House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
1. What plans he has to co-operate with the authorities in the United Arab Emirates on defence issues.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
15. What plans he has to co-operate with the authorities in the United Arab Emirates on defence issues.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the two British service personnel who were killed today in Afghanistan. Their next of kin are being informed. Our thoughts, as ever, are with their families, for whom this will be a deeply personal tragedy. Details of the incident are still emerging, but it appears that a member of the Afghan national army opened fire at the entrance gate of the British headquarters in Lashkar Gah city, killing the two British service personnel. The assailant was killed by return fire. The Ministry of Defence will issue further statements as the details of the incident become clearer. I am sure that the House will also wish to join me in paying tribute to Captain Rupert Bowers from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan on 21 March.
The United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates enjoy a strong relationship, as is enshrined in the defence co-operation accord signed in 1996, which sets a wide scope for security co-operation, including in planning. I visited the UAE two weeks ago for meetings with UAE Ministers and defence chiefs. We discussed ways to further enhance our co-operation, including through equipment sales and associated industrial collaboration and technology transfer. I look forward to maintaining a productive dialogue as we take those proposals forward with the UAE over the coming months.
Bob Blackman
May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s tribute to the brave service personnel who lost their lives today and previously?
The UAE is a key strategic ally and has been for a very long time. Given the tensions in the region, notably with Iran, what is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that our Eurofighters and other key arms are provided to the UAE so that it is defended properly?
Mr Hammond
As I said, I visited the UAE two weeks ago. It has indicated that it requires fighters. However, it rightly looks to set its requirements for military equipment in the context of a wider collaboration with its friends and allies. The UK is looking to put together an attractive package of industrial, technological and defence support with the UAE. We hope that the Typhoon will be part of that.
Mr Wallace
May I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State about the recent deaths of the three brave soldiers? They do what they do not only to keep our country safe, but to defend those who cannot defend themselves in Afghanistan.
Our relationship with the United Arab Emirates is incredibly important, as the Secretary of State said. After the importance of the Typhoon jet in Libya, will he ensure that the UAE understands that it is a superior aircraft to the Rafale, the French model? Will he do everything that he can to support the Typhoon in the fighter modernisation programme of the UAE?
Mr Hammond
I assure my hon. Friend that it is clear from the discussions that I have had in the UAE that the UAE air force chiefs are well aware of the capabilities of the Typhoon. I am sure that they are also well aware of the capabilities of the Rafale. We have had Typhoons in the UAE twice over the past few months. There will be further work with the UAE so that it can understand the capabilities of the Typhoon in detail as part of their evaluation of the options open to them.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State spoke for the whole House in extending condolences to the families of those who fell in the service of their country in Afghanistan. We are grateful to him.
Should we be increasing our arms sales to any part of the Arab world, when people are crying out for democracy and we are critical of arms sales to Syria? It is shaming that as Bahrainis are tortured, killed and repressed, we have resumed arms sales to that country. Should we not try exporting a bit more democracy and a bit less weaponry?
Mr Hammond
The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The United Kingdom’s intention is always to get that balance right. The UAE is a strong and reliable ally and partner. It fought alongside us in Libya and is working alongside us in Afghanistan. In an increasingly fragile security situation in the Gulf, it is a significant ally of the United Kingdom. We always seek to balance the concerns that he has set out against the United Kingdom’s security concerns when making such judgments.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
3. How much he plans to invest in improving the welfare of families of service personnel in the next year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
All the services have long-standing welfare structures in place to support families. We continually review that support to identify where it can be further improved, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of measures last Wednesday to support service families. They included £3 million made available to double, again, to 100% the council tax rebate for deployed service personnel; £2 million allocated to double the rate of the families welfare grant, which is available to commanding officers to use as they see fit on activities for the families of those deployed; and an additional investment of £100 million in 2013-14 to improve service accommodation.
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and I should say that in general, service children have a rather better than average attainment record in schools. We have several schemes, one of which is the continuity of education allowance, which allows children to remain in one school while their parents move around the world or the country. Another is the pupil premium that we have introduced, run by the Department for Education, under which each child carries a passport of money for their school. Schools very much welcome that.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I join the Secretary of State in expressing sincere sympathy at the tragic deaths of the soldiers in Afghanistan.
Can the Minister confirm that homes at military bases in Northern Ireland such as Aldergrove will be upgraded to improve living conditions for all our military families?
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. It is rather like painting the Forth road bridge—or is it the rail bridge? I can never remember. [Interruption.] The rail bridge—I am grateful. It is ongoing—[Hon. Members: “Not any more.”] Apparently, they have found a new paint in Scotland. Nevertheless, we will continue to work on all Army quarters. The last Government took great steps to improve service family accommodation, and we are continuing that work.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
Following on from the support that is given to serving personnel, what support is given to veterans and their families through extra funding for centres such as the Wirral veterans contact centre, which was set up in 2011 specifically for that purpose?
Mr Robathan
If my hon. Friend would like to speak to me about that centre, I would be very happy to look into it. I have to say that I have not heard of it before. We work very closely with all the service charities in the voluntary sector to support ex-service personnel, and we also do a great deal of work through the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency and other organisations to support ex-service personnel.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the announcements in the Budget targeted at forces families’ welfare, but I hope the Minister occasionally reads the Army Families Federation website and blog. If so, he will see how the announcement on housing is being received. One blog post reads that
“it’s difficult to regard as new money and is still £40 million short of that allocated and withdrawn last year…it does not begin to answer the problems surrounding the rebasing of families from Germany.”
Is he embarrassed that the Chancellor’s announcement does not even make up for last year’s cut?
Mr Robathan
I really do think, first, that Opposition Members should remember that we are struggling in a very difficult financial situation caused by the last Government. Secondly, the hon. Lady should not believe every word that appears on every blog on the internet, because there are rather a lot of them. Thirdly, I was most interested to discover that the shadow team led by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) had been issuing joint press statements with service charities, which I have to say I find very surprising. I am rather disappointed if the Royal British Legion is sending out joint press statements with the shadow Defence team, as was said in a very reputable newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, yesterday.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
4. What recent progress his Department has made on co-operation with the government of France on defence equipment; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
We have taken significant steps to implement the UK-France defence security co-operation treaty signed in 2010. The recent summit, in February, demonstrated that our bilateral co-operation remains strong and that both nations are committed to delivering the aims of the treaty. The summit declaration set out the areas of co-operation on defence equipment, and we continue to make progress across all the programmes by ensuring that our time lines and requirements are aligned, and in some cases by setting up joint project offices.
Peter Luff
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend a clear reassurance on those points. The politicians, armed services and acquisition communities of both countries understand the importance of the relationship, which I believe will endure for many years because of the benefits it brings in terms of both enhanced capability and lower cost, which are crucial tests for anyone interested in delivering effective equipment for armed forces at a price the taxpayer can afford.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
May I associate myself entirely with the Secretary of State’s expression of sympathy following the loss of two service personnel today in Afghanistan?
The Opposition support further co-operation with the French, as industry does. However, the industry’s concern is that the French Government have an industrial strategy and are already looking at how they maximise business for French companies. They have been faster out of the blocks yet again, so given repeated delays in the announcement on planning round 12, can the Minister tell the House exactly when we can expect the announcement? Can he please not say “shortly”, because industry and employees deserve a little better?
Peter Luff
I assure the hon. Lady that she can expect a statement very shortly. As for her more general point, this country has a very effective way of supporting defence industries by making them competitive to ensure that they can take on world markets well and strongly, by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and exports, and by supporting science, which the previous Labour Government cut. Those things will give us a very strongly competitive defence industry, not only in respect of the relationship with France, but around the world.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
5. What steps he is taking to increase sales of the Eurofighter Typhoon abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
Typhoon exports are an important part of our defence export drive. They help to sustain highly skilled jobs and engineering capability in the air sector as well as enhancing our alliances in key regions of the world. We also recognise the benefit Typhoon sales could have on the Ministry of Defence’s own acquisition programme. Ministers and officials from across Government are actively promoting Typhoon where appropriate, highlighting the excellent performance and reliability on operations and the outstanding value for money it offers, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just confirmed.
Graham Jones
May I associate my views with those of other hon. Members regarding the loss of life in Afghanistan?
Last week, the Indian Ministry of Defence ordered an internal review into the procurement process that led to the French Rafale aircraft receiving preferred bidder status despite the fact that it was apparently out-performed by the Eurofighter in tests as well as in operations in Libya? What discussions has the Minister held with his Indian counterparts to seek reassurances that Britain’s defence export industry is not losing out because of unfair and uncompetitive practices?
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters and took part in the Westminster Hall debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on 7 March, so I understand where he is coming from. I can assure him that I take these matters very seriously. I have read the reports about the internal investigation that Minister Antony, the Defence Minister in India, has instigated. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I shall be flying to India tomorrow, where I hope to have discussions with Indian Ministers and other officials.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Typhoon is clearly an exceptional aircraft, but to sell it to countries around the world we need to draw on all the experience we have as a nation and our contacts with other countries. Given that our contact with India goes back many decades, why were the Germans chosen to lead the sales consortium? Should not we have been leading that, in what used to be a part of the British empire?
Mr Howarth
I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, but unfortunately the previous Government decided that the project would be led by the Germans, despite all the connections the UK has with India. I can assure him that we and BAE Systems are taking a very active part not only in preparing ourselves in case the Indians would like us to resubmit and talk to us again, but in discussions with EADS, Cassidian, the German Government and our other two partners. We are also working very hard on the export drive to make up for the loss and damage done by Labour when it was in government.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
6. What recent progress he has made on the carrier programme; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
My aim is to announce a balanced budget for defence and a properly funded equipment programme for the first time in a generation, and to deal with the £38 billion black hole we inherited from our predecessors.
As part of that process, we are reviewing all programmes and I will announce the outcome of this work when it is complete, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we will be guided by the facts and be realistic about costs and risks. If the facts change, we will, if necessary, change our plans and not plough on regardless, as the previous Government did.
Mr McKenzie
Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is essential that we continue with the carrier programme to ensure that our troops in conflict far from our shores can at least have air supremacy and to bring much-needed jobs to our shipyards around Britain, including on the Clyde, where many of my constituents work?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman will know that the strategic defence and security review committed us to a regeneration of carrier strike capability, and the building of the carriers is well advanced. I can reassure him on that front. There is no intention to revisit the decision to build the carriers. The review is about how we operate them, use them and ensure that they remain affordable into the future.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is rumoured to be considering reverting to the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the joint strike fighter. Is he aware that were he to do so, his decision would be applauded by many because it would mean not having to find £2 billion per carrier—money not readily available—and because it might mean having two carriers instead of one?
Mr Hammond
I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have spent a great deal of time looking at this project over the past few months, and I believe that I am aware of all the arguments on both sides.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Government have just placed great emphasis on co-operation between the UK and our French NATO partners. Does the Secretary of State believe that this is helped by the reports that they are chopping and changing their plans about which aircraft will go on the new carriers?
Mr Hammond
The collaboration that we have discussed and intend to progress with the French essentially concerns carrier deployment—working together to ensure deployments that make sense and which are coherent when looked at together. It is not about interoperability of aircraft as such. We expect that whatever decision we come to, the co-operation and collaboration that we have been discussing with the French will go ahead and will be an important part of our posture in operating our carrier strike force.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
On 19 December, I asked in Defence questions about the state of the carrier fleet and the aircraft to fly from it. Rather to my surprise, I got the old ministerial brush-off. If I say I have heard echoes of that so far today in the Secretary of State’s answers, perhaps I will not be criticised. It has been known for months that the F-35 programme, so far as it relates to the aircraft the United Kingdom was to procure, has been in trouble. When will the Government come to the House of Commons and make a full, clear and detailed statement about the carriers and the aircraft to fly from them? Does anyone in the Ministry of Defence now admit to regretting the fact that we disposed of the present generation of carriers and sold off the Harrier aircraft to the United States marine corps?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. and learned Friend is conflating two issues. I have already said that we are looking at the carrier programme along with the rest of the equipment programme, and as soon as I am in a position to do so, which I expect to be shortly, I will come and update the House fully. The disposal of the Harriers was a separate decision taken because of the cost pressures facing the Government and taken consciously to save the Tornado, which proved to be an invaluable aircraft in the Libya campaign. It was the right decision.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words about the tragic loss of life of two serving personnel and, obviously, Captain Rupert Bowers, last week?
In responding to the initial question, the Secretary of State referred to the Prime Minister’s words last week. I remind him that in introducing the SDSR, the Prime Minister said that the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the F-35 was an error. He has obviously seen fit to change his mind. Does the Secretary of State agree with that position, and will he confirm that the Government will deliver continuous carrier strike capability by 2020, as outlined and pledged in the SDSR?
Mr Hammond
I can only say what I have already said. We are looking at all the issues around the carrier strike programme, and I will make a statement to the House shortly. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that I will not take any lectures on the carrier programme from him. He supported a Government who delayed the programme by two years and drove £1.6 billion of costs into it, and whose management of the programme was described by the Public Accounts Committee as
“a new benchmark in poor corporate decision making.”
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that if he decided to go for the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the F-35, this would enable continuous carrier strike capability to be maintained, as it could be deployed from both carriers, which is impossible to do with a single carrier?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is pointing out that there are complex capability traits to be looked at in considering the question of carrier strike—the capabilities of the two aircraft, but also the availability of carriers from which they can fly. All those things are being evaluated. When we have come to a clear conclusion, we will come back to the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
7. What steps his Department is taking to improve service accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
8. What steps his Department is taking to improve service accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
The Ministry of Defence is continuing to target efforts on the most pressing accommodation issues. For example, both this year and next, the MOD plans to spend around £75 million on upgrading single accommodation. Furthermore, some £44 million was allocated in financial year 2011-12, and £50.5 million in 2012-13, to upgrade service families’ accommodation to the top standard. In addition, the Government have just announced £100 million of further investment in financial year 2013-14. Around 650 service homes and 600 single accommodation units are expected to benefit from this substantial investment.
Kate Green
What steps are being taken to adapt service accommodation for servicemen or women who are injured or disabled in combat?
Nick Harvey
This is taken on a case-by-case basis. Accommodation will be adapted as necessary where a clear user is coming in and using a unit of accommodation. However, rather than trying to pre-empt or guess what will be required, we will continue to take an entirely pragmatic approach.
Sandra Osborne
The Minister will be aware that the Defence Committee recently visited the Falkland Islands. As part of an excellent programme, we looked at the accommodation provided to servicemen while they are in the Falklands. However, we came across personnel from the 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland who were being accommodated in camp beds in an old gym, having just returned from an exercise. Does he find that acceptable, and will he look into it to ensure that it does not happen again?
Nick Harvey
The accommodation to which the hon. Lady refers was an entirely temporary arrangement while the units of accommodation that those personnel would ordinarily have been living in were being refurbished—I think this was made clear to the Select Committee on its visit. Those personnel will be in that permanent accommodation as soon as it is ready.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
As the Minister correctly says, this Government have done a great deal since they came to power. However, does he agree that the provision of decent accommodation, for both single servicemen and married couples—and, indeed, for families—is central to the military covenant? Does he agree that there is so much more to be done, and that even the announcements that he has made are not yet all that could be done? When does he anticipate having an entire military estate that is fit for purpose?
Nick Harvey
As I explained in my initial answer, we continue to make substantial investments, which were further boosted by the additional funds that were made available last week in the Budget. It is important to keep a sense of proportion about the condition of housing at the moment. More than 96% of family accommodation in the UK is in either condition 1 or 2, and we are now meeting the commitment in the armed forces covenant that no family accommodation will be newly allocated if it falls in condition 3 or 4. There is more to be done in the case of single living accommodation, but that work continues apace. Even as we speak, the Allenby Connaught project is continuing to deliver new units of single living accommodation across Salisbury plain and in Aldershot.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the likely cost of upgrading the service accommodation in the Edinburgh estate, including at Craigiehall in my constituency, is likely to be significantly less than the £600 million cost of the proposed super-barracks in Kirknewton?
Nick Harvey
I can assure my hon. Friend that the costs of differing future accommodation options for the Army are being scrutinised closely. The Army 2020 piece of work is nearing a conclusion. The attendant estate study will continue for a few months, but the sort of comparisons that he makes will be central to the thinking in those studies.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
May I press the Minister on his answer on single accommodation? When does he expect single accommodation—I mean single accommodation specifically—to be up to a standard that he would expect all service personnel to live in?
Nick Harvey
The aim would be to complete that as part of Future Force 2020, but we cannot know for certain until the work that I described a moment ago is completed. Until we know the future basing requirement of the Army, it will be very hard to say. For example, if a great deal of new build for new barracks were involved, this goal would be likely to be achieved much earlier than if it were a question of “make do and mend”. Some pretty big strategic decisions need to be taken on the defence estate during the next six months.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome the priority given by the Government to this issue when they are under intense financial pressures. May I suggest that the very different accommodation patterns across the services are one of several good reasons why the future new employment model should be devolved to the three services rather than developed centrally?
Nick Harvey
It is certainly the case that future employment practices will determine the sort of accommodation we supply to our armed servicemen, and these will vary across the three services, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
Demands for greater political, social and economic participation continue in the middle east and north Africa, particularly in Syria where the situation is of grave concern. The UK remains concerned over Iran’s nuclear programme and its continued attempts to develop nuclear weapons. The UK continues to work with other countries to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We want a negotiated solution, not a military one, but we are clear that all options should be kept on the table. We assess that the regional security situation will remain fragile.
Robert Halfon
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s appraisal of the Iranian nuclear programme; no options should be left off the table. Will he ensure that the Iranians are under no illusions and state that, if necessary, the United Kingdom has the capability to act—and act decisively?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made the situation abundantly clear. The UK, together with the United States, seeks a peaceful solution to the Iranian crisis, but we are very clear that a combination of engagement and continued pressure is the way to deliver that. We look forward to the resumed E3 plus 3 talks, and we are also very clear that no option should be taken off the table.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell us on what British forces are engaged in the Gulf region at the present time, and what the rules of engagement are for naval vessels in the strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters?
