parliaments on the design of those taxes, and of course who should administer them. It is therefore a cost estimate that relates essentially to income tax. It assumes that nothing changes in the deployment of other people. It is the necessary cost related to the introduction of the new Scottish income tax regime. As the noble Baroness will know, it is a principle of devolution that costs that are to the benefit of the devolved Administration fall on the devolved Administration, so that is where these costs will fall.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, asked important questions relating to the Scottish Government’s readiness for implementation, the high-level implementation group and the joint Exchequer committee. I very much agree with him that these are important issues about the capacity of all sides, particularly the Scottish Government, to carry out what is necessary. I have already addressed the mechanics of the processes. We have the high-level implementation group, as the noble Lord has set out, and below that the technical groups established by HMRC to work out the detail.

The Scottish Government have focused on pressing for further powers in the Bill. Of course, while one respects their different views on other matters that they might want in the Bill, we would welcome greater attention on implementation from them. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making. Close attention has been shown to issues, such as the block grant adjustment mechanism. There is work to do and we should like to see the Scottish Government set out how they will use the powers provided to them in the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday called for clarification in particular of the stamp duty land tax, and I very much agree with him on that point.

The high-level implementation group was established by the UK Government. It is chaired jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. It has met four times since July 2010 and the role of the group is to oversee the implementation of the financial provisions of the Bill. As I have just said, the technical groups established by HMRC report to the high-level implementation group, and they provide detailed consideration and advice to inform implementation.

On the progress that has been made, the high-level implementation group is a UK Government group. It is entirely within the capacity and the direction of Ministers in London to press on with the work of that group. It is clear that the Scottish Government want their powers increased. To do that, clearly we would welcome more progress to begin setting out how the powers will be used. From that, many more questions will flow about implementation. That is where things stand at the moment.

[The Duke of Montrose]

On a slightly peripheral question, I am getting very worried that we are setting a precedent here. This may not be quite the moment to raise it with this Minister at the Dispatch Box but I still think that it is extremely relevant. The first indication of a legislative consent Motion was taken when the Scotland Bill was going through this House. It was dubbed the Sewel Motion thereafter. That was to allow Westminster to legislate on devolved matters.

We were told that a legislative consent Motion would be required not when the Bill started here or in the other House but when it reached the “second House”. We could not progress further until the legislative consent Motion was in place. Now we are dealing with a convention that was established outwith Parliament whereby Westminster is asking for a legislative consent Motion for a reserved matter, which this is. Are we establishing a precedent that Westminster goes ahead and produces legislation without legislative consent Motions—admittedly it is quite within its powers to do so because this is the sovereign Parliament—because it appears that the legislative consent Motions are getting slightly out of sync with each other. There is a danger that this is a precedent.

22:16

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, we need the legislative consent Motion. I am not sure I can help my noble friend much further on this. As I have said, it is in the interests of the Scottish Government to get on with the legislative consent Motion if they want consideration of any possible amendments to be taken in this House. I am repeating myself, but that really is as far as it goes. I do not think that these are questions of precedence so much as of practicality. As I said just now, there are a number of matters on which the Scottish Government would wish the provisions of the Bill to go further, so it is in their interests to bring forward the Motion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful to my noble friend. So that we are clear about this, am I not right in saying that we do not need a legislative consent Motion? It may be that the courteous convention is that we take account of legislative consent, but that is a courtesy. This House is sovereign, and that is one of the reasons I asked my noble friend whether we were wasting our time. I was hoping that he would say that we are committed to this policy and that whether the Scottish Parliament passes the legislative consent Motion is not relevant. It would still become law and that is where we are or, alternatively, as part of our respect agenda we would not proceed without a legislative consent Motion. We seem to be in a rather fuzzy position where we are not really saying what our position is in respect of legislative consent, but when my noble friend said that we need a legislative consent Motion, that is clearly not correct.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to my noble friend for picking me up on that because the technical position is just as he states. However, in substance I stand by the remarks I made because just as we respect the conventions here, I would expect the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to respect them as well, and we look forward to receiving the legislative consent Motion in due course and ahead of Third Reading. However, my noble friend has set out the constitutional position perfectly correctly.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I may add to that one other point that we will come to at a later stage in the Bill. There are clauses that deal with the issue of the referendum. The Scottish Parliament has set a date on its consultation period that falls after the likely date when Parliament will be prorogued, so it will not be possible to take account of the consultation process because of the timetable it has chosen.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I really cannot comment on the date for Prorogation. We will see it when it comes, so that is pure speculation. Perhaps I may get back to the clause, albeit that that is an important matter. I want to finish my response to the questions about implementation put by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Earlier I touched briefly on his questions about the joint Exchequer committee, but to complete the picture in the context of this discussion, as I said, the committee met on 27 September. It was a useful first meeting, which agreed the principles relating to the mechanism for the block grant adjustment, as I think the noble Lord knows. It is important to stress again that discussions continue, outside the meetings of the joint Exchequer committee, on a bilateral basis on a range of issues across the Bill including the block grant. I repeat again that, although there are certain aspects on which we would like more progress and more focus, we are making good progress and I remain confident that we will agree on the measures set out in the Bill.