Mr Hammond
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have naval vessels in the Gulf. I am not able to tell him from this Dispatch Box the details of the rules of engagement, for reasons that will be obvious to him.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Given the recent deployment of some of Britain’s minesweepers to the strait of Hormuz, does the Secretary of State agree that the clearing of mines in international waterways is a necessary but passive action, which should not be seen as a hostile act by Iran or any other country?
Mr Hammond
To be clear, there has not been a recent deployment. The UK has minesweepers deployed in the Gulf—they have been there for some time, and I expect them to remain there. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Keeping the strait of Hormuz open is a passive action in the interests of the international community, and should not be regarded as a war-like action by anybody.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the level of morale in the armed forces.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the level of morale in the armed forces.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I continue to be impressed by the morale and commitment of those putting their lives at risk on operations on a daily basis. This was particularly evident to me during my recent visit to Afghanistan. More broadly, the Ministry of Defence uses a number of measures, including the annual armed forces continuous attitude survey, to monitor and understand changes in morale across the services. In the 2011 survey across the three services, 46% of respondents reported that their morale was high, and 31% were neutral.
Sajid Javid
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, and in particular convey my deepest sympathies to the family of Captain Rupert Bowers of the 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan last week? The people of Bromsgrove are rightly very proud of having given the Mercians the freedom of the district last year. Does the Minister agree that if more cities and towns throughout the country followed their example by conferring a similar honour, that could help to boost morale?
Nick Harvey
I do agree, and I applaud the local communities that are taking part in the armed forces community covenant scheme. Over the past five or six years, the community in general has increasingly recognised the contribution that our armed forces make, and has become increasingly willing to make spontaneous gestures of respect for them. That is very welcome, and it undoubtedly has an impact on morale.
Dan Byles
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to the morale of our troops on operations that they know that in their absence their families are safe, secure, and surrounded by understanding and like-minded communities such as those in the neighbourhoods of married quarters, which are known as “patches”? Can he reassure service families that the forthcoming review of accommodation options under the new employment model will take account of the intangible benefits of such communities in towns where there are married quarters?
Nick Harvey
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a balance to be struck, but the community support that results from the collocation of armed forces families is tangible. We must also concentrate on the ability of families to secure employment in local communities, and that is another consideration that we take into account.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. Forces’ morale is closely linked with events in Afghanistan, and I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences: the thoughts of all of us, and the prayers of many of us, are with the families and friends of those who have been bereaved today. I do not want to go into the specifics of that attack, but attacks on NATO forces by Afghan forces have resulted in 75 fatalities since 2007, and most of the attacks have taken place in the last two years. In the light of previous incidents, what new procedures have been implemented to vet Afghan recruits, and will Afghan forces be responsible for the protection of UK trainers who remain in Afghanistan post-2014?
Nick Harvey
We keep force protection issues under continuous review, and we have changed our procedures in the light of events that have occurred both recently and over a longer period. The decision of the Government —the last Government, as it happens, but that is not relevant—to adopt a partnering strategy and put our troops in alongside those of Afghanistan undoubtedly carried a considerable degree of risk, and there are those who think that that is the wrong approach, but I do not agree. I believe that the last Government were right to compute that the risk was worth taking, and I believe that that is the only way in which we will engrain the necessary skills and culture in the Afghan forces and complete our mentoring task.
Mr Murphy
Forces’ morale often depends on success in Afghanistan. Last week the Prime Minister made clear his view that the handover to Afghan forces could be achieved satisfactorily without a political settlement, but that is contrary to all experience in Afghanistan. Such a vacuum would encourage neighbouring countries to seek influence, allow the Taliban to return, and allow other elements to exploit the ungoverned space. Does the Minister accept that while there can of course be significant military success in Afghanistan, stability in the country will ultimately rely on a political settlement?
Nick Harvey
I certainly agree that a political settlement will be required if there is to be enduring stability beyond the end of 2014, but I think that the hon. Gentleman conflates two issues. It is perfectly possible for us to complete the security challenge of handing the lead over to the Afghans district by district, area by area, which we are doing now, and doing successfully; but if that is to stand a chance of sustaining peace in Afghanistan in the long term, a political settlement will need to come behind it to return the country to the stability for which we have all been trying to work.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
11. What recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on defence policy on Iran.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I regularly discuss a wide range of security issues with my NATO counterparts. The UK continues to work with other countries to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We want a negotiated solution, not a military one, but we are clear that all options should be kept on the table.
Bill Esterson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Most of the people I speak to on this subject are very concerned about any prospect of military action against Iran. Can the Secretary of State reassure them that everything that can be done through diplomatic means is being done, and what steps is he taking with his US counterparts to move that forward?
Mr Hammond
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that everything possible is being done. The UK has been in the forefront of the effort progressively to tighten sanctions against Iran. All the evidence suggests that they are beginning to have an impact on the Iranian economy and the Iranian regime. We are also leading supporters of the E3 plus 3 talks, and we are moderately encouraged by Iran’s commitment to resume talking next month, but, of course, the proof will be in the pudding, as we have heard all this before. We hope this is a genuine re-engagement by Iran, but, as I said earlier, we should leave all options on the table.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In the absence of the appropriate UN Security Council authorisation and the justification of self-defence, does the Secretary of State agree that any attack on Iran, whether by Israel or not, would be an act of aggression and in breach of international law?
Mr Hammond
That would depend on the circumstances. For the United Kingdom, a pre-emptive attack would certainly be regarded as illegal.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
13. What recent progress his Department has made on implementation of the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2011.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Armed Forces Act 2011 received Royal Assent on 3 November 2011. Some of its provisions, including the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006, came into force on that day. The provision relating to the call-out of reserve forces came into force two months later. Implementation of the remainder of the Act is now under way. The first commencement order was made on 1 March, which brings into force, with effect on either 8 March or 2 April, about half of the remaining provisions of the Act, including the provisions relating to the armed forces covenant report, Ministry of Defence police performance regulations and the independence of service police investigations.
Susan Elan Jones
I thank the Minister for that answer, and may I associate myself with the condolences expressed earlier? Does the Minister agree that means-testing the compensation paid to the bereaved families of those who have fallen on the front line is not right and should be looked at again?
Mr Robathan
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. This practice causes a great deal of unhappiness among some people, and I accept her point that it should be kept under review. The means-testing of compensation awards is not a Ministry of Defence responsibility, but if she likes I will get my colleagues in the relevant Department to write to her.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their work on the military covenant. Will he take this opportunity to thank organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association for the work they do for those serving on the front line and their loved ones?
Mr Robathan
I certainly will. As my hon. Friend knows, both we and the country as a whole rely a great deal on the service charities and voluntary sector, as have previous Governments. My hon. Friend mentions the SSAFA, but many other organisations, including the Army Benevolent Fund—or ABF, as it is now called—Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion do excellent work on behalf of our service personnel and ex-service personnel. There are, I think, almost 2,000 such service charities, so I will not name them all.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
14. What assessment he has made of the efficacy of the armed forces community covenant scheme; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
It is too early to assess the efficacy of the scheme, which was launched less than a year ago, but the level of interest from communities across the UK is very promising. More than 40 councils have already signed a covenant, and more than £2 million has already been allocated to support local projects under the grant scheme.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am particularly interested in soldiers’ mental health. What is the MOD doing to increase public understanding and awareness of potential mental health issues among armed forces personnel, especially in preparation for the troop draw-down from Afghanistan?
Mr Robathan
We take the issue of mental health extremely seriously, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for his “Fighting Fit” report. We have implemented a great many of his recommendations and I believe we will implement them all, including working closely with Combat Stress, which we continue to do. Combat Stress has installed a helpline for those in trouble. We continue to take this matter seriously. It is not really part of the armed forces community covenant, but we see it as part of wider covenant issues.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On celebrating links between communities and the armed forces, will the Minister note the extremely strong support shown by the town of Warminster on 16 March as 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, which is deploying in extremely difficult circumstances to Afghanistan, marched through the town?
Mr Robathan
I will. We all know of the tragedies in Afghanistan, and there cannot be anyone in the House who has not shed a tear for the brave young men who die in the service of their country. I pay tribute to the people of Warminster and, indeed, to their Member of Parliament.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
16. What steps he is taking to ensure that military personnel deployed in combat zones have sufficient training and experience.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I would like to offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents for the recent losses to the 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment and 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. The Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its responsibility and duty to care for all our service personnel to make sure they are sufficiently prepared for the job they are deployed to undertake. Training is designed to meet the specific requirements of each operation, and individuals will be provided with appropriate training, depending on the role they are going to perform.
Mr Sheerman
May I remind the ministerial team that it is young men and women who are killed and have been killed on active service? Captain Lisa Head, from the bomb disposal squad, was killed a year ago in Afghanistan, and the inquest into her death takes place tomorrow. The young Yorkshire men who were killed recently were 19, 20, 20 and 21, which makes one wonder whether these young people are sufficiently skilled, trained and experienced to be in such a dangerous position so early in life.
Nick Harvey
I entirely repudiate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Army units deploying to Afghanistan go through a bespoke 18-month training progression prior to deployment, which is tailored to the role they will fulfil in theatre and creates a very high level of individual and collective competence. From talking to them out there, I know they will believe that they have had the training they need, and that is also the assessment of the military professionals.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
My departmental responsibilities are to ensure: that our country is properly defended, now and in the future, through the delivery of the military tasks for which the MOD is mandated; that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in those military tasks; and that we honour our armed forces covenant. In order to discharge those duties, I have a clear responsibility to ensure that the Department has a properly balanced budget, and a force generation strategy and defence equipment programme that are affordable and sustainable in the medium to long term.
Mr Hammond
I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is displaying a deep misunderstanding of what has happened today. We have announced today the signing of the contract for the long period overhaul of the last of the four Vanguard-class submarines, HMS Vengeance. HMS Vigilant will sail tomorrow, having completed her refit. This will extend the life of the Vanguard-class submarines into the 2030s, which will allow the nuclear successor submarine to be introduced in the late 2020s while maintaining the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T5. Given that 30% of all Vietnam veterans suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and given the 13 to 14 year average before our veterans display PTSD symptoms, what is the Minister doing to ensure that servicemen and women receive support not just soon after their discharge, but in the decades that follow?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I note that my hon. Friend recently took part in a Westminster Hall debate on exactly this issue, which was replied to by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), with whom I recently visited Combat Stress because we have worked hand in hand on these issues. I mentioned the “Fighting Fit” report earlier. We are looking very closely at the long-term provision of support. This is a difficult and complex field, and we work very closely with the King’s Centre, under Professor Simon Wessely.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I wish to return to the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about one of the most controversial decisions of the Government—the decision to sell the Harriers, leaving the UK with carriers but no aeroplanes to fly from them. I have in my hand an internal MOD document that reveals that the Government sold the Harriers for much less than they were worth—in fact for a sixth of the cost of a recent upgrade. The document shows that there is a fear about viable capability being thrown away and points out that at the point of sale the aircraft should be moved in secret to avoid media attention. May I ask the Secretary of State why, when money is so tight, the Government sold the Harriers so cheaply to the US?
Mr Philip Hammond
I think the right hon. Gentleman perhaps spends too much time reading the Sunday newspapers. I too read an article yesterday that said we had spent £500 million refurbishing the Harriers shortly before selling them to the United States. In fact, the programme in question was instigated by the previous Government in 2002 and sustained the Harrier through to the end of its service with UK forces. Far from sneaking the Harriers to the US in secret, when the deal was signed the MOD issued a press release announcing the sale price, $180 million, which was nearly twice the figure that I was told when I arrived at the MOD had been pencilled in as the receipt. It was a success, although the right hon. Gentleman would hate to admit it.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just remind the House that there is a lot to get through so from now on we need shorter questions and shorter answers?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
T6. The Minister will be familiar with Chetwynd barracks in Chilwell in Broxtowe having visited it just the other week, when he brought a cheque for £50,000 for Alderman Pounder school, for which we are very grateful. Will he ensure that some of the extra money announced in last week’s Budget is provided to soldiers’ families at Chetwynd, who want, like many soldiers, to live on base as a community?
Mr Robathan
I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and Alderman Pounder school and I am delighted at the work going on there, which is helped by the MOD support fund for state schools with service children. I should also warn her about Greeks bearing gifts, but I have no Greek blood.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. The recent London-Somali conference reflected the commitment of successive Governments to that region, but the communiqué spoke of co-ordinated ground action, and air strikes were also mooted. Will the Secretary of State rule out British military action in Somalia, including ground troops and air strikes?
Mr Philip Hammond
I do not think it would be sensible for me to rule out anything in the long term, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans to deploy any troops at the moment. As he will know, the African Union provides the troops for this operation; our involvement is limited to a very small number of staff advisers, largely advising the Kenyan forces.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T7. Concerns about the provision of mental health care for veterans have been widely reported in the media. Does the Minister have any plans to implement the community veterans mental health project following the success of a pilot scheme in Wales?
Mr Robathan
We are looking at that as we are looking at all future provision, but this is quite a developing field. As I said earlier, we look very much to advice from the King’s Centre and Professor Simon Wessely. He has already provided some excellent advice. PTSD and issues of mental health are extraordinarily complicated. I think we need to tread very warily when we go forward and to take them extremely seriously.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T3. In the previous MOD questions my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked what steps the Minister had taken to ensure the service premium continues to be paid for the children of service personnel who die on duty. The Minister has had a full month, so will he tell me what steps he has actually taken to ensure that service children are properly supported and continue to receive the help they deserve? Has he lived up to his previous statement that he does not wash his hands of the situation?
Mr Robathan
The reason I said that I do not wash my hands of the situation is that we are concerned about service children whose parents have been killed. However, as I said at the time, this is a Department for Education initiative. I should have hoped that the Opposition praise the pupil premium initiative. We are very keen that all children of service personnel should do well, but the premium is paid because of the mobility of children. We therefore have to look very carefully at how children will be affected when their mobility ceases.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T8. Does the Secretary of State agree that the tempo of our military withdrawal from Afghanistan should be dictated by real measures of military success on the ground, so that the British lives lost in Afghanistan will not have been in vain?
Mr Philip Hammond
I agree absolutely that we must secure our legacy in Afghanistan for the sake of all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The tempo of our withdrawal will depend on the situation on the ground and on decisions that our allies take: we have to go in lockstep with our major allies.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T4. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the planned cuts of almost 50% to the Ministry of Defence police budget and explain further how such a massive reduction can have anything other than a detrimental impact on national security?
Mr Hammond
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), tells me there is to be a written ministerial statement on that subject tomorrow, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman: if he is concerned about cuts, perhaps he should be aware of a passage in a letter written by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to his party’s defence spokesman, in which the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no easy future for defence expenditure, and clearly a Labour Government can expect to have to make further savings after the next election. The hon. Gentleman might want to talk to the Leader of the Opposition about the matter.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Following on from that question and the Secretary of State’s reply, may I draw his attention to my Question 17 on the Order Paper and ask when the Ministry of Defence is going to come clean about the future of the Ministry of Defence police? The Labour Government cut the number of MOD police posts in my constituency from 33 to three, and now Question 17 indicates further cuts.
Mr Robathan
As my right hon. Friend just mentioned, there is to be a written ministerial statement tomorrow, but I can say that we aim to reprioritise the work of the Ministry of Defence police criminal investigation department on the crimes that most significantly affect the defence interest. There will be reductions, but we will consult staff associations and the trade unions, as well as other key stakeholders such as the Home Office.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Have the Scottish Government recently sought any discussions with the Minister and, if so, what have they focused on?
Mr Philip Hammond
That is a rather widely targeted question. I believe the Scottish Government have recently engaged with us on the safety of nuclear materials moving by road, but I do not recall any other engagement in the past couple of months.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I represent a constituency with a proud heritage of support for the Royal Navy. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that any decision on the future of the carriers will be based on considerations of long-term costs and long-term interoperability, not of short-term savings?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is our intention and it is what the previous Government signally failed to do.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
Earlier, we heard about morale in the armed forces. I regret to report that, apparently, morale is low in the Royal Marines Reserve detachment in my constituency, because of uncertainty about its future. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence in January, raised the matter in Prime Minister’s questions in February and today I am raising it for the third month in succession. What does the future hold for the RMR detachment in Dundee?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
That is part of our ongoing review. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman with more details as soon as we have finalised our decisions.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was with service families 10 days ago. They told me that, at the moment, what they are most worried about is redundancy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to get redundancy done as soon as possible, so that morale can improve?
Mr Philip Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: uncertainty saps morale. That is why the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have completed the announcements of redundancies required. Because of the rebasing, the drawdown from Afghanistan and the return from Germany, it has not been possible for the Army to complete that process, but we will make announcements as soon as we can to provide as much certainty as possible.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The treatment of veterans, including those in ongoing conflicts, such as Afghanistan, is a key part of the military covenant. To that end the Westminster Government repeatedly send Ministers and Members of Parliament to understand circumstances there to inform decision-making on the treatment of veterans in medical policy and support provision. Given that veterans issues are largely devolved in Scotland, why has the MOD refused to arrange a visit to service personnel in Afghanistan for Scottish veterans affairs Minister, Keith Brown?
Mr Robathan
I understood that that was a question about a visit for a Minister from Scotland. I am afraid we do not arrange visits for Ministers from Scotland unless we are asked specifically in writing.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our support to the Afghan Government will continue long after 2014 so that Afghanistan does not once again become an ungoverned space that can be exploited by terrorists?
Mr Philip Hammond
I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely our intention. At the Chicago NATO summit in May we expect to put together a package of ongoing financial support to the Afghan national security forces to allow them to take control of their own security in Afghanistan and maintain it as properly governed space.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Sixty-nine years ago tomorrow, HMS Dasher sank off the coast of North Ayrshire and 379 crewmen lost their lives. The survivors and families have been asking for access to the Ministry of Defence files to find out what happened. Will the Minister meet me, any of the seven living survivors who wish to come, and the families to discuss the matter?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
In the welcome building stability overseas strategy on conflict prevention, is the MOD contributing anything to seek to bring down the pressure in the middle east, and in Syria in particular?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
I am delighted to be able to give my right hon. Friend an assurance that the Ministry of Defence is working closely with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development because we think building stability overseas and defence diplomacy are extremely important parts of the overall picture in conflict prevention. I can assure my right hon. Friend and the House that we are working hard to that end.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Given the physical constraints of Headley Court, will the Minister update the House on plans for a national rehabilitation centre?
Mr Robathan
Headley Court does a fantastic job. I know that Members from across the House have visited it. However, in the long term we see a new centre, the defence and national rehabilitation centre, being established in the midlands—at a place called Stanford Hall. This is being supported very much and led by the Duke of Westminster and other donors. We pay tribute to them. I will discuss the details later—I shall be sat on if I give any more. It is an excellent initiative and I pay tribute to those involved.
Party Funding
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on party funding.
As set out in the coalition Government’s programme, party funding in Britain needs to be reformed. The last major attempt at reform came in the cross-party talks between 2006 and 2008, chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips, which I led for the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) led for the Labour party and the present Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), led for the Liberal Democrats. The origin of those talks was a genuine desire on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “ Where is he?”]—and Tony Blair and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) to resolve these issues, which were disfiguring the face of British politics. The expectation was that there could be some increase in state funding if there were a cap on donations, but crucially a cap applying to all donations, whatever their source. Those talks came agonisingly close to securing agreement for long-term reform, but in the event agreement proved impossible. That was a serious missed opportunity. Since then, the need for change has become more, not less, pressing. Accordingly, at the last election, all three main parties promised in their manifestos to make progress.
This Government have an explicit commitment in the coalition agreement to
“pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics”.
It was helpful when, in the early months of the coalition Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is ploughing on manfully—perhaps I should say “personfully”—through his statement, but he should not have to put up with this level of noise. It is not acceptable. We do not want this sort of noise from either side of the House. Let us hear the statement and the response. The House can rely on me to ensure that there will then be a full opportunity for Members in all parts of the House to question the Minister, but let us listen to his statement with courtesy.
Mr Maude
I am not particularly surprised that the Labour party wants to drown out this statement, because its role in this saga is a shameful one.
It was helpful when, in the early months of the coalition Government, the Committee on Standards in Public Life launched a review. That Committee reported last November. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, with support from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who is responsible for political and constitutional reform, leads for the Government and, in that capacity, responded to the report. He welcomed the recommendations and confirmed that the report contained a useful guide to the principles and areas that are essential for party funding agreement.
However, the Government could not see a case, at that time of austerity, for additional state funding for political parties. The Committee’s view that an increase in state funding was required meant that its recommendations could not be adopted in full. Instead, as he told the House last month, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to party leaders asking for nominations to take part in cross-party discussions. Nominations have been received from all three parties. With Lord Feldman, I will lead for the Conservative party. The talks will begin shortly. Events over the last weekend have demonstrated the importance of making progress.
What Peter Cruddas said was completely unacceptable and wrong, and much of what he said was simply not true, as he himself has since stated. As the House will know, all donations to any party headquarters above £7,500 have to be declared to the Electoral Commission and comply with detailed electoral law. These requirements are rightly extremely detailed and demanding, and should be meticulously complied with by all parties. This Government have already gone much further than any previous Government in revealing details of Ministers’ meetings with outside organisations and individuals. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out this morning that the Conservative party will now go much further. I hope that all other parties—[Interruption.] As the Leader of the Opposition has taken the trouble to come to the House today, I hope that he will set out what his party will do.
What we are now doing builds on the major improvements to transparency in public life that this Government have introduced. We are the first Government to introduce such transparency and the first Government to tackle the problem of lobbying, with our proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists currently out to consultation. We have published more data than any other Government in history about the activities of Ministers and Government Departments.
Let me return to the forthcoming party funding talks. There is a way of solving this problem. Across the House, we broadly know the issues we need to address. We need to look at donations and how to limit them, and we need to look at affiliate bodies. The Prime Minister has once again said that he is ready to cap donations, but only if it is agreed that the cap applies to all donations, whatever their source. We could also look at how to boost small donations and broaden the support base for parties, at the way in which existing state funding works, and at how we might further increase transparency around fundraising activities. The challenge for us all across the House is to make this process work, to reach agreement across all sides, and to deal with the problem of party funding once and for all. I look forward to the enthusiastic support of all parties for this course.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me say first to the Minister for the Cabinet Office that it should not be him at the Dispatch Box today; it should have been the Prime Minister who came to the House, because the revelations this weekend concern his office, his policy unit and his judgment. It shows utter contempt for this House that the Prime Minister could make a statement to the media just three hours ago but refuse to come here to face Members of Parliament. I think we all know why: he has something to hide.
I will come to the wider party funding issues that the Minister raises, but let us be clear that the reason why he has come to the House today is not the long-standing debate about party funding, but this weekend’s revelations. Let me remind the House that this is about the Prime Minister’s chief fundraiser seeking cash for access. What did he say? He said:
“The first thing we do… is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners, and in fact some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in No. 10 Downing Street”.
It is about seeking cash for influence. [Interruption.] I think that hon. Members should listen and hear about the seeking of cash for influence. He said:
“We get a chance to ask the Prime Minister questions… What do you think we are going to do about the top rate of tax… Everything is confidential”.
And it is about seeking cash for policy. I quote:
“If you’re… unhappy about something… we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No. 10.”
These represent grave allegations about the way access is gained and policy is made. They are about a breaking down of the lines between support for a political party and Government policy.
First, will the Minster accept that it is completely inadequate, given the scale of these allegations, for an investigation into what happened to be conducted by the Conservative party? A Conservative peer, appointed by the Prime Minister, an inquiry into the Conservative party, by the Conservative party and for the Conservative party—it is a whitewash and everyone knows it. We need a proper, independent inquiry appropriate to the gravity of what is at stake. Will the Minister now agree to an inquiry conducted by the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan?
On cash for access, the inquiry should specifically cover all the donors the Prime Minister has met in Government buildings—Downing street and Chequers—since May 2010; whether any of those meetings were in response to promises of cash for access; and whether other senior Ministers, including the Chancellor, have held such meetings.
On cash for influence, the inquiry should cover whether Conservative party donors were offered the chance, as Peter Cruddas said, to put forward policy ideas in exchange for donations; whether any of these ideas were forwarded to the No. 10 policy unit; which of them found their way into the Chancellor’s Budget; and whether Government Departments have been asked by Downing street to facilitate ministerial and official meetings with donors. Above all, the inquiry needs to investigate the breaking down of the boundary between the Prime Minister as leader of his party and the Prime Minister as Head of the Government.
Yesterday we were told that the only people who had been to dinner in Downing street were a few “long-standing friends” invited to the private flat. Today Downing street has admitted that some of them were not invited because they were long-standing friends at all and that it was not in the private flat; it was a thank-you dinner for donors to the Conservative party held inside Downing street. In total, £18 million came from 12 donors. It was not the premier league, but the champions league of Tory donors—I bet they did all right in the Budget. And even that is not a complete list, because the Prime Minister has refused to name donors he met on Government property who donated less than £50,000. What is the excuse? It is that only donations of £50,000 are significant donations. Only this Prime Minister would think a donation of £49,000, twice the average salary, was not significant.
Next, does the Minister for the Cabinet Office agree that the rules on party political funding are clear? It is illegal to solicit donations—[Interruption.] I would have thought he would like to hear about this; it is about illegality and allegations of illegality. It is illegal to solicit donations through overseas companies and illegal to disguise those donations, yet there are allegations that this was exactly what Mr Cruddas was suggesting. Will the Minister now undertake to recommend to the Prime Minister that he refer the Conservative party to the Electoral Commission to investigate this practice by Mr Cruddas and whether it has been practised by other Conservative party donors?
Thirdly, on the issue of party funding, I am somewhat surprised by the Minister suddenly now saying that he wants to restart talks. Let me provide the House with some background. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to me and the Prime Minister on 8 February, seeking cross-party talks with heads of terms to be decided by Easter—very soon. I replied with my suggested nominees 12 days later. Such was the Government’s enthusiasm for reform, that in the five weeks since then I have heard precisely nothing about those talks, and neither has either of my nominees.
What are we to make of the Government’s new-found enthusiasm for reform? What a coincidence—the day after the Tory treasurer seeks cash for access. And who have they nominated for those talks? The Minister, and another great reformer, the Conservative party chairman, Lord Feldman. He is the man who fatally undermined the Kelly inquiry by writing at the eleventh hour to say that a £10,000 cap on donations was unacceptable because it would
“hugely inhibit the ability of political parties to engage with the electorate.”
Perhaps he should have said, “hugely inhibit the power of rich individuals to influence policy in Downing street.” We are happy to have proper talks about funding, but it is ridiculous for the Government to seek to use them as a smokescreen for the revelations this weekend.
The problem is that these people, as we saw with last week’s Budget, think they can get away with anything—and they have been found out. The weekend’s revelations show this Government cannot deliver the change we need. They promised transparency, they promised to clean up politics; now they will not even agree to a proper inquiry, and the Prime Minister is too ashamed to come to this House to explain his conduct.
This scandal speaks to the conduct and character of the Prime Minister and the Government. Anything short of an independent inquiry will leave a permanent stain on this Government and this Prime Minister.
Mr Maude
For 13 years the Leader of the Opposition was at the heart of the Labour Government. For 13 years they had the chance to make government transparent. For 13 years they had the chance to reform party funding. For 13 years they did nothing—nothing. And, worse than nothing, they blocked reform, because who was it who stopped the Hayden Phillips reforms going through? It was Labour. The House need not rely on me for that; it can rely on Peter Watt, the then general secretary of the Labour party, who said:
“My primary emotion during the process was intense frustration, because my own party”—
Labour—
“was the biggest block to reform.”
So the right hon. Gentleman should not come here, grandstand and claim the moral high ground. His party has a shameful role in the past. He should come here to say sorry for blocking the reform that was there to be had.
Labour in office gave us the cash for honours affair and a police investigation into proxy donations, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman, lest he forget in his new-found enthusiasm for independent investigation, that the investigation into the David Abrahams affair was conducted not by some independent person but by Lord Whitty, a former general secretary of the Labour party. And now that Labour is in opposition, its donors do not just buy policy—they elect the leader. That is why, after the right hon. Gentleman was elected Leader of the Opposition, the first thing he did was to go up to the leaders of Unite, put an arm round their shoulders, and say a warm, heartfelt “Thank you.”
We have heard about cash for policy, and cash can buy policy, but not on this side of the House. It was shocking recently to discover that votes can be decided on the basis of money paid and a cheque cashed. In fact, Labour, back in 2004 in the Warwick agreement, drew up its election programme on the back of an agreement to have union donations that would fund its campaign, so the right hon. Gentleman should not come here and lecture us about cash for policy, because Labour Members are the past masters at it—and look where it has got them. The shadow Health Secretary—he is over there—tabled amendments pushed by his union backers. [Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary could not confirm Labour’s own—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] The Minister should resume his seat, which he has done. First of all, there is far too much noise, a lot of it, but not all, from a sedentary position; and, secondly, I simply say—[Interruption.] Order. I simply say to the Minister that the terms are inevitably wide, but I know that he will want to respond to the questions asked in conformity with the convention governing ministerial statements and that he will want to make a statement of the policy of the Government.
Mr Maude
It is the policy of the Government that there should be cross-party discussions about reform to party funding. It is very important, as we go into this, that we understand the basis on which those important discussions are going to take place, and each party’s background in that respect.
I was just commenting on the shadow Justice Secretary’s inability to confirm Labour’s policy because he was “checking with the GMB”, which, by the way, gave the Labour party over £1.5 million while the Leader of the Opposition was its leader—and we know that when he pulled a sickie saying that he was too ill to attend an NHS rally, he was in fact meeting his very own six-figure donor at Hull City.
We have heard a lot about Labour and Mr Andrew Rosenfeld. I know Mr Rosenfeld; I met him when I was party chairman, and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that we did not take his money. The Prime Minister has said what the Conservative party is doing to put its house in order. We have already been far more open than Labour ever was when it was in office. I hope that in the course of these discussions the Leader of the Opposition will tell us what he is doing to open up the Labour party. Will he commit to publishing details of every single meal that he has had with donors? Is he going to own up about the dinner with Roland Rudd, whose attendees he promised to reveal months ago but still has not? Will he reveal details of all the meetings with Labour donors in No. 10 that Tony Blair and the previous Prime Minister had when in office? Will he commit to publishing any shadow Cabinet contact with Labour’s union donors? It is no good expecting a list from the Leader of the Opposition. We know that there would be one name on it again and again: Len McCluskey, Len McCluskey and Len McCluskey.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to hear questions from Members of the House. I hope that there will be appropriately brief replies from the Minister, because the purpose of the exercise is for Members to question the Minister, rather than for accusations to be flung across the House from both sides.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what all political parties need is for more people to join them? If we had a lot more members of political parties, Labour would not be so dependent on the trade unions and other parties would not be dependent on significant donors. We all have an incentive to encourage more people to join all of us, rather than to engage in this yah-boo politics, which simply puts people off joining political parties.
Mr Maude
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It was a pity that the opportunity was not taken in the Hayden Phillips discussions to go ahead with the reforms that were so close to agreement, because one of the proposals was to have more state funding to match smaller donations. That would have achieved exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about, which is increasing the spread of those who support political parties. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that it is good for people to support political parties. Democracy depends on it.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman first confirm that the only legislation on party funding of any significance was put through by the previous Government in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what is wrong with having Sir Alex Allan, a distinguished civil servant who has served Labour and Conservative Governments, including the Thatcher Administration, so well, hold an inquiry into this scandal, which differs wholly in its character from those that have gone before, because it goes to the role of the Prime Minister?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman, who was at the talks in 2007, as was I and as was the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), is right to recall that we came “agonisingly close” to an agreement—so close that we almost initialled the agreement in June 2007. However, to use not my words but those of the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, the Conservative party walked away, and he described the right hon. Gentleman’s approach as “bogus”. What guarantee can we have that if new talks take place, the right hon. Gentleman will not operate in the same way?
Mr Maude
The investigation is not fundamentally about ministerial propriety, but about party funding. No money changed hands, nor was it ever likely to, because what was suggested by Mr Cruddas was fantasy and could never have come to fruition. If it was good enough for a former general secretary of the Labour party to investigate the Labour party’s scandal over donations by proxy, it is good enough for a distinguished lawyer to conduct the investigation into this matter.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the breakdown of the talks with Sir Hayden Phillips, I refer him to what was said by Peter Watt, the then general secretary of the Labour party, who represented the Labour party with the right hon. Gentleman. He said in absolutely clear terms how frustrated he was that it was the Labour party that was blocking reform. Those are not my words, but those of Peter Watt.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has voluntarily disclosed far more information about his meetings and meetings held by his Ministers than any previous Prime Minister? Will he tell the House what the Government’s policy is in this matter and explain how it compares with the policy of previous Governments?
Mr Maude
I simply confirm what my hon. Friend says, and what I said earlier. This Government have by a quantum leap disclosed more information about Ministers’ activities and their meetings with outside organisations and individuals than the last Government ever contemplated. They operated behind closed doors; we have let the sunlight in.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Minister said in his statement that “what Peter Cruddas said was completely unacceptable and wrong”, and that much of it “was simply not true”. Is it now official Conservative party policy to lie to its donors?
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Sir Christopher Kelly concluded in his report that
“the only safe way to remove big money from party funding is to put a cap on donations, set at £10,000.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Mr Maude
I agree that it is essential that there should be a cap on donations, and we agreed in the previous discussions that an appropriate level—[Interruption.] Actually, all three parties agreed that the appropriate level was £50,000. There is room for discussion about that, which is fine. Sir Christopher Kelly also said, absolutely unequivocally, that the other side of the coin of a cap on donations was an increase in state funding, and I doubt whether anyone in the House wishes to go out to hard-pressed taxpayers at the moment and claim that the first call on their funds should be additional funding for political parties.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that before the election the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), now a member of the Government, complained to the Standards and Privileges Committee that the Leader of the Opposition—the leader of the Conservative party—was using his office in the House of Commons to meet the members of The Leader's Group, and that the Committee upheld the complaint? It stated:
“Mr Cameron was in our view ill-advised to link directly…the issues of access to his office and party fund-raising.”
If that was an offence for the Leader of the Opposition, how much worse an offence is it for the Prime Minister to use No. 10 Downing street? He is the leader of a Government who are incompetent, arrogant, extreme right-wing and corrupt.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that progress on party funding requires co-operation and transparency from all the main political parties? Will he join me in asking the leaders of all parties to publish the list of donors they have met recently?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The revelations that Peter Cruddas and the Prime Minister have spoken about Scotland and its referendum in rude and pejorative terms mean that Westminster can have no part in Scotland’s referendum, but does the Minister agree that if any law has been broken it is a matter not for politicians but for the police?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is patently obvious that the Prime Minister and the Government are not corrupt, but will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s position that there will be no additional state funding of political parties?