In conclusion, I believe that the provisions in Clause 29 are necessary and sensible as part of further tax devolution. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 agreed.

Clause 30 : Scottish rate of income tax

Amendment 52

Moved by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

52: Clause 30, page 23, line 5, after “the” insert “Devolved”

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

As I explained about six hours ago, I have put down a series of amendments to put “devolved” in front of Government. That is in no way to denigrate the functions of the devolved Government, or to devalue them or say that they are in any way less important by putting that word in front. It is meant to indicate that we are talking about devolution and not independence. As I said previously, Alex Salmond and his Ministers and colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, all of them in the SNP group, are going around in this great big pretence that they are already independent and acting as if they are an independent Government. They are doing things that they think they have the right to do. As we will come to in other debates, the chief civil servant in Scotland has made some amazing and unbelievable outpourings. In some of the statements made by Ministers, they clearly do not comprehend what is meant by devolution.

Devolution means that they remain part of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament are sovereign. Ultimately, the UK institutions can make decisions affecting Scotland on a whole range of things, although by convention and out of courtesy we do not do that. The word is put in there just to remind people that we are talking about devolution; a very important concept that, as noble friends know, I have fought for since I was a young man—and that was not yesterday. I spent a long time helping to persuade the Labour Party—along with John Mackintosh, Donald Dewar and a lot of noble Lords here—to come round in favour of devolution. One or two of my colleagues were not so enthusiastic about it, but we managed to persuade the party to do it. Devolution is very important. We should be proud of it and say how important it is, and how Scotland, by having a devolved Administration, can get the benefits of both worlds. There is the benefit of being part of a strong, powerful United Kingdom—one of the most important powers in the world, with a permanent seat on the Security Council, and membership of the European Union and NATO—but also that of having a Scottish Government, with power over their own affairs in a whole range of important matters such as education, social work, law and order, health and all these areas. This is not to minimise those in any way, but to make sure that that is clearly understood.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, makes a very important point. We have spent a lot of time in the debate today talking about the problems that surround devolution, but devolution in itself has been a very considerable achievement. It may not have gone as far as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen suggested, to kill nationalism stone dead, but it has put in place a system of government that has rectified some of the inequities that have existed for something like 300 years. Because of the nature of the debate that we have had as part of this legislation, we are missing out on making the case that devolution was a very considerable achievement. I do not think that anyone—and I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—would try to put the genie back in the bottle and go back to the previous status quo. Although what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is talking about is in essence a gesture, it is an opportunity for us to celebrate the fact that a transfer of powers was made very peacefully to the Scottish Parliament after the election of the Labour Government in 1997.

Many people misunderstand devolution, which has existed in Scotland for 300 years because of the nature of the Act of Union. The Scotland Act merely transferred that legislation, which often took place in this House in the middle of the night, and put it into a proper parliamentary context. By the time I became Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scotland Office was one department. When the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was Secretary of State for Scotland, he oversaw an empire of something like 13 different government departments. The model that we have now is the right one, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his argument for celebrating the cause of devolution rather than trying to hide it.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, I rise as somebody else who supported devolution. There have been one or two occasions during this evening when I have had my doubts, I must say—but in the main I have supported it, because in my view it is about democracy. That is what distinguishes it from independence, which almost certainly under the SNP would be democratic but does not have to be. It is not a prerequisite of an independent Scotland that it has to be a democratic state, but the fact is that devolution is about democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may sit there and pull faces, but he is one of the reasons why many of us argued strongly for the democratic process of devolution. What we had developed in Scotland was a Secretary of State for Scotland of a Conservative Government who, of course, increasingly had fewer and fewer Members in support in Scotland. Legislation which affected the whole of the people of Scotland was being put through this place with no democratic validity whatever.

There was an alternative, which was to abolish the Scotland Office and do away with separate Scottish legislation altogether. That was not seriously a political option in Scotland. The reason why we argued so strongly for devolution was because we felt that the only way you could get democratic legitimacy in Scotland was to give democratic powers to a Scottish Parliament to make legislation in Scotland for—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The hour is late and I am not going to make a speech, but I will just rise to the fly to say one thing. I opposed devolution because I thought that it would lead ultimately to the growth of the demands for independence and would benefit the nationalists, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. However, if I had realised how much damage devolution would do to the Labour Party in Scotland, I might have been tempted to go along with it.