Mr Maude
The Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I know my hon. Friend has particular affection, has said on behalf of the Government that we think it is inappropriate at this stage, in this age of austerity, to contemplate another call on taxpayers’ funds being made to fill the pockets of political parties.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In the past 12 months, there has been the most intensive lobby by the aviation industry of the Government to reverse their policy on the third runway at Heathrow. This weekend, senior members of the Conservative party briefed the media that they were reconsidering their position, and now we have the cash for access scandal. To dispel any doubt that that is anything other than a coincidence, will the Minister ensure that details of all meetings between aviation industry representatives, the Prime Minister, Ministers, civil servants, policy advisers and party officials are published on the register?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
When will we learn from the crisis that engulfed the House three years ago that the response to such situations is not simply to point fingers at one another, but to address with renewed urgency the need to deal with the source, which in this case is the continuing escalation in the political party funding arms race? Will the Minister therefore apply a renewed sense of urgency to tackling that very point?
Mr Maude
I can only say yes, that is exactly what we are doing. It is important that we look at all the issues involved in party funding. As I have said—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) confirmed this—we came very close to reaching agreement. I am sorry only that the Labour party last time blocked the reforms.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
In the context of these revelations, the public will be concerned not only about policy change but about policy absence. Will the Minister confirm whether any donors related to the legal loan sharking industry have made representations on the Government’s absence of a cap on the cost of credit?
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great sadnesses of the last 24 hours is that our politics is in the news again for all the wrong reasons? Does he further agree that any settlement on the funding of political parties must include the trade union movement? Lastly, does he agree that as well as a cap on donations, we should be looking at a national cap on spending that will bring to an end silly spending for pointless reasons?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why has the Prime Minister not turned up to answer questions? Is it because there is not enough money on offer? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister has been surrounded by sleaze ever since he walked through the doors of No. 10, a public property that he has been using for his own and his party’s ends? The truth is that it is time this matter was cleaned up in a proper manner. It is time it went to the police.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I hope the Minister will stick to his resolve not to pick the public’s pocket on raising any levy for political parties, just as constituents of mine have expressed annoyance that the unions pick their pockets and all the funding is used to support the Labour party, despite their political allegiance.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Should The Sunday Times not be congratulated on exposing this story? Is it not clear that had The Sunday Times story not shown the squalid way in which the Tory party raises money, the Minister would not be making this statement today?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that any review of party funding will seek to eliminate any influence that donors might have on selecting parliamentary candidates?
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
How many private dinners with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor that involved party fundraising have there been since the election? What was the total sum raised? Will the Minister require in future that all private dinners or meetings with Ministers involving party fundraising will be officially recorded on the official register?
Mr Maude
The Prime Minister announced this morning that, as leader of the Conservative party, he is committing the Conservative party to going to an unparalleled degree of openness about engagement with the major donors. We look forward to hearing the same commitment from the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the cross-party talks chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips five years ago. Will he confirm that early in those talks the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, accepted the need for the cap to apply to trade unions as well, but that ultimately the rest of the Labour party was a roadblock to such reform?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend is completely right. There was a concern that if the Conservative party was to get over its deep-seated opposition to increasing the amount of state funding for political parties, the other side of the coin had to be that the Labour party would give up its addiction to trade union funding. Sadly, the latter part did not come through.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Any claim that the Minister made earlier to openness and transparency is ruined by the Prime Minister's not coming to the House today. That is a key point. He made a partial statement outside the House about some of his dinners with significant donors, but that will not do. We need an independent inquiry and the fullest list imaginable not just of dinners but of breakfasts, lunches, teas, drinks and any other occasions involving Ministers as well as the Prime Minister.
Mr Maude
The hon. Lady fulminates about the absence of the Prime Minister being the key point, but she knows that that is not the case. She knows that that is not what this is about. She should address the substantial issues, and I look forward to hearing her say that she will support genuine reform of party funding, which will have to address the issue of donations from the trade union movement to the Labour party. Will she do that?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
If the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), ever turns up again to the House of Commons, will my right hon. Friend discuss this matter with him to ensure that members of the previous Government publish details of all their dinners, breakfasts and meetings with donors over the past 15 years?
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It appears that the cost of a meal with the Prime Minister is about a quarter of a million quid. We can only imagine what the cost would be for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is just leaving the Chamber, in “Dodgy Dave’s Downing Street Diner”. Does the Minister understand that when stories such as this emerge, it only confirms what we in Liverpool already know—the Tories are not interested in ordinary people; they are interested only in buying favour and making their rich friends even richer?
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no such policy committee as described by Mr Cruddas exists at No. 10 and that there is no evidence that any policy has been changed by private lobbying, unlike the shameful record of the last Government?
Mr Maude
It is completely impossible for any policy to be changed in that way. Policy in the coalition Government has to be agreed not just by Conservative Ministers but collectively with Conservative and Lib Dem Ministers, so the idea that there is a direct route from Conservative party donors to policy change is absolutely absurd.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a number of tax changes to the regimes for gambling and financial services. Can the Minister tell the House whether Peter Cruddas, in his role of treasurer—he is also the market leader in internet spread betting—had any influence at all?
Mr Maude
I very much doubt it, but I suspect—[Interruption.] As I have said repeatedly, anyone who has been in government knows that in the run-up to a Budget, we get representations from all sorts of people, in favour of everything and against everything. I have no doubt that the Chancellor received lots of representations from all directions on this and other subjects.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Given the acrimonious, childish and partisan shouting, jeering and accusations that have accompanied this statement—[Interruption.]—such as that! Does the Minister agree that we should set a short time scale—perhaps by the next Queen’s Speech—for when politicians can be expected to sort this out for themselves, and that if that has not worked by then, we should simply accept the recommendations of the independent Kelly inquiry, which has already met?
Mr Maude
The problem with what my hon. Friend suggests is that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has set out, it is simply not realistic at the moment to propose that we should significantly increase the amount of state funding for political parties. Having a set of reforms of the nature set out by Sir Christopher Kelly’s committee is absolutely dependent on increasing state funding, which I do not think anyone in this House will feel comfortable proposing to their constituents.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
If this is not about cash for access, could I bring a pensioner and a working parent from Exeter to see the Prime Minister, at Downing street or Chequers, so that he can explain why he cut taxes for millionaires but clobbered them with a granny tax and a cut in family tax credits?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What was in The Sunday Times was woeful. All Members, from all parts of the House, agree on that, and it has a history, in all parts of the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all political leaders should give explicit instructions to those charged with raising funds that this should never happen again?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister explain how Mr Cruddas knew about the change to the 50p rate of tax before this House did?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need much greater transparency in the way political donations are solicited, including the £1 million in cash that Labour solicited from Andrew Rosenfeld, a former tax exile and a man whose firm left Allders pensioners high and dry?
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Shortly before the general election, the Bribery Act 2010 was passed with all-party support. Under certain circumstances the Act requires the director of the Serious Fraud Office to seek permission from the Attorney-General before investigating or prosecuting. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General will exercise a veto over an investigation or prosecution, if that is what the director of the SFO believes is in order?
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I declare an interest as a former registered treasurer of the Conservative party. Does not this affair, like the similar affairs under the previous Government, damage this whole House and all political parties? Is not the answer complete transparency about whom those on the Front Bench and the shadow Front Bench meet, and a cap on all political donations—individual, company and trade union?
Mr Maude
I completely agree. We approached the previous discussions absolutely in that spirit, and we will approach the new discussions in that same spirit, too. [Interruption.] I make the point again to the Labour Chief Whip, who is muttering from a sedentary position, that it was Labour’s own general secretary who said that it was Labour that blocked the last reforms.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Surely the public have a right to know how many of the Prime Minister’s donor diners made representations to the policy unit on tax policy from which they stood personally to benefit?
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has the Minister had any indication from the Labour party that it would be willing to accept a cap on trade union donations?
Mr Maude
It affects the mysterious matter of affiliation fees. Theoretically, union members have the right to opt out of paying the political levy, except that people have to be very persistent to find out A—that there is a right to do it; B—how to do it; and C—that they will not save any money even if they do so.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
A compliance officer has, by law, to be appointed by every single political party under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Conservative party compliance officer and deputy treasurer, Mike Chattey, is given specific responsibility to ensure that donations are kept legal. In view of what The Sunday Times has reported Mr Chattey to have said, does the Minister agree that that is without question a breach of section 61 of the Act, which states that “any concealment or disguise” of a foreign donation is illegal? Why is Chattey still in his job?
Mr Maude
As has been made abundantly clear, the treasurer’s department at CCHQ—Conservative campaign headquarters—did not know that this meeting was taking place. No donation was advanced, and nor could it possibly have been, for exactly the reason that the hon. Gentleman sets out—that it would have been illegal.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Does the Minister have any plans to introduce a 1,000 Club, as the Opposition have? It is apparently a resource of ideas from donors.
Mr Maude
All political parties have donor clubs. It is one way to raise money. I am delighted that the Labour party is extending its reach and trying to raise money from others than simply the trade unions, which we should remember have provided 87% of the entirety of Labour’s finances since the Leader of the Opposition has been in his post.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I was elected 18 years ago, almost to the month, and the Conservative party then was convulsed by sleaze. As a Minister in the last Government, I urged major reform, but I failed to convince colleagues. Again, we are where we are today. Every parliament in the Commonwealth and Europe has had to accept that democracy pays for democracy. Believe me—even if I am alone in wanting this—if we do not reform this completely and utterly, this issue will return to haunt this Government and possibly my own party.
Mr Maude
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. We did reluctantly accept, in the context of the previous discussions, that there could be a long-term settlement for a generation that would involve an increase in state funding. It went against the grain, I freely say, for the Conservative party, but we thought that that sacrifice might need to be made. Sadly, the Labour party felt unable to make the equivalent sacrifice of getting rid of its addiction to trade union funding.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does the Minister have a view on whether it is an appropriate use of taxpayer-funded resources for the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Cabinet to meet their union funders in their parliamentary offices?
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, this has had to be relatively wide, and I have tried to be flexible to Members in all parts of the House, but that is no responsibility of the Minister. He might be pleased or displeased about that, but it is nothing to do with him.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The Paymaster General talks of transparency, yet casually dismisses out of hand the prospects of an independent inquiry. Given that we have heard some very serious allegations about donors’ access to the No. 10 policy unit, which the Minister admitted a few moments ago is staffed by career civil servants, he is obviously confident as the Minister for the Cabinet Office that nothing untoward has gone on. Why not have an independent inquiry so that we can all be reassured and share his confidence?
Mr Maude
Because this is not about access to the policy unit, which is staffed—[Hon. Members: “Yes, it is!” ] If there has been the slightest suggestion anywhere that that has happened, I should like to hear it. However, it has not happened; nor could it happen, so the hon. Gentleman should calm down a bit.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As you know, Mr Speaker, the bedrock of our constituency party funding is provided by the hundreds of thousands of individual men and women who join our party because they believe in our values of responsibility. Will the Minister confirm that as long as he is involved in the Conservative party, we will continue to enjoy one person, one vote?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister corrected himself perfectly clearly. I heard him; we all heard him.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, responded to the report mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), entitled “Conduct of Mr David Cameron” and relating to the 2006-07 Session, by saying:
“I would like to assure the Committee”
—in relation to lunches for donors held in his parliamentary office—
“that this will not happen again. I will not hold lunches for members of the Leader’s Group in my Parliamentary office in the future, nor will my office be mentioned in any promotional literature.”
Having had to make that apology to the House, should not the Prime Minister have been extra careful to obey the ministerial code and ensure that there could not even be any possible perception of impropriety in the dinners that he held on public property at No. 10 Downing street?
Mr Speaker
Order. The question has been asked, and the answer must be heard.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister has published a list of all those with whom he has dined in a private capacity, has the Minister received any assurances from the two previous Prime Ministers that they will do the same?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is it not a bit shabby of the Prime Minister to engineer a situation in which he will not have to answer a single question in the House on his unfair Budget for four weeks, and has not had to answer a single question in the House this afternoon because he has sent his marionette along instead? It is particularly important that this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When we look at Coulson, Brooks, Werritty and, now, the Cruddas scandal, it is clear that it is a question of his judgment. How did this Government become so casually corrupt so fast?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Having had the pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend for almost an hour, may I ask whether he has drawn the same conclusions as me? Has he, too, concluded that there is a lot of synthetic nonsense about this, that the Labour party has its snout in the trough to a far worse extent than we ever did, and that the Prime Minister is to be commended for his honesty, straightforwardness and transparency in revealing the names of all the people whom he has met?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My constituents have been absolutely shocked by what they have seen on the video footage of Peter Cruddas this weekend. Can the Minister explain to them why there will not be a fully independent inquiry? Does he think that there is any way in which the Prime Minister can now convince my constituents that he has a grain of responsible judgment left?
Mr Maude
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has already had an opportunity to consult all her constituents on this matter. I merely point out, however, that this Prime Minister has been more transparent and has disclosed more about his engagements with donors than any other Prime Minister—and certainly much, much more than either of the two Labour Prime Ministers who led the previous Government for 13 woeful years.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
No one will be enjoying this knockabout as to who has been stopping who by blocking reform over the years. The public instinctively know what is right, and we know what is right, too. Does the Minister agree that the time has come for reform, because if we wait for agreement, we will wait for ever? Surely, we should get the job done, put in place a limit of £10,000 per annum, and get some legislation on to the statute book?
Mr Maude
If my hon. Friend is willing to go to her constituents and say, “Actually we’re going to spend more of your taxpayers’ money on filling the pockets of political parties—”[Interruption.] Well, if we are going to do what Sir Christopher Kelly recommended, then that is part of the deal, but, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, it is not on offer at the moment.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 banned donations from foreign nationals. There is, however, an anomaly, in that political parties in Northern Ireland are permitted to be funded by citizens and organisations from another state. As that is not the practice anywhere else in the United Kingdom, when will it end in Northern Ireland?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that for the last two decades all major parties in this House have been affected by donor scandals of one sort or another, and that, rather than more hammering and rock throwing, we should in the next Session get on and legislate to bring in a donor cap, without state funding for political parties?
Mr Maude
I would be delighted if we were to do that. It is a long-established convention that reform of party funding proceeds by way of consensus. That was definitely the view that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and I took when we conducted previous discussions on this topic. We need to have another try at that. It is unsatisfactory for the party in power to legislate unilaterally to change the party funding system. If at all possible, we must proceed by consensus, as before, so we will strain every fibre to try to achieve consensus.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
A number of Government Members, including the Minister in almost every other answer, have cited trade union funding of the Labour party as if it is a defence for what The Sunday Times has exposed. I am a former trade union official, and I am sure that the Minister is aware that trade union funding comes not from one person, but from, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of members, but millions of members who pay small contributions and happily affiliate to the Labour party. The Minister proposes putting a cap on funding as if it is some sort of threat. I am sure that the unions would happily give the names of all those funders.
Mr Maude
This connection is not hard to understand. If we had had a cap in place, which was on offer, the events at the weekend would not have taken place; they would have been out of court. The simple point is that the individual union member who pays the political levy and affiliation fees cannot choose which party that funds. The fees are given to the Labour party at the whim of the leadership of the union, not based on the choice of individual union members.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
We have heard terms used such as “casual corruption” and “shocking”. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the rot set in when Bernie Ecclestone was able to change policy by paying £1 million? Does he also agree that that is the only example of a policy change having been bought?
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
If the Minister is right that the bankers, insurers, property developers and private health companies get nothing at all for the millions of pounds they give the Tory party, will he publish details of not only when they have met the Prime Minister and how much they have given, but what policies were discussed at those meetings?
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I was, for a long time, a member of the Unite union and I found it exceptionally hard to opt out of the political levy—money that was used to fund the campaign against my colleague in the seat of Pudsey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a step forward on affiliation fees would be for people to opt in and to indicate which party they would like the money to go to?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Access to the policy unit goes to the heart of this cash-for-access scandal. The Budget took from pensioners to give to millionaires, and this weekend’s revelations show that millionaires were paying to change Government policy for personal gain. So can the Minister tell us which millionaires paid for meetings with the Prime Minister and then benefited from last week’s Budget?
Mr Maude
The hon. Gentleman should not believe and read out everything he is handed outside the Chamber. This was a fair Budget, which actually increased the state pension for pensioners more than has ever been done by any Government previously. The very richest in our society will pay five times more as a result of these tax changes than the tiny amount lost through the change to the top rate of tax, so he really needs to revisit his script.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I am a newly elected Member of Parliament and I have been listening to what has been going on today. I must say that listening to all the banter from those on both Benches has been shameful for the whole of democracy; people out there are watching this and we should not be bickering. Instead, in the spirit of what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), may I implore the Minister to set up a commission to iron out party funding once and for all, independently, so we do not have to do this time and time again?
Mr Maude
The shelves of the libraries groan with unimplemented reports on the reform of party funding. We take the view that this should be done by consensus between the parties, if at all possible. That is the spirit in which we undertook these discussions previously—four or five years ago—and that is the spirit in which we shall approach the matter this time.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
When he was the Leader of the Opposition, this Prime Minister said:
“We can’t go on like this. I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.”
I agree with that absolutely. The Minister has been suggesting that this can be resolved just by publishing a list of who gave what and how much they gave, but this is about buying access to buy influence. That is the key difference here and it is why only an independent inquiry into what has gone on will satisfy the public. No matter what the Minister says at the Dispatch Box, it is an independent inquiry that is needed.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It ought to be a matter of regret for every Member of this House that the reputation of party politicians has never been lower. Does my right hon. Friend agree that true defenders of democracy would come to the table, debate this and sort it out maturely, instead of playing party politics with this issue?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Given the Minister’s comments on transparency, is he aware that my office has been trying to get details from the Department for Communities and Local Government about who Ministers have been meeting in the run-up to the national planning policy framework? We have been told consistently that that information is not available and has not been since June 2011. In the light of what has happened in the past few days, will the Minister undertake to ensure that all details of DCLG’s ministerial meetings are made available before the NPPF is published tomorrow?
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, I met Christopher Kelly after he published his independent report on party funding. He made it quite clear to us that it was a package of measures from which no political party should cherry-pick. Should not the onus be on the Government and other party leaders to implement the Kelly report, which does have a £10,000 donation limit, which would be compensated for with modest state funding of 50p per elector?
Mr Maude
I refer my hon. Friend to what our mutual right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in response to the Kelly report: at this time of great financial stringency, we do not think it would be acceptable for the Government to put forward an increase in state funding to make up for a deficiency caused by such a low cap. We think that a cap above that level could be sustainable without additional state funding and would give great comfort that the system was incapable of being abused.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Can the Minister indicate whether the controlled foreign companies rules which are the subject of Budget resolution 36 tonight were discussed with any donors at any time?
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I do not detect an appetite among the public for increased public funding of political parties. Does not that make it more imperative that we should have cross-party agreement on the future funding of political parties?
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
When the Committee on Standards in Public Life was finalising its report on party funding last November, the Prime Minister leaned on the Conservative member of that Committee to withdraw his support for the report on the grounds that there should be no cap on donations, but now we hear that the Prime Minister proposes a £50,000 cap on donations. Can the Minister conjecture whether any recent events might have influenced the Prime Minister in deciding to change his mind?
Mr Maude
The hon. Gentleman should know that we have proposed a £50,000 limit on donations going back quite some way to before the Hayden Phillips talks began. We have consistently thought that was the right level because that could be implemented without the sort of increase in state funding that would be unlikely to be welcome to our constituents at this time.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and his commitment to progress on having transparency in greater detail on these matters. Does he agree that it would be in the spirit of transparency if the Leader of the Opposition stuck to the commitment he made last October to publish the list of attendees at a private dinner organised by Mr Rudd, a City lobbyist?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the failure of one of his Secretaries of State to register a meal he had with the lobbyist Bell Pottinger this year on the basis that on the day in question he was digesting with his private stomach and not his ministerial stomach? Is not the distinction a false one? Nobody would give £250,000 for a social, private chat with the Prime Minister, but they would pay it if they were seeking access and influence.
Mr Speaker
Order. Questions about registration are not matters for the Minister as responsibility for those lies elsewhere, but I wanted to hear the hon. Gentleman out. I do not think it is a matter for the Minister.
Mr Speaker
The Minister does not think it is either; we are in happy accord.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I have to make a declaration of interest as a former trade union representative in Yorkshire. The Unite union has just announced that tanker drivers have voted to go on strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Members in this House should be able to condemn such actions without fear of losing a donation?
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Can the Minister give us details of any private health companies that were trying to influence the Health and Social Care Bill that met in Downing street for lunch, in particular Alpha Healthcare, which gave £500,000 to the Liberal party?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I know that I have used the phrase before, but does the Minister agree with me that the shenanigans over the weekend can be described only as a right old Eton mess?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Can the Minister advise the pensioners in my constituency on how best to secure premier access to the Prime Minister to discuss the implications of last week’s Budget? Does somebody make an offer—his place or mine, depending on the price?
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Minister has repeatedly stated that this Government are more transparent than previous Governments. Is what he proposes—a Conservative investigating this Conservative party act—sufficiently transparent to satisfy public concern, and should not that be the test that is applied?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that they are expected to use their mobile devices discreetly and without impairing the decorum of the Chamber? I say gently to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) that he should not stand up, seeking to catch my eye, while fiddling with his device.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I promise not to fiddle with my device, Mr Speaker.
Peter Cruddas was reported yesterday giving, as an example of how to influence policy, discussion of the Tobin tax with the Prime Minister the day before he met Angela Merkel. Is that true? Did that conversation take place and, if it did, what role was Peter Cruddas playing—treasurer of the party or private business man?
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does not this whole sorry episode reveal something very rotten right at the core of the Conservative party? Does the Minister agree with me that it stretches credulity to breaking point to argue that Peter Cruddas, a senior—the most senior—fundraiser for the Conservative party, did not understand the law relating to donations to political parties?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Pensioners in Swansea on £135 a week now face an £11 second bedroom tax, so that if they did want to be able to afford a £250,000 lobby lunch, they would have to invest all their money for 40 years. Is this not just the same old Tory story of feeding the rich and robbing the poor?
Mr Maude
It is certainly the same tired old question. I have to make the point that we could avoid all this and move forward if the Labour party gritted its teeth and realised that the days of a serious grown-up party being totally dependent on donations from a trade union movement that elects its leader and dictates its policy should be gone.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Minister recognise that attack is not the best form of defence, and that the House and the country deserve a full explanation of the serious allegations that were made this weekend? Now that we have made him aware that the allegations are about buying influence on policies, can he not see that we need an independent investigation into what happened?
Mr Maude
I have nothing to add to what I have said many times before. The hon. Lady talks about buying influence and buying policy. It was not the Conservative party that sat in Warwick and formed the Warwick agreement with the trade union movement; it was her party, year after year. It was not the Justice Secretary who said that he could not decide his policy until he had phoned up the trade union to receive instructions; it is the shadow Justice Secretary who was found out doing that. The hon. Lady should think about taking the beam out of her own party’s eye before she starts looking for motes in others’.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Given this weekend’s revelations and the way in which they have been received in the country, does the Minister really think it is credible that the people out there will think it acceptable for the Conservative party to investigate itself?
Mr Maude
The investigation will be conducted by a very distinguished senior lawyer who will—[Interruption.] I have to say again in response to the synthetic indignation from the Opposition Front Bench, particularly from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who was the spokesman for the previous Prime Minister who presided over some of the worst scandals this country has ever seen, that we are not taking any lessons from him. He was in the Labour party in No. 10 when the leader of the Labour party appointed a former general secretary of the Labour party to conduct a so-called independent investigation into its donor scandal.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I believe that the Minister will ultimately come to rue the tone in which he is conducting the statement. At no point will a member of the public listening to the Minister this afternoon have the remotest confidence that he is taking these allegations as seriously as he should. Can he point out one thing from the statement today that will give members of the public watching this the slightest shred of confidence in him to sort this out?
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has talked a lot today about transparency and at one point, in answer to a previous question, he seemed to dismiss any suggestion of cash for access as fantasy. Does he agree that perhaps there is just a scintilla of doubt when the leaders group is invited to pay £50,000 for the privilege of having post-PMQ lunches with the Prime Minister? For the avoidance of any doubt, can he say today that none of those lunches involved the use of taxpayer-funded offices or other facilities by Government?
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister talked about unparalleled openness. Will he therefore commit to publish full details of all Conservative party donors who have made representations on the 50p tax rate—yes or no?
Mr Maude
All contacts with donors along the lines that were set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this morning are going to be published. I did talk about unparalleled transparency, and it is. We would love to hear the same degree or even a scintilla of the same transparency from the two Labour leaders who were Prime Minister for those 13 years, and indeed from the current Labour leader.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Despite what the Minister said earlier, it is clear from the discussions that went on that Mr Cruddas did link lobbying and the reduction of the 50p tax rate, so this goes beyond access to the Prime Minister and includes access to the Chancellor. Will the Minister therefore publish a list of all those Tory donors who met the Chancellor and discussed taxation rates? Does not this explain exactly why we need an independent investigation and not one set up by the Conservative party?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Did the Prime Minister, in relation to this year’s Budget, discuss with Conservative party donors in his No. 10 Downing street flat, policy?
Mr Maude
It is hard to know what the hon. Gentleman is on about. We have disclosed what conversations and meetings there were in Downing street. That has never been done before. People know who the donors are. We have disclosed for the first time what conversations there have been. Honestly, if we could have a flicker of this amount of openness and transparency from his party, we would be better off.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank colleagues for their co-operation, which has enabled 77 Back Benchers to question the Minister in 61 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time.
Points of Order
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reports in the press this weekend have given direct rise not only to the statement that we have just heard but to a series of statements by No. 10 and, today, a statement by the Prime Minister. I put it to you that it is utterly unacceptable for the Prime Minister to make such a statement outside the House of Commons instead of coming here to make the statement and to face questions from Members. This is not the first time that this has happened. In fact, there has been a long series of Ministers making statements outside Parliament instead of coming here to face the elected House of Commons. Will you put it to the Government that it is totally unacceptable that they should make statements on such issues outside the House instead of coming to Parliament to face us?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not true that, notwithstanding the fact that the House has decided not to sit this Wednesday, the Government could, if they wanted to, table a motion tonight to allow us to sit on Wednesday, so that we could have Prime Minister’s questions? For that matter, notwithstanding this afternoon’s statement from the Minister, could we not have a statement on this matter from the Prime Minister later today, or a statement from him and a special round of Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
I will deal with the points of order in reverse order, if I may. First, I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that I know he is an expert in all matters of parliamentary procedure, as well as being blessed with a fertile imagination. I hope that he will accept that I do not want to get into hypotheticals. I am not disputing what has been said; nor am I making an argument for it. I simply note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
So far as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is concerned, I reiterate the importance that I attach to statements being made in the House on important matters of public policy. I hope that he will take it in the spirit in which it is intended when I say that it has been my privilege to listen to his points of order, his interventions, his questions and his speeches in this Chamber on a vast miscellany of topics for almost 15 years. Others have savoured that particular joy throughout the 41 years and nine months since the right hon. Gentleman entered the House of Commons.
Mr Speaker
There are other points of order, and the day would not be complete without a point of order from Mr Keith Vaz.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Actually, I very rarely raise a point of order, as you know, but this is almost a “further to that point of order”. Last Friday, I awoke to the dulcet tones of the Home Secretary talking on the “Today” programme about the Government’s new alcohol policy. An hour or so later, I was notified that a statement was going to be made to the House on that subject. This was on Friday morning, and very few Members—and no members of the Home Affairs Select Committee—were present. We fully support minimum pricing for alcohol—it has been a recommendation of the Committee—but it would have been helpful to know that such a statement was to be made before hearing the news on the “Today” programme.
Mr Speaker
I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I do attach importance to statements being made in the House. Statements on a Friday are relatively unusual, but they are certainly in no way disorderly. I acknowledge that the rarity of the circumstances was reflected not least in the fact that he was not present. Ordinarily, of course, in respect of virtually any conceivable aspect of Home Office business he is present. I detect a degree of frustration that he was unable to be and note it, but nothing disorderly occurred. The Home Secretary was perfectly in order to do what she did.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Friday the Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the Government’s cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power are unlawful. Mr Speaker, have you or your good office had any indication from Ministers at the Department for Energy and Climate Change who presided over this debacle that they wish to come to the House to apologise for the chaos they have created in the British solar industry and the thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money they have wasted on legal fees?
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is my first point of order, so I understand why something so uncharacteristic might have slipped your eye. Will you urge the Cabinet Secretary to hurry back to the House, because in answer to one question he described the Prime Minister’s flat in No. 10 Downing street as private property? Have the Government sold off part of No. 10, or did he misinform the House?
Mr Speaker
I will not continue the exchanges that took place earlier and will not urge the Minister for the Cabinet Office to hurry back to the Chamber. I sense that the hon. Lady’s point of order is really a rhetorical question and hope that I can be forgiven for making the point in passing, which is simply a statement of fact, that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), although he occupies a high office in the Government, is not the Cabinet Secretary.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for what he says from a sedentary position. Speaker’s House remains standing, and I hope that it will continue to do so. I thank colleagues for their co-operation.
Banking (Disclosure, Responsibility and Education)
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the collection from the UK banking sector of financial inclusion audits and data on financial transactions, including commodity trading; to make provision for further obligations on the appropriate financial regulator regarding financial consumer protection and education; and for connected purposes.
The Bill aims to improve the level of disclosure within our financial system. It would improve disclosure on how banks are addressing financial exclusion as well as improve disclosure within the UK’s commodities markets in the hope that we can rebuild trust in our banking system. A primary aim of the Co-operative party, for which I am a Member of Parliament, is its “The Feeling’s Mutual” campaign. Ever since the financial crisis of 2008 it has been fashionable in all sections of society to blame the bankers for everything. The Bill would seek to answer that question, first, by improving data collection within the banking system, and, secondly, by improving disclosure to regulators and the public.
First, the Bill would deal with the problems on the high street. I believe that everyone should have access to affordable financial services, but the sad reality is that that is not the case. The economic conditions following the financial crash have caused hardship for families and meant that more people have been driven into financial exclusion. At the same time, banks have become more reluctant to lend and give credit. As a result, doorstep lenders and illegal loan sharks, who charge extortionate rates of interest, have found their business picking up. That has made financial exclusion worse and at the same time has pushed more people into debt and poverty.
The impact of financial exclusion, which affects almost 2 million people in the UK, is that essential services become more expensive. This can take the form of the extra cost of paying utility bills without direct debit or the need for expensive, short-term loans to cover house repairs, for example, which can cause temporary financial difficulty and mean that people have to use the services of predatory and very expensive credit companies.
More broadly, households with no bank accounts face serious challenges in getting access to essential services such as energy, water, land lines and the internet. If people do not have access to basic bank accounts, things that the rest of us take for granted, such as receiving wages or benefit income, or paying the gas or water bills, become huge and costly obstacles to overcome. Not only do those challenges impact on the individuals concerned, but they have a serious impact on their families and members of their household. Faced with the scenario of their gas or electric meter running out before pay day, they might find it easier to borrow from a doorstep lender and to worry later about the interest charged.
People struggling to find work might also find insurmountable barriers put in their way when, without formal banking services, they seek employment. Currently, 9 million people in the UK do not have access to credit from banks, so the time is right to ensure that our financial institutions recognise their obligation to wider society. Two years ago, in response to those problems, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) announced in his Budget an obligation on banks to provide basic bank accounts. It is now time to disclose which banks are helping our communities.
This Bill would require banks to produce a report specifying whom they lend to, with the aim of revealing those who are still excluded from the financial products of mainstream banks, and of ensuring that everyone has access to affordable banking services. It would also make provision for the collection from the UK banking sector of financial exclusion audits.
The Bill would introduce a statutory duty on banks to comply with a financial audit, covering the number of current accounts and basic bank accounts and the amount of community development lending and investment. Each bank would be assigned a “social performance rating”, which would also take into account a range of factors such as branch presence in deprived communities, the take-up of basic bank accounts, environmental factors and community projects.
The sad reality is that some banks look with disinterest at things such as the basic bank account. The basic bank account does not credit score, so bank workers cannot sell products, and very few account holders are managed on to mainstream bank accounts. If banks had to disclose data that indicated how inclusive they were, however, they would be motivated to accord to basic bank account holders the same value as people who take out massive loans. Such inclusivity is crucial if we want to stop people being pushed into the hands of predatory loan sharks.
By scoring banks, we would also be in a far stronger position to judge the cost of bank closures in remote or rural areas. Rural closures can have a devastating impact on remote communities, and elderly people in particular—those more likely not to have access to internet or telephone banking services—can be left excluded completely from financial services. It is all very well closing a bank in a remote area and referring people to online services, but what use is that to a household with no internet access, or to people over 65 years old who might be unfamiliar with or unwilling to do simple things, such as checking a bank statement or transferring money, online?
When a bank closes a branch in a rural area, it often blames falling customer numbers, but no matter how few customers a bank has, they are still people who might be left without a local branch or point of contact. Data collection would reveal each bank’s presence in vulnerable or rural areas, ensuring that, before closing branches, they considered the impact on people and communities and the replacement measures they would have to put in place.
The second part of the Bill would ensure also that all information on financial transactions was recorded by banks and given to regulators in a standardised format. That would give an insight into the state of the market and make clear any warning signs, and it might even predict any future economic crash. It would also allow regulators to decide which were the good banks and which were the bad, thereby protecting the public purse. It would definitely allow regulators early on to identify the build-up of risk in our system, and then appropriate action could be taken, for, if the financial crash has taught us anything, it is the need to improve the systemic oversight and sustainability of financial services.
The Bank of England, in its new role, should be given statutory guidance to create a data centre to map the risks in our system. Parliament should tell the Bank to use the best technology available to obtain full disclosure from all market participants on the risks that they are taking. I am firm in my belief that this will rest on the information and analytical capabilities available to those charged with forecasting potential crises before they hit. Parliament should instruct the banks to use these data to disclose the full extent of financial speculation in the UK’s commodities markets.
The Bill would bring about important extensions to improve such disclosure in order to make public, for the first time, the true level of risk taking. With the prices of everything from petrol to bread squeezing hard-pressed families, it is absolutely crucial that we find out what is going on in the UK’s commodities markets. Lord Turner, the head of the Financial Services Authority, endeavoured to discover what was going on when he produced a report last year, and he found that despite the fact that traders have to report daily to the FSA their positions in the Brent oil market, none of the data is disclosed to the market in the UK. Lord Turner was in the position of having to look at the disclosure of speculation in the American market to infer what was going on in the UK. Apparently, data collected by the FSA are not even disclosed within the FSA.
With petrol prices in the UK hitting all-time highs, Parliament can no longer accept this poor level of data collection. We must demand that our regulators insist on proper disclosure within our financial markets. This Bill would give them that statutory guidance. Ultimately, the Bill is an opportunity to build trust in our banks. From the bank on the high street to the oil trading screens in the City, we need better disclosure as the first step. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Evans, Tom Greatrex, Geraint Davies, Mr Gareth Thomas, Luciana Berger, Alun Michael, Gavin Shuker, Mrs Louise Ellman, Gemma Doyle, Cathy Jamieson and Jonathan Reynolds present the Bill.
Chris Evans accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2012 and to be printed (Bill 324).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Amendment of the Law
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 243 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Mr Vaizey, may I implore both Front Benchers to show incredible time restraint due to the number of Back Benchers who wish to take part in today’s debate?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Your instructions have been noted, Mr Deputy Speaker.