22:30

[Lord Maxton]

However, the damage to the Labour Party in Scotland—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Which was self-inflicted.

[Lord Maxton]

It was partially self-inflicted, as my noble friend beside me says. However, that damage is also a short-term phenomenon and we will recover.

Certainly, we will recover once we have had the referendum on independence. I do not understand why Mr Alex Salmond does not want that referendum immediately, because this is his best chance of winning it. The longer he leaves it, in my view, the less chance he has of winning it. The arguments will no longer be about the way in which, or whether, we have the right to hold the referendum. It will be about the issues of what being an independent country, outside the United Kingdom, actually means: whether it will be part of Europe; whether it will have to apply to be part of Europe; and whether the rest of the United Kingdom will be part of Europe. Mr Alex Salmond seems to think that the rest of the United Kingdom would not necessarily be part of Europe, but it must be in his best interests to hope that it will be part of it. Can your Lordships imagine a Tory-dominated England, led by people such as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who would probably say: “Now we can get out of Europe—we don't have to be in it any longer. We can get out altogether and leave the European Union.”?

I always supported devolution on the basis of democracy. It was the right thing to do and it still is. I wish, however, that we could settle the issue of independence once and for all. If we get it out of the way, we could then deal with whether we apply, change or alter devolution. I am not necessarily convinced that we have to give enormous extra powers to the Scottish Parliament. In fact, there are some parts of the devolution settlement where we ought to be taking powers back from Scotland. For instance, broadcasting is one area over which they demand power, but powers like that should certainly be with this Parliament because they are now international rather than national. We should not therefore necessarily always be looking at giving powers to Scotland, and never taking them back.

We also have to look at what to my mind my late and very good friend Donald Dewar meant when he said that devolution is a process and not an end. The process was about extending democracy from the Scottish Parliament down to local government and local areas, so that you were giving powers to the people in the areas and the communities in which they lived. That to me is what Donald Dewar meant when he said that, not that it was the first step towards an independent Scotland.

[Baroness Adams of Craigielea]

On that point, was it not the case that the Scottish Parliament in fact did quite the opposite of that, and drew powers away from local government and brought them to the Scottish Parliament? In fact, they are the people who have not continued devolution. While this House has tried to keep the concept of devolution going, the Scottish Parliament has done exactly the opposite.

[Lord Maxton]

That is very much so and it was quite interesting, as I listened to the debate earlier on taxation, that the Scottish Government, led by Alex Salmond over the past—what is it now?—three or four years, have not allowed local authorities to increase their council tax. They have put a cap on it, so they have in fact restrained taxation at a local level. My noble friend is quite right. They have actually reduced the democratic rights and responsibilities of local government, whereas what ought to have been the next step was to say, “We have devolved power to a Scottish Parliament for democratic reasons. We now need to devolve further down, to give more democracy to our local communities and our people to take the decisions at their level that need to be taken at that level”. That to me is what devolution is about. It is not about independence; it is not actually about nationalism or nationality at all. In fact, nationalism has been the bugbear of devolution, not the natural progression of it. Therefore I support my noble friend's amendment, which would put “devolved” into this Bill.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate for the simple reason that I do not support the amendment and I feel that I am destroying my relationship with my noble friend Lord Forsyth bit by bit in a salami-slice fashion.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Sorry, I meant my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Maybe I should start again.

The reason I do not support the amendment is not that it gives us an opportunity, as my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke has indicated, to celebrate devolution—I intend to do a bit of that myself—nor that it created the opportunity for what I thought was an excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Maxton on the reasons for devolution and why we should support it in principle. But over the course of this Parliament, I have been surprised by the ability of people to make the most detailed and engaging speeches about the concept that has become known as localism while at the same time resisting devolution. I do not really understand how people can hold those two concepts together in their head, as localism is just a form of devolution. As my noble friend Lord Maxton has suggested, we ought to start looking at the powers that we as politicians in government of any description exercise over people. We should look at the appropriate level to exercise them that is relevant to people. Given the experience that the political classes have had in the United Kingdom over the past few years of the deterioration of their relationship with the people they govern and legislate for, getting their relationship with the people of the country back would be very helpful.