May I begin by apologising to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? As I am sure the House will know by now, his wife gave birth to a beautiful baby girl last week—appropriately enough, during Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions—and so he is enjoying his paternity leave. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in passing on our good wishes to the whole family. I, for one, wish that the Secretary of State was here, because this is, I believe, the first time that DCMS, as a Department, has opened a Budget debate, and it is a testament to his skill and vision that he has put the Department at the heart of the Government’s strategy for growth. DCMS is now an important economic Department that is responsible for broadband and digital infrastructure, internet and media policy, and our world-beating creative industries. Policies pursued by this Department will contribute significantly to the growth of the UK economy.
I want to use today’s debate to remind the House of how well placed this country is to take advantage of the technology revolution. The Chancellor has set out our ambition to turn Britain into Europe’s leading technology hub, and we are well on course to achieving that. According to a Boston Consulting Group report published this month, the UK is the top internet economy in the G20; we purchase more online than Germany, the United States and South Korea. We have a huge range of successful technology companies in this country. It is worth reminding the House that BT, for example, is a global technology company with a presence in 170 countries. ARM supplies the chips for smartphones and tablets. Imagination Technology provides the graphics for Apple products. Ubiquisys in Swindon sells femtocells to the French and the Japanese. Neul, based in Cambridge, is developing new wireless network technology. In Tech City, we have a rapidly growing technology hub in the heart of London’s east end, which in just three years has grown from about 15 companies to more than 300.
My personal favourite is the motor sport industry, which is worth £5 billion a year and exports 70% of its products. I was particularly tickled by an anecdote—[Interruption.] I cannot believe that Opposition Members are groaning at an anecdote. I feel rather deflated. When a German Formula 1 company launched its German engine, branded by Mercedes-Benz, with Michael Schumacher, a German driver, I was told that it was designed and manufactured in the UK. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank Government Members for approving of my anecdote.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am delighted about that, because it was made in my constituency.
Mr Vaizey
Is it not a wonderful coincidence that I also get to suck up to one of the most important Back Benchers in the House?
Next week, a BDO report will say that telecoms, media and technology industries will be the success stories of 2012 in the UK, with software investment growing and investment last year at an all-time high. Innovations such as cloud computing are set to create more than 200,000 jobs in the UK in the next three years.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Is it because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is no longer interested in art and culture that it has purged Dame Liz Forgan from the Arts Council?
Mr Vaizey
That gives me a chance to respond to one of the Labour party’s most important Back Benchers. If he thinks that we are not interested in art and culture, why is he never out of my office talking about art and culture and, in particular, our joint campaign to save the Wedgwood collection?
To support technology and innovation businesses we have protected the science budget and are funding new science capital projects, including £158 million for e-infrastructure. The total increase in capital funding since December 2010 is £495 million. I feel that point keenly because tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of the agreement between the previous Labour Government and the Wellcome Trust to build and site the Diamond synchrotron in my constituency. I must say, in a moment of cross-party unanimity, that the last Labour Government had two of the finest science Ministers we have seen in Lord Sainsbury of Turville and Lord Drayson. We have, of course, gone one better by appointing our own Minister for Universities and Science, who has two brains.
We will have increased the level of the small company research and development tax credit from 175% to 225% by April 2012. That is the largest programme of support for business innovation in the UK and will provide support of more than £1 billion a year. We have made it more attractive to invest in smaller high-risk companies by raising the tax relief available under the enterprise investment scheme. We have established 24 enterprise zones throughout England. We have introduced catapult centres, which will form a new elite national network to act as a bridge between academia and business. They will cover sectors such as high-value manufacturing, cell therapy and offshore renewable energy. The Technology Strategy Board is investing at least £200 million in the current spending review period to make that happen.
We need to build on that success and I am pleased to say that the Budget maintains the momentum. We are cutting taxes on patents through a 10% patent box corporation tax worth some £900 million, which will be introduced next year and phased in. We are extending enterprise zones to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We are investing £100 million, which will leverage a further £200 million, in new university research facilities. We are introducing transport systems and future cities catapult centres. In a country with the world’s second largest aerospace industry, we have announced an investment of £60 million in a new aerodynamics centre to encourage innovation in aerospace design and the commercialisation of new ideas. Those measures will ensure that our world-leading universities and innovative small businesses can come together with global companies to commercialise new technologies, ideas and inventions in a wide variety of sectors.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where the aerodynamics centre is to be based?
Mr Vaizey
Oh, it was the Budget book. It looked like an iPad cover. Forgive me; I keep mistaking the hon. Gentleman for somebody who is on top of new technology. We have not yet decided where the aviation centre will be sited, and it may not even be in one place. It may be sited in two or three different areas.
To become Europe’s technology hub, we need world-leading digital infrastructure. The average broadband speed in the UK is already 7.5 megabits a second. In Northern Ireland, almost all the population have superfast broadband, and in England almost two thirds of the population do. In England, Northern Ireland and Wales, roughly three quarters of the population now have broadband. UK broadband coverage is in fact almost universal, with 91% of the country having access to speeds above 2 megabits a second, putting us in the top 20 countries worldwide. We are far ahead of many countries, including Morocco, where only one in 10 of the population have access to fixed-line broadband.
We have come a long way, but we need to go further. We are already investing £530 million in rural broadband, which will deliver superfast broadband to 90% of the country by 2015, two years earlier than Labour planned. More than half of our local broadband projects have been approved, and all will be approved by the end of this year. Procurement for some projects will proceed in the next few months.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Would the Minister like to come to the village of Balquhidder in my constituency and tell people that they might be better off living in Morocco? I see that the Chief Secretary is trying to tell him where Balquhidder is. In that village people still have dial-up, not even slow broadband, never mind fast or superfast broadband.
Mr Vaizey
First, that is why we are spending the money that we are, and secondly, we are working in partnership with the Scottish Government, so the right hon. Lady should have a word with them if she wants to put her constituency at the forefront of broadband roll-out in Scotland.
We will have provided universal coverage by 2015 without Labour’s telephone tax, which in any event would not have raised sufficient money to do the job. Not only do we have the most ambitious rural broadband programme, but the Chancellor announced in the Budget new measures to upgrade the coverage in our cities. The UK’s four capitals, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds and Bradford will share a £100 million pot to ensure that they are among the best-connected cities in the world.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
On that subject, will the Minister have a word with the London borough of Bromley—it is allegedly in London, although it is not—which is obstructing the implementation of superfast broadband simply because it is an out-of-London, Tory-controlled borough that does not know any better? Will he exhort it to wake up to the idea of tomorrow rather than living in yesterday as it always does?
Mr Vaizey
Without adopting the hon. Gentleman’s language—I would certainly never describe Bromley or its council as out of touch or living in the past—I accept that he makes an important point that is worth labouring. It is vital that local authorities work with broadband providers to ensure the roll-out of broadband, and we are providing the money and working with local councils. We understand why planning regulations are in place, but if they are used in a way that restricts broadband roll-out, councils will be denying their residents the opportunity to access a very important service. It is vital that local councils take a proactive approach and ask not how to apply the planning rules but how to make it as easy as possible to get broadband to as many of their residents as possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will the Minister elucidate further on the benefits to the whole of London of the roll-out of ultrafast broadband, which will happen much faster as a result of the new initiatives in the Budget?
Mr Vaizey
Ultrafast broadband will of course benefit London, and across the 10 cities that I mentioned, the Chancellor’s Budget means that 40,000 businesses and 200,000 households will get ultrafast broadband. London is also getting it through private sector providers, to which I will turn in a moment. It is also worth noting that Virgin Media will provide free wi-fi on the London underground during the Olympic games. Some 3 million people will be able to get access to high-speed wi-fi in the 10 best-connected cities. The Chancellor also announced in the Budget an additional £50 million, which will be available to ensure that ultrafast speeds are available to the UK’s smaller cities.
I said in reply to my hon. Friend that the private sector is doing a huge amount to speed broadband roll-out. I can announce that this week, Virgin Media, after £110 million of additional investment—investment over and above the £600 million it invests every year—will complete the upgrade of its network, so all 13 million premises covered by it, which is about half the premises in the UK, will be able to access speeds of up to 100 megabits a second. Average speeds are set to be around 40 megabits a second, which makes Virgin Media’s broadband network the fastest in the world. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, an hon. Lady accuses Virgin Media of bribing me to say that. I am not sure she will say that outside the Chamber.
Ian Lucas
Virgin broadband is not available in north Wales. The problem, as the Minister will hear from Government Back Benchers, is access to universal broadband, which the Government delayed from 2012 to 2015. What will he do about increasing services to ensure that we have universal broadband, the absence of which is preventing businesses from making progress in large parts of the country?
Mr Vaizey
I first need to get the hon. Gentleman an iPad—[Interruption.] He has one. At last he has an iPad! We have given £10 million to north Wales to put in place superfast broadband. As he well knows, we will get superfast broadband to 90% of the country two years before the Labour Government promised. We are not going to impose Labour’s telephone tax, which would have hit consumers and businesses. We will have the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015—[Interruption.] My colleagues are saying from sedentary positions that that sounds excellent; it is excellent.
Having praised Virgin Media, let me also say that BT is investing £2.5 billion in rolling out broadband. Indeed, it has accelerated its plans so that it will deliver fibre to two thirds of the UK by 2014, a year ahead of schedule. It has already delivered to 7 million premises, and is currently adding an additional 1 million premises—the equivalent of the number in Singapore—every three months.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), does my hon. Friend the Minister recognise the added complication because of the delays that the Welsh Government have introduced in the roll-out of superfast broadband, despite the money being made available swiftly by the UK Government?
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Because we believe in devolution and localism, the implementation of the plans is down to the Welsh and Scottish Governments. It is therefore up to them to roll them out as quickly as possible. I am sure the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will send an e-mail from his iPad to the leader of the Welsh Assembly Government to tell him to pull his finger out.
Ten million premises will be covered by BT by the end of the year in one of the largest engineering projects the country has ever seen. Those areas will get speeds of up to 80 megabits a second.
Mobile broadband is becoming increasingly important, with more people purchasing smartphones. Last year, the Chancellor announced an additional £150 million to help with mobile broadband coverage. By 2015, that will extend mobile coverage to 60,000 rural homes that have no mobile connection whatever, including, perhaps, villages in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), as well as along at least 10 key roads. We will also continue to look at how we can improve coverage on our railways.
At the end of this year, we will auction spectrum that will allow mobile companies significantly to increase their capacity, as well as offer faster speeds to their customers, and we continue to make progress on our plans to release some 500 MHz of the public sector spectrum.
World-leading digital infrastructure is the cornerstone of economic growth in the 21st century. Some estimates show that a 10% increase in broadband penetration can deliver a boost of up to 1.4% of gross domestic product. By the end of this Parliament, at least 90% of the country will have superfast broadband; our great cities will have ultrafast broadband; and 60,000 rural homes and businesses will have mobile coverage for the first time.
As the House knows, the UK has some of the most successful creative industries in the world. I know the whole House will wish to congratulate One Direction on topping the US charts with their debut album—a feat not matched by either the Rolling Stones or the Beatles. Adele’s “21” is the best-selling digital album of all time, and for the first time in 25 years, UK acts were at Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the US charts. We have the second- biggest music exporting industry in the world, and our UK animation industry has a huge impact worldwide. In 2010, Peppa Pig’s UK licensing and merchandising sales were £200 million alone.
Last year saw the most UK film production activity ever—it grew by 7% to £1.16 billion. UK television formats dominate television schedules all across the globe, accounting for two in every five global programmes, and of course “Downton Abbey” has continued UK success at the Globes. Exports of UK television content are the second highest in the world, worth more than £1.3 billion per year, having grown by more than 20% a year for about the last decade. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) looks astounded by this success. I urge him to get out more and see what some of our successful creative industries are doing.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I was actually wondering how many more pages of this drivel we had to sit through. The hon. Gentleman said that infrastructure is the seedcorn and the basis of future prosperity. How, then, does he explain the fact that 45% of the infrastructure investment that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement will not happen until 2014-15?
Mr Vaizey
I have just spent two or three minutes talking about the success of the UK music, animation, film and television industries, and the right hon. Gentleman, who was meant to be the Labour leader, describes that as utter drivel. Let the message go out to the UK creative industries that one of the most senior members of the Labour party regards their success as drivel. And I make no apology for continuing to list some of those successes.
BBC Worldwide increased international sales by almost 10% last year. We are the European hub for the video games industry, with 35% of video games software sold in Europe being developed by UK studios, and almost half of the world’s top 100 development studios based in the UK, generating sales of almost £2 billion a year. The visual effects hub in Soho is home to four of the largest visual effects companies in the world. We have one of the most innovative and successful advertising industries in the world, and it is growing despite the recession. We have one of the most successful and creative fashion capitals anywhere in the world, with Burberry, a UK company, increasing its sales by a quarter. And, of course, our largest creative industry, the UK publishing sector, has a turnover of almost £20 billion.
We want to build on this success. We do not regard it as drivel. We regard it as vital to our economic success. That is why we will introduce a tax credit for our video games and animation industries and our high-end television production sector. We are confident that this will bring increased investment and growth in these sectors too.
John Mann
I thank the Minister for generously giving way. I would not regard his speech as drivel at all. It is a superb enunciation of the successes of the last Labour Government. Given the lead time required for investment and innovation, I look forward to hearing what he predicts his legacy will be in two, three and four years. Will it be as good as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and her colleagues who worked in the Minister’s Department so assiduously over the past decade?
Mr Vaizey
They cannot make their minds up. On the one hand, the success of the UK’s creative industries is drivel; on the other, the success of Adele and her biggest-selling digital album in history is down to the Labour party. I would not claim that, but I would claim instead that we are putting in place the infrastructure for broadband investment to support high-tech innovation in this country. Through a series of initiatives, such as catapult centres, investment from the Technology Strategy Board, research and development tax credits and the patent box tax credit, we continue to support investment in our technology industries. Specifically through our tax break for video games, animation and high-end television production, we will support our creative industries and spur them on to greater success. I have already heard from some of the UK’s most successful animation companies. They are now planning to increase investment in their businesses, recruit more staff and make more programmes here in the UK. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a Labour Member standing next to you shouting at me. Could you encourage him to make a formal intervention at some point?
American studios are lining up to work with our talented production staff and amazing studios. British developers will be able to take advantage of the 8% growth in the worldwide video games industry.
Jim Dowd
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop)—to whom the Minister refers—wants to intervene, but if so, I am taking his slot. I do not want to make a partisan point, because although our understanding of the importance of the creative industries to this country and this economy, starting under the last Government, is well established, I congratulate the current Government on continuing that process, with the patent box and all the benefits that it will create. However, will the Minister prevail upon the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his colleagues to understand just how important creativeness and ingenuity are to this economy? In the light of the Hargreaves review and the role played by the Intellectual Property Office, it is not just product being made available free to consumers that is important, but ensuring that those who create and innovate get the best deal possible. That is a supreme role for this Government to perform.
Mr Vaizey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—I hesitate to say that it is good to hear from somebody who knows what they are talking about, in case he makes a hostile intervention in a minute. I absolutely hear the point he makes. The protection of intellectual property is paramount. We need to bring the intellectual property regime up to date, but I for one do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is absolutely right that content creators are paid for what they create.
Let me say something at which the whole House will rejoice: I am coming to the end of my remarks. However, if all those who said that they wanted to make an intervention still want to, they have a small window, as I perorate towards my conclusions.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s cue. Creative industries are vital to Cornwall, but so is creating high-quality food products. There is growing concern throughout Cornwall about the possible unintended consequences of the Budget and about the undoubtedly real threat to the Cornish pasty of the pasty tax. May I seek my hon. Friend’s reassurance that the concerns of pasty makers in my constituency are being listened to and that a solution can be found?
Mr Vaizey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which I know the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will respond to fully when he winds up. I congratulate her county on receiving the award for being Britain’s best tourist destination for the third year, and I congratulate her on the extraordinary energy with which she represents her constituency. She and I have had many meetings to discuss various issues in her constituency. [Interruption.] You are looking at the clock, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall wrap up; however, let me tell my hon. Friend that I hear what she says about the Cornish pasty issue, and I am assured that the Treasury is looking at it seriously.
With a Budget that introduced the largest ever increase in personal allowances, so as to reward work, the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, so that Britain is open for business, tax reliefs for our creative industries, increased investment in science and technology, and plans to create the best broadband network in Europe, we are well placed to realise the Chancellor’s ambition of making Britain the technology hub of the UK. I do not think that our success to date is “drivel”; I think that Britain is known around the world for its creativity and the success of its creative industries. We on this side of the House intend to ensure that we maintain and increase that success.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Let me begin with a double congratulation: to the Secretary of State and Lucia on the birth of their daughter, and to the shadow arts Minister and Rachel on the birth of their daughter. I congratulate both Members on their new babies, and also on taking paternity leave, which is a thoroughly good thing—mind you, I imagine that the Secretary of State feels well out of the debate today. Clearing up after a baby is much easier than clearing up after the mess of this Budget.
This is a Tory Budget, backed by the colluding Lib Dems—two parties that told us they were coming together in the national interest. How can it be in the national interest to fail on jobs, to fail on growth and to fail on fairness? Let us tell it how it really is: two parties coming together to give a tax bonanza to millionaires and a kick in the teeth to pensioners.
This is a Budget built on economic failure, with more than 1 million young people looking for work, economic growth at just half what can be seen in the US and the Government set to borrow £150 billion more than planned. What was needed was for the Government to come up with a Budget for jobs and growth, and they have failed.
It is good that today’s debate is focused on the creative industries, because they must be at the heart of economic growth in the future. We are good at them; they put Britain on the map; we are renowned for our arts and our culture, our film, TV and video games and our music, design and fashion. There is huge potential for growth there—growth in jobs, in exports and in contributions to gross domestic product. We needed the Government to come up with a plan for jobs and growth in the creative economy, but they have not.
The Government announced a tax break for high-end television, animation and video games, but these measures are strangely familiar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, it is something of an “homage” to the policies of the last Labour Government. It was, of course, the Labour Government who introduced the first tax breaks for the creative industries with our film tax relief, which has been hugely important for getting films made in Britain, helping our pioneering special effects industry and backing our studios such as Pinewood and Shepperton. The only original film policy this Government have come up with is axing the Film Council.
As for the tax break for video games, who first proposed this for the games industry? It was Labour.
Ms Harman
But certainly not to do what this Government have done—without any consultation or any discussion at all. We certainly promoted the film industry.
To return to the tax break for video games, we first proposed a tax break for the games industry, and we put it in our Budget in 2010, but what did the Tory Chancellor say in his very first Budget? He said that
“we will not go ahead with the poorly targeted tax relief for the video games industry.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]
And what did he do? He axed it. For the UK games industry, it could have been game over. He is introducing the tax relief now, but this misjudgment and delay have come at a price. Our video games industry was the third biggest in the world and has now fallen to the sixth. Many jobs have been lost, with nearly half going abroad to countries such as Canada, lured by its tax relief.
This policy, then, is not an original; it is a cover version—and like most cover versions, just not as good as the original. Although tax credits are worth while on their own, they are not enough to ensure that Britain fulfils its potential as a global hub for the creative industries. Just as this Government do not have a plan for jobs and growth in the economy, they do not have a plan for jobs and growth in the creative industries.
Where is the long-awaited communications Green Paper? The Minister did not say a word about it—not one word. Perhaps it is still waiting for some high-level policy input from a premier league Tory donor.
Where, too, is the action on protecting intellectual property? This is a fundamental issue for the creative industries—the bedrock of the knowledge economy. A tax break helps to boost investment, but more investors would be more confident if they knew that the product to which they were committing was not vulnerable to theft on an industrial scale. If an industry has been given a tax break, it makes it even less sensible to stand by and watch any of the value drain away through IP theft. The last Labour Government recognised that, which is why in 2010, we passed the Digital Economy Act with cross-party support. It needs to be implemented now. We already have the Digital Economy Act; it would be good to go with it. Professor Hargreaves has conducted another review of the same issue, but what the industry and economy are crying out for is action.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
I have listened to a lot of drivel in my time, but is the right hon. and learned Lady seriously telling me that she recommends going ahead with all aspects of the Digital Economy Act when Ofcom has shown that part of it was simply unworkable, as Liberal Democrats pointed out during the passage of the Bill?
Ms Harman
But it needs to be implemented now, with a clear timetable and a code of conduct so that notification letters can be issued. We want the Government to show leadership by ensuring that search engines such as Google play their part, and, if there is no agreement, to carry on and legislate in the forthcoming communications Bill.
Where is the action on young people and skills in the creative industries? The future of our creative economy is built on our young people—young people who are consumers, and many of whom want to work in those industries. We must ensure that there are opportunities for creative development from primary school to the workplace, but the signs are not good. Creativity is being stifled in schools, and since last year the number of applications for degree courses in creative arts and design has fallen by 27%. We all know why that is: it is because of the Liberal Democrats’ shameful betrayal on tuition fees. The Liberal Democrats were meant to be a brake on the Government—remember that?—but it is obvious that they have zero influence on policy. Perhaps they just did not have enough money to buy dinner with the Prime Minister.
Where is the action on access to finance for the creative industries? London is a global financial capital and Britain’s creative industries are world leaders, yet they struggle to obtain the finance they need to grow. Most creative businesses are small or medium-sized, and they need the banks to lend to them to help them get started and grow. However, as has been pointed out by the British Chambers of Commerce, credit easing
“will not help the smaller, younger, and high-growth firms that have trouble getting credit in the first place.”
Operation Merlin figures show that banks are still failing to meet their lending targets. Net lending to small businesses fell by £10 billion last year. Banks must start lending to creative businesses rather than throwing money away in bankers’ bonuses, and the Government must start making that happen rather than throwing money away on tax cuts for rich bankers.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Lady says that creative industries are struggling to gain access to capital. Will she give us a specific example?
Ms Harman
There are many. We need only listen to all the arguments throughout the industry, whether they concern films, video games or music. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that small and medium-sized businesses are having trouble obtaining loans so that they can start up and grow, he does not realise what is going on in the real world.
Where is the regional strategy that supports the creative industries all over the country, not just in London? The Government have abolished the regional development agencies, they have cut local government, and they have squeezed the BBC, which is bound to hit the independent sector that it supports. The Culture Secretary says that philanthropy will make up for his cuts. If that is his policy, how does it accord with the announcement in the Budget of a cap on tax relief for charitable donations? Was the Secretary of State consulted? Did he even know about it?
There is even more bad news for the arts. Not only have the Government cut the Arts Council’s budget by 29%, but they have now sacked its chair, Liz Forgan. That was a petty political act, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to pay tribute to Liz Forgan. Those in the arts sector feel that she was doing a tremendous job for them, particularly in managing incredibly difficult cuts, and I want to pay tribute to her today.
Key to a regional strategy is a truly national broadband infrastructure. A digital economy needs digital infrastructure—
John Mann
Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves on to the subject of digital infrastructure, may I ask whether she is as disgusted and shocked as I am by the news that in 12 minutes’ time the Bassetlaw Youth Theatre will give its last performance because it has been cut by the Tories on Nottinghamshire county council, who have failed to invest in young people and their future? People who could have had a vocational future in the creative industries have had it taken away tonight by the Tories.
Ms Harman
I am very sad indeed to hear that. Although the Government have squeezed councils, Labour councils up and down the country are determined to do what they can to protect the arts in the community against a Government who are cutting while telling them that philanthropy can step in and take the place of funding, which it will not.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?
Ms Harman
I am going to get on with my speech now, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.
Key to a regional strategy is a truly national broadband strategy. There is a growing digital divide between the haves and have-nots—between urban areas with superfast broadband and rural areas with none. That is from the party that said it cared about rural areas. In Labour’s digital Britain strategy, we guaranteed 2 megabit broadband speeds to the whole country by 2012. The Tory Government scrapped that, and now it will not happen until at least 2015. The Government boast of the £100 million for its super-connected cities, re-announced from the autumn statement, and the £50 million for a second wave of smaller towns and cities, but that will not happen until 2015, if then. The Government can talk about ultrafast and superfast and hyperfast and megafast all they like, as the Ministerdid, but what is happening is the creation of a digital underclass—those in rural areas, the unemployed, and older people, who are already so squeezed by this Budget and by this Government.
For many, broadband access will be made all the more difficult by cuts to libraries. According to the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, almost 600 libraries are threatened by this Government. Where does that leave the Government’s “race online” campaign, which is supposed to be about libraries playing a key role in getting people online? The Government should tread carefully here: it is a well-known fact that libraries are very popular with many older people—unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This was a Budget that failed on jobs, failed on growth and failed on fairness, especially for older people. How can it be fair to give a £40,000 tax cut to millionaires and pay for it by taking £3 billion from pensioners? There is no justification. There can be no excuse. The Government’s claim that this is not a cut but a “simplification” is an absolute joke. They have invented a wholly new meaning for the word, but perhaps we should all go along with it: when I went to the hairdresser on Saturday, I asked for a simplification and blow dry, and yesterday I failed to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) to simplify the lawn. But when it comes to simplification, the Culture Secretary had better watch out—I have heard that there are many on his side who would love to simplify his Department entirely.
Despite the fanfare ahead of this Budget, it has turned into a disaster. They wanted the centrepiece of the Budget to be “Downton Abbey”, but it turns out to be more like “Titanic”: the rich get the lifeboat, the rest sink or swim. This was a Budget that rearranged the deckchairs but did nothing for jobs and growth; a Budget that was based on economic failure and grossly unfair. Goodbye to detoxification: this Budget tells us everything we need to know. The clocks may have gone forward yesterday, but this Government have turned the clock back: wrong choices, wrong priorities, wrong values—same old Tories. The only people to benefit from this Budget were those rich enough to buy access to the Prime Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I thank both Front-Bench speakers for demonstrating time restraint. There is a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but if Members can speak for less than five minutes, we will be grateful.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I believe in low tax. Low tax fosters personal responsibility and generates the incentives that create greater wealth and greater national prosperity, in which all can share.
I therefore welcome the tax-reducing measures in the Budget, such as reducing corporation tax to 22p by 2014, so that we will have one of the lowest corporate tax regimes in the G20. I also welcome the fact that we have reduced the 50p income tax rate to 45p, as all the evidence demonstrates that lowering high marginal rates results in the rich paying more tax. In the early 1980s, when the marginal rate of income tax was 83p, the richest 1% contributed only 10% of the income tax yield, but a 40p rate generates just under a third, so the top 1% pay more tax. This is a truth that the Labour party does not understand. The third welcome measure in the Budget is the increase in the basic personal allowance. That will protect living standards at a time when the cost of living is increasing.
Colbert said that the art of taxation is to pluck the goose in such a way as to obtain the largest number of feathers for the lowest number of hisses. The Chancellor almost achieved that trick, with the exception of the pensioner tax. I believe that he will come to think that the granny tax was a mistake. Pensioners were already angry about lower annuity rates, and about lower rates of interest on their savings, which was not the fault of this Government. They also feel that their savings income should not be taxed twice. Overall, however, this was a good Budget. It was not a Lawsonian Budget, grand in its ambition and its tax-cutting sweep, but many of us believe that the Chancellor will be able to deliver that in future Budgets.
I know that some Members, including those on the Government Benches, argue that the economic circumstances are not propitious for talking about further tax reductions. They will observe that the Office for Budget Responsibility figures suggest that from 2013 onwards the prime drivers of higher GDP will be net investment and trade. We know that they are both sensitive: trade is sensitive to EU zone growth, which is inherently uncertain; and higher business investment is highly sensitive to the easing of credit conditions, yet credit has remained at stubbornly low levels in the early stages of this nascent recovery. Given all that, how can we talk about further tax cuts? We do so for the simple reason that tax reductions will get the economy going, and we can fund them by reducing public expenditure over and above the totals in the last comprehensive spending review.
Real-terms spending in this country increased by more than 50% during the Labour years. The plans in the Budget imply a real-terms reduction of 3.4% over the five years of this Parliament. There is plenty of fat in those spending numbers, therefore, and I urge the Chancellor to reopen the spending round this year, rather than wait until next year. He will find a surprising amount of support for funded tax cuts to get the economy going, financed and fully funded by further and deeper cuts in bloated public expenditure.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I want to return to the “nascent recovery” in just a moment, but first I should say that I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to a number of successful growth industries including publishing, and in that connection I should draw the House’s attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before turning to the question of growth—or, more accurately, my concern about the lack of it—I want to say a word about the 50p rate of tax, since I introduced it. At the time, I said it was a temporary measure. I did not particularly want to introduce it, but I took the view that, at a time when we were asking many people in this country to share the burden of meeting the increased cost of the downturn, it was right that those who had done well over the previous 10 years or so should bear their fair share of it. I do not have a philosophic attachment to that rate at all, therefore, but this is not a Budget in which I would have returned to the topic, simply because the incomes of many other people in this country are currently being squeezed and they are going to lose out this year. I would have tried to do something about their position first.
The documentation that the Treasury has produced on the measure reminds me of the stuff that was produced for the five tests in respect of the euro, in that so much evidence has been adduced in support of the Government position. Why did they not just say that they philosophically did not want the 50p rate so they were going to cut it? As the OBR says that its calculations are highly uncertain and it is very difficult to estimate behavioural effects, especially after only a year, and given that there are so many uncertainties and there will be so much forestalling, it is difficult for the Government to say, “Look, this wasn’t actually raising anything.” At a time like this, I think the fact that the rate brought in £1 billion and that we are talking about smaller sums in relation to some of the welfare reforms means that the Government cannot simply write it off. If they want to bring the rate down to 45p, that is fine, although I am bound to say that I have never understood the argument that someone will still work harder if the rate comes down to 45%, yet they will also work harder if they are told at the same time that they will be paying five times as much tax in the future. That seems a very odd argument to run.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making these interesting points. Was he as shocked as I was to see that, as a result of the measures that he introduced as Chancellor, there was £16 billion to £18 billion-worth of forestalling in 2009-10?
Mr Darling
Inevitably, there is some forestalling and there will be an awful lot more of it this year when people realise that they will pay a lesser tax rate next year. The hon. Lady makes a point, but perhaps not the one she intended.
The real problem we face as a country is the lack of future growth. I am concerned about that, because our borrowing levels are still high. The Chancellor is still having to borrow £150 billion more than he set out to borrow in his first Budget, in 2010, and his room for manoeuvre is very slight. He has given away about £2 billion this year. He says that he is going to get that back in two years’ time, but £1.5 billion of it is coming out of the reserve. That is not normally what we would expect a Chancellor to be doing if he is saying that he is conducting his finances in a prudent manner.
Of course, a lot of what the Chancellor is saying is dependent on cuts still to be specified—he used to criticise us when we did not specify these things. An awful lot more cuts are yet to be implemented and yet to be specified. When the Budget figures show that borrowing will be only £1 billion less than the Government thought, it is easy to see that we are right on the margins at the moment and that, unless we get growth going, the chances are that that borrowing will increase, not decrease. The need to get growth going is paramount.
We are already on plan B, in that what the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement last year was rather different from the course he set out on 12 months earlier. We are also relying heavily now on monetary policy—on quantitative easing and the Bank of England continuing low interest rates—to try to bring about a recovery. I welcome some of the things that the Government have done, but it is sobering to read the OBR analysis that the Budget will have a limited effect on growth. The best it can say is that the cutting of corporation tax will get us 0.1% of growth, which shows how much more the Government have to do.
I do welcome some of the measures the Government announced. Of course we are in favour of the patent box, which we introduced. It is very impressive that GlaxoSmithKline was, within hours, suddenly able to decide that it would open new factories and new production. It is just a pity that some of the new investment will take three or four years, if not longer, to be put in place. I also certainly welcome what was done for the creative industries. The deputy leader of the Labour party, who spoke for us earlier, made the point that I introduced a number of these proposals in 2010. They were rubbished by the coalition in 2011, but they are back again in 2012, and I wholeheartedly support them. I am also glad that the Green investment bank is coming to Edinburgh, and I hope that it will be up and running fairly quickly.
Turning to the other end of the country, the Government’s recognition that they have to look again at airport capacity in the south-east of England is welcome. It is a difficult issue, it is 10 years since we looked at it and we need to get a move on with it. However, a lot of the measures that have been announced are small or will not be implemented for a long time. Public investment is set to drop. I hope that the private sector comes in on infrastructure and so on, but unless we do more we are simply not going to get the investment we need.
Lastly, I wish to discuss the cloud hanging over us all—Europe. At the moment, we have something of a lull, as it has gone out of the headlines, but the problems have not gone away. We should all be grateful for what the European Central Bank has done, as it almost certainly prevented at least one, if not two, banks in continental Europe from getting into trouble earlier this year. However, the deep-seated problems that Spain has, that Italy has and that Greece has have not gone away. I hope that we will use whatever influence we have to try to engage with the eurozone, so that, for once, they get ahead of the game, because until that happens, that situation will hold back our prospects of growth even more.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
This has been a great Budget for business growth, for work incentives and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) rightly says, for technology, too. However, I shall focus my comments on a huge potential opportunity for growth by using technology, which would transform the banking system, put people and small businesses first, and shatter the comfortable oligopoly of the big banks in our banking sector.
Bank balance sheets in Britain amount to 500% of our GDP, which compares with about 300% in Germany and France, and only 100% in the US. Britain is uniquely at risk from this highly profitable sector. Financial services employ 1 million people in the UK, including 250,000 in Birmingham alone, and generate 11% of our total tax take. However, banks in the UK are so highly concentrated that four or five players have 80% of the small and medium-sized enterprises lending market and 80% of the personal current account market, and only about 2% of that on their vast balance sheets is lent into the real economy—the bit that gives us our jobs and helps businesses to grow. We saw in 2008 how the crisis in banking could bring our economy to its knees. Our unique British dilemma is in deciding what to do about this critical industry which has the ability to make or break us. The Chancellor was right to set up the Independent Commission on Banking to look at how to improve the industry, but it missed a big opportunity, as it did not address the massive barriers to entry into the UK economy for new challenger banks.
When I was director of Barclays Financial Institutions Group in the 1990s, an incredible consolidation took place in the financial sector. Banks merged with fund managers, broker dealers, private banks and building societies, creating today’s oligopoly of banks that are simply too big to fail.
Ian Lucas
The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and she is talking about the 1990s, when she was at Barclays. Does she agree that one of the major errors of the late 1980s was the incredible centralisation that took place through the privatisations and the ending of local building societies, and that that is a major reason why it is impossible to get local access to finance now? That issue needs to be addressed.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Before Virgin took over Northern Rock, Metro Bank was the only company to have been granted a full banking licence in 100 years. I have met entrepreneurs who would love to finance and set up new banks, and we have seen the launch of some new financial services products through the likes of Tesco and Marks and Spencer, but competition remains woeful. At the latest meeting of my business breakfast club, members made it clear to me that switching their business between banks is nearly impossible. Banks that lend money to SMEs require that their customers also do their everyday banking and personal current account banking with them. Some banks even require businesses to switch from a floating-rate loan to a fixed-rate one—that is profitable for the banks, but it forces the business into a loan that it cannot pay back early without enormous expense.
One specific policy would be a game changer for Britain, radically transforming our banking sector in terms of choice and competition, for business and personal accounts alike. We should introduce full bank account portability; we should be able to change banking provider at the flick of a switch. As with mobile telephones, when we change our bank we should be able, if we so wish, to take our account details with us. The ICB has proposed a costly seven-day switching service, where banks undertake to assist customers to move their banking within seven days but customers will still have to change all their direct debits, cheque books and debit cards, and all their documentation. Instead, we could insist on the creation of a shared payments clearing system, where all banks participate and customers have a unique bank account number with a code that simply identifies which bank holds the account. Switching would then be simple because nothing, other than the identifier code, would need to change when someone changes banks. This would vastly transform competition in the sector. Of course the big banks will resist it, arguing that the costs outweigh the benefits, but I want to highlight five very real advantages of full account portability.