I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I do not have anything like the history that some of my noble friends and other Members of this House have, but I have been committed to it for the whole of the shorter political life that I have had, and I was committed to it in my membership of the Labour Party before I had a public life in politics. At some stage in this debate we need to move away from arguments about what other people are doing or personalities—I include the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in this; he ought not to be the manifestation of a particular type of politics that we define ourselves against, any more than we should be obsessed by what other people are doing—to a collective narrative for devolution and for the union that describes the sort of United Kingdom that we want for the young people of today in Scotland and their future. That will be, as the people of Scotland demand, a Scotland in which there is significant devolved power, exercised by a Parliament that they elect independently of the United Kingdom Parliament.

We have to recognise that whether we have conditioned people into that expectation because of their dissatisfaction with the previous settlement and the sense of disfranchisement that there was between the people who governed them and the exercise of their votes, whether we have conditioned them into it by their expectations of devolution, or whether they have just been conditioned into it by their espousal in significant numbers of the concept of nationalism, it does not really matter what the motivation is—that is where the people of Scotland are. The sooner we get a collective narrative that describes the sort of Scotland that we want our children or our children’s children to live in, and what powers the people who govern them will have, how they will be able to use them and how they will be accountable, the more chance that we have of preserving the union. I passionately believe that the best way of describing that is in the context of the union.

I come to the issue of the use of the word “devolved”. The people of Scotland do not actually need that word attached to anything. They understand that their Parliament is a devolved Parliament and the Scottish Government are a devolved Government. Whether or not the people who happen to have charge of that Government or that executive power for a particular period have other ambitions and behave in a particular way, as they do, that is designed to give some alternative impression, the people of Scotland are not fooled. The people of Scotland want an Executive who address the issues that Scotland faces, which are manifest to anyone who lives there. We have problems in relation to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, health, the abuse of alcohol, sectarianism and a lot of issues that have their roots in decisions made by previous generations, such as the movement of people, the death of economic drivers, changes in economic circumstances and the movement of jobs from these islands. There is a whole series of things, over many of which we have not had any real control.

Of course, the people of Scotland do not want a First Minister who is more interested in consorting with people who give the impression that he is somehow much more important than he is. They do not want that and they see through it. We do not need to spend much time describing all that. However, they definitely want politicians who can address the issues and challenges of their everyday lives. They want people to explain to them why these issues are best addressed in the context of the United Kingdom, wider Europe and the world. They understand that.

Traditionally, Scots knew and understood their position in the world. That is why, while there are approximately 5 million people in Scotland who claim to be Scots, there are in excess of 40 million people around the world who claim Scots heritage in one way or another. We are a nation of people who have an understanding and concept of our place in the world. I honestly do not think that we need to spend any more time in this Committee or on the Bill debating these issues. We need to start describing the future of Scotland in the context of devolution and celebrate what we have already achieved by being a template for genuine localism in the United Kingdom.

It has not been perfect. We have a very young Parliament in which people are growing up. Members of the Scottish Parliament who were not politicians at all when we devolved powers to it are becoming significant politicians in the United Kingdom. I simply do not support my noble friend’s interesting amendment, which has led to a short but interesting debate, because the last thing that the people of Scotland need is for their politicians to spend another few hundred thousand pounds on changing the name of their Government.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, can I perhaps be somewhat boring and brief at this time of night by focusing on the amendment? It would insert the word “Devolved” into Clause 30, Clause 37 and Schedule 4, where the reference would become to the devolved Scottish Government. Clause 15 changes the formal name to the Scottish Government from the Scottish Executive. It was felt that the Executive were increasingly widely known as the Scottish Government and that it made sense to amend the Act to reflect public perception and to avoid confusion. However, the fact that the Scotland Act refers to “Scottish Executive” prevents the use of “Scottish Government” in legislation, contracts and other legal matters. Therefore, Clause 15 is designed to prevent inconsistencies in what the Scottish Executive are called by the public and in the legal name.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wishes to insert “devolved” in front of “Scottish Government”. That is unnecessary and may even lead to further confusion. Altering the name of the Scottish Government to “the devolved Scottish Government” would in no way strengthen the position of devolution. Indeed, it is important to note that no such prefix attaches to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. It would look very odd and lopsided if it happened just in Scotland.

That said, this has been a useful debate on devolution. I will not go into all the highways and byways but some important points were made. Some of us who very much support what has happened over the past 12 years sometimes miss a trick because so often, ahead of the debates in 1997 and the referendum leading up to that, we talked about devolution in terms of the Scottish Parliament dealing with matters related to the domestic agenda of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom Parliament being responsible for macroeconomic policies, defence, foreign policy, social security and pensions. Although we will undoubtedly debate where the boundaries should be—the Bill seeks to address some of these issues—I nevertheless believe that the idea of a Scottish Parliament within a United Kingdom still commands the support of the vast majority of the people in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am convinced by the eloquence and brevity of both Front Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.46 pm.