First, it would cut barriers to entry for new challenger banks. Increased competition would force banks to differentiate themselves to retain customers. This would lead to enormous improvements in customer service and differentiation of bank offerings. Secondly, new challengers would mean more banks and, over time, a reduction in the risk of banks being too big to fail. The US has more than 3,000 banks and when a retail bank fails there is hardly a ripple. We need diversity of financial services providers, and this would enable it.
Thirdly, industry experts claim that the impact of creating a new shared clearing infrastructure would mean the banks sorting out the problem of their multiple legacy systems that date back to the consolidation of the 1990s. New systems could lead to a reduction of up to 40% in the bank fraud that costs the sector billions each year and is passed on to customers.
Fourthly, multiple legacy systems within banks make it hard properly to evaluate business ideas. Banking is essentially a technology business and improving the single customer view would have a positive impact on banks’ ability to evaluate credit risks and lend more successfully.
Finally, account portability offers the potential for orderly resolution of a failed bank. The potential to close down a bank and move accounts overnight to a solvent bank could be a valuable tool in a future financial crisis. The Chancellor has been kind enough to tell the Treasury Committee that he would consider full account portability if the ICB’s preferred option of a seven-day switching service fails to improve the current low switching levels. I urge him to grasp the nettle now. Technology has the potential to drive a fundamental change in our banking system.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister did not manage to mention in his speech the export potential of football, but I am happy to refer the House to my declared interest as the vice-chairman of Sunderland football club.
Since last Wednesday, the consensus has formed that the Budget spin was cack-handed. I want to make the case that the substance was dangerously complacent about growth and youth unemployment. Growth in our economy has tanked since the Chancellor’s Budget at this time last year. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) said that we had had a nascent recovery, but the truth is that we have had a non-existent recovery. We have had stagnation. British business is sitting on £750 billion-worth of cash, but it is not investing. It is not refusing to invest because of the planning laws or tax rates or because of public sector pay rates; it is not investing because there is no demand in the economy for the goods and services it wants to produce. No wonder the OBR has slashed its forecast not just for growth but for business investment from nearly 8% to less than 1%.
I have never believed the argument that without the austerity programme Britain was about to become Greece; neither do I believe the Chancellor’s argument from last Wednesday that it is essential to keep austerity to keep international investors buying British gilts. Why? Some 89% of conventional gilts issued by the Debt Management Office in the past year have been bought by the Bank of England, not by international investors. Even within the fiscal straitjacket that the Chancellor has set, he could have done more. He found £1 billion to support business. We all want to support business. His corporation tax cut will add to the corporate cash pile, but it will not change the arithmetic of demand. Meanwhile, far from increasing investment in capital allowances that would do so, he is cutting them by £1.7 billion. Instead of focusing on regional policy, the Treasury has abolished its regional policy unit. Instead of the strength of higher education being exploited, higher education visas are being cut. Instead of tackling the finance gap for small and medium-sized enterprises, a British investment bank was nowhere to be seen in this Budget. No wonder the OBR concluded, after studying each and every one of the Chancellor’s plans that had been announced since the autumn statement, that the plans will do nothing for growth this year and that it will have to reduce its forecast for growth next year.
We have learned, since the Chancellor’s new definition of simplification last Wednesday, that the price is to be paid by the old. There has been a lot of commentary on that, but there has been far less commentary on the price to be paid by the young. By the Government’s own admission there is a crisis of youth unemployment, with more than a million under-25s out of work, with 1.4 million not in education, employment or training, with 250,000 young people having been unemployed for at least a year and with 200,000 more having been unemployed for more than six months. The net present value cost of all that has been independently calculated at £28 billion. In my constituency, there has been a 250% rise in long-term youth unemployment, with 590 young people having been looking for work for more than six months.
This Government did not invent the problem, but they have made it worse. The Budget was their chance to make a difference, but while the Chancellor insulted the elderly he ignored the young—he spent longer talking about taxing hot snacks. Ministers say, “Look at what we have already announced,” but the flagship Work programme covers only one in 10 of the young unemployed. By the Government’s own admission, the Work programme itself, according to the voluntary sector group that comes together to discuss these things, will help only one in five of those on the programme. So, in total, the Government’s programme will help only one in 50 of the young unemployed get into work.
The Government’s wage subsidy programme, which starts in April, is designed to help 50,000 young people but that number could be doubled by bringing forward the spending for 2014 when the Government say that unemployment will be falling. What about the apprenticeship programme? We all support apprenticeships. Some 75% of the increase in apprenticeships is going to the over-25s. The administration of the £120 million plan for 16 and 17-year-olds is putting at risk precisely the voluntary organisations that the big society was meant to help.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that he cannot think of a better use of money than creating jobs, hope and optimism for young people. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor say we are all in it together, but the truth is that they got lost in the endless tactical dance about how to dress up the cut in the top rate of tax and in the endless leaking about who would claim credit for raising the personal allowance. They have completely flunked the issue of how to get our economy back on its feet. The loveless coalition will say anything but will do nothing. That is the true story of the Budget and that is the tragedy for the country.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) who said quite clearly that the coalition Government were not responsible for and had not invented the problem. I might ask him to consider who did. Our country has had to face the biggest boom and bust, with the biggest deficit in the G20, and has had to cope with the biggest banking failure and the biggest crisis among our European neighbours. As a result, we have seen, under Labour, manufacturing falling and personal and national debt rising to a situation in which for every £4 we spend, we have to borrow £1. Every single day, we are spending £120 million just to pay off the interest on the country’s debt. Of course this coalition Government did not create the problem: we are trying to put it right and we are now in the early stages of recovery.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is making some pressing points, but in the light of everything he has said is he seriously saying that the priority at this time should be a tax cut for those earning more than £3,000 a week?
Mr Foster
Let me come to that in a moment. First, let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I thought this Budget needed to do. First, it needed to continue the process of reducing the deficit. It needed to continue to maintain confidence in the international markets not least to keep interest rates low and it needed to develop a fair taxation system. I believe that the tax policy that was introduced through this Budget is a fair one. It has moved us more rapidly than many of us could have hoped to a Liberal Democrat aspiration to achieve a tax threshold of £10,000. As a result of what this Government have done by lifting that tax threshold to more than £9,000 by April next year, we will have taken 2 million of the lowest paid out of paying tax altogether and 24 million people will have been given a tax cut of more than £500. That is in marked contrast to the 5 million low-paid people who had to pay more under the Labour Government who cut the 10p income tax band.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) seems to suggest that the rich are getting off lightly, but if he looks at all the figures, he will see that that simply is not the case. Under the measures that have been included in the Budget with the 7% increase in capital gains tax, the 15% on stuff that is owned offshore by foreign companies and the measures on tax loopholes, the figures demonstrate that those who are best placed to pay will be paying even more as a result of this Government.
Mr Foster
I will not give way because I want to make progress.
I was pleased with the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister because he was able to put at the heart of what the Government are doing some of the really important work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He showed how the work being done there can help to deliver the growth in the economy that is really necessary, particularly in relation to the creative industries. As he said—and I am grateful to the deputy leader of the Labour party for agreeing—we have in this country some of the brightest and best people working in our creative industries. We need to give them as much support as we can. Even before the Budget, work had been done to try to achieve that, such as the establishment of the creative industries council, which is already making valuable recommendations on the skills and training needs of the sector.
Tristram Hunt
Is the right hon. Gentleman happy that as a result of the tuition fees introduced by his Government, we are seeing a massive collapse in the numbers studying modern languages, humanities and the creative industries?
Mr Foster
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures on applications to our universities, he will see that the predicted fall-off has simply not happened. As we heard earlier in the debate and in the Budget statement, investment in science is being increased. The creative industries want a better base than what is taught in our schools. Because of this coalition Government, the way computing is taught in schools is to be changed, and because of the work of the Henley review, we are going to put culture and creativity back in schools. That will be crucial to the sector. The former Chancellor talked about young people; I hope that he has looked at the real benefit that will be produced by the enterprise loan scheme for young people introduced in this Budget. Work is now being done to roll out high-speed broadband and ultra-high-speed broadband in many of our cities. Everyone in the creative industries will benefit from measures such as the cut in corporation tax, the simplification of tax collection, the loan guarantee system, the enhanced business finance partnership and so on.
I welcome many of the measures that have already been introduced and those that are in this Budget, but of particular importance are the tax breaks for producers of computer games, high-end television productions and animation. They will bring real benefits to those elements of the creative industries, helping the UK economy and increasing employment and opportunities for innovation and investment. As many have said, their effect is already being felt. Only a couple of days ago, I received an e-mail from an animation company, Blue-Zoo, saying that it
“has scrapped all planned moves abroad and intends to make shows 100% in this country”
It also says:
“not only that, we are now planning to invest further in our infrastructure, creating jobs, and growing our industry”.
There are many other examples.
Having been very positive, in the few seconds remaining let me raise three concerns about the Budget. First, the Budget introduces a change in gaming machine taxation, the broad thrust of which is welcome, but the failure to take account of irrecoverable VAT in the calculation will, I believe, be to the disadvantage of some aspects of the gaming industry, particularly bingo. I am also concerned about the impact of tax relief changes on philanthropy, and of VAT changes on work done on listed buildings. With those three—
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I received a letter this morning from my local county council, Northumberland, saying how pleased it was to have got £7 million for the roll-out of broadband. I take from that letter that the council is quite satisfied. I know the council ran a campaign and met the Minister, and I wrote to him as well. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out. I am not sure that £7 million is enough to cover rural Northumberland—it is a big county and sparsely populated, so we will need some money to get it right—but I hope it works out.
I am disappointed that we did not get our enterprise zone on the River Blyth. The Chancellor mentioned in the autumn statement that he would look at the programme—we submitted a programme for 100 hectares on the river and port of Blyth—but it was not mentioned in the Budget statement. There are to be two enterprise zones in Scotland, up the road from us. I hope that he has not forgotten us and that we are still in with a chance. We have high unemployment in Blyth Valley, south-east Northumberland and Wansbeck.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Perhaps my hon. Friend should get some wealthy Northumberland business men to pay a quarter of a million pounds to have lunch with the Chancellor. Then he might get an LEZ in Blyth.
Mr Campbell
The only place I could take them is the canteen. I might get something there, but I am sure I would not get anything in Downing street.
The 50p tax rate has been widely discussed since the Budget statement. We were told it does not do anything and that no one is paying it, which makes me wonder why we have it. We have just heard the previous Chancellor explain why he put it on, but I have to ask: if people can fiddle a 50p rate, surely they can fiddle a 45p rate? And if they are fiddling the 50p rate, what else are they fiddling?
In the Budget statement, we heard the Chancellor say he opposes people fiddling their taxes. I have been here 25 years—I suppose I am an old man compared with some—and I have heard that time and again. Every Chancellor in history—certainly while I have been here—has said, “I’m going to come down heavy on tax evaders”, but what do we see? People making profits in this country and swanning off with their swag to some tax haven—an island somewhere. They cannot go to Switzerland now, because the Swiss will give the show away, but the Government should remember the old saying, “There’s honour among thieves.” There is honour among bankers as well, so I doubt they will be getting much information from the Swiss.
The Liberals have been telling us how wonderful the Budget is, but 14,000 people in this country are going to get a £40,000 tax rebate at the expense of £3 billion from old people—pensioners. I always thought the Liberals had a little heart in them. I do not know what deal they did to get what they wanted, but I am getting a weary feeling in my bones that they sold out the health service to what they think is a good deal. I am sure, when it comes down to it, that is what they did. They sat round the table and told the Tories, “We’ll get your health Bill through Parliament, but we want this and we want that.” Well, they have come unstuck, because in fact they are getting nothing.
Mr Foster
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has looked at the detail of the OBR’s calculations, but if he does he will see that the additional money going to pensioners totals £1.75 billion and the cost of the removal of the age-related allowance is £360 million. That means a net increase to pensioners—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and there are many Members who will not get in. It is fine to intervene, but I certainly do not want a second speech.
Mr Campbell
We will just have to wait and see what happens when the country goes to the ballot box and the pensioners know what the Liberals have done.
There is another thing, which is that right at the end of his speech, the Chancellor said he had to find another £10 billion from welfare. There we are: people out there are already being hit, with their benefits cut from one end to another, and now another £10 billion has to be found from welfare next year. Where are the Government going to cut? They are cutting deeply now—the poor, the sick, the old and the disabled have certainly been hit.
Finally, let me say something about pay. We Members of Parliament are public sector workers and, like everybody else in the public sector, we have the three-year pay freeze, but since this Government came to power, there has been a 3.4% drop in wages in this country. That is the wages of people who are working—and who probably voted Liberal, too. When they find out who has been pushing those policies, the Liberals might not get so many votes. Then again, what has happened to executive pay? Let us look at the figures. In 2009 executives were reported to be getting, on average, £888,000. Under the Tories, two years on, they are getting £3 million, and that is without the bonus. We have not yet seen what the bonus is. It is reported in the paper that the bonus has been kept back because of the 50p. They are all going to get a bonus that is linked to the 45p. That is the most obscene orgy of greed that I have ever seen in my life, and I hope the Liberals get what they deserve—nothing at the polls.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who is passionate about his enterprise zone, unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who went on a tirade of negativity about growth and business in this country. In the House hon. Members should be talking up British business to encourage people to invest in this country because it is a great country to invest in.
Even in these difficult economic times there are some great news stories in the national economy. London has retained its status in the global financial centres index as the best place to do business, ahead of New York, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo. Business confidence has jumped to a nine-month high, according to a confidence index by BDO accountants group. This confidence index leapt 3.9 points to a score of 98 in February. Over half of members polled by the Federation of Small Businesses expect to grow in the coming 12 months.
West London is the place where I want people to invest. In my local area, Brentford and Isleworth, there are great local success stories of growth. Aker Solutions, which provides engineering and construction services to the energy, mining and power generation industries, has come back to the UK to Chiswick, and the reason is the highly skilled work force. International SOS has started up in Chiswick, helping organisations manage health and security risks. Otis, QVC and Swarovski are all moving to Chiswick. Starbucks headquarters in Chiswick has announced a major apprenticeship scheme to help young people get into work and develop skills for the future.
BSkyB, based in Osterley, has major expansion plans, with an increase in the number of jobs based there and an extensive programme of increased work in schools, developing skills and aspiration for the future. Fullers Brewery, London’s last remaining traditional family brewer, announced revenue figures up by 6% in its half-year results in November 2011 and like-for-like sales growth of 3.9%.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) spoke about banking, and I agree with what she said, but Handelsbanken has already moved into my constituency and Metro Bank is about to open in my constituency. In the jobs fair that we are having on Friday in Isleworth there are hundreds of jobs available to people who are out there looking for work.
I applaud the Government for the fact that the Budget was one for business growth and exports. Corporation tax is dramatically down and is now lower than in the US, Japan, France or Germany. That is what will make us more competitive than ever before. We are backing potential winners—for example, through tax relief to the video games industry, which will help Sega in my constituency and other similar organisations. Helping companies export is key to growth in the future. Lord Green has been doing a lot of work at a local level as well to encourage businesses to expand abroad. If we exported more, more than £36 billion could be added to our UK economy.
This is also a Budget for small and medium-sized enterprises, encouraging investment and creating an enterprise-led recovery. The national loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise management initiative scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme will help small businesses, and we have helped to simplify tax for so many small businesses. I encourage the Government to do more for SMEs by simplifying employment legislation, as we are doing, helping small companies bid for Government contracts and keeping that process as simple as possible.
This is a Budget to encourage young entrepreneurs. Enterprise loans, which we heard about in the Budget, will help young people believe that they can aspire and set up a new business. It does not matter what age they are; they can do it and achieve great things in business. Linked to the work that we have been doing to try to get more women on boards in the City, we need to encourage more female entrepreneurs. If women were setting up businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 150,000 more businesses.
In conclusion, Britain is a great place to do business. The signs of change are being seen locally and nationally. Each Member can do their bit for growth by helping to build aspiration in schools and/or in businesses. This Budget will deliver real results for this country and allow British business to grow and succeed in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call Mr Jim Cunningham, let me say that I do not want to drop the time limit any more, but if each Member could be generous to others and shave a little bit off their speeches, we will try to make sure that we get everybody in.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I will try to be as quick as I can, but I want to highlight some of our concerns. In response to the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who flung out a challenge about where the economic crisis started, I am sure he knows that it started in the United States. People will remember Fannie Mae and Lehman Brothers, for a start. How he thought the then Labour Government could tell the American Government what to do beats me. He should also remember that George W. Bush, the outgoing American President, who would be a Conservative in our terms, pumped $260 billion into the American economy.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of that, but more important to me is the effect of this Budget and previous Budgets on the west midlands, where one in 10 people are unemployed. There has not been any coherent effort or real strategy from the Government to do anything about the restoration of manufacturing. If the Government point to what is happening at Jaguar, let me make it clear that that was well and truly under way under the Labour Government. At that time, we had a stimulus and we also had a scrappage scheme. That set Jaguar on the road and enabled it to recover. Incidentally, Jaguar is not doing very well in this country, but its exports are doing very well, as are those of other motor car companies. That is not a result of anything that the Government are doing here.
The Government’s new idea of driving down regional pay is a concern to many west midlands colleagues. I always thought it was a good thing to lift people up, not to take people down. The measure reflects the Government’s thinking on economic policy and the regions. At the same time, they are cutting public sector salaries and they are cutting pensions. Salaries have already been cut by inflation and workers will be hit very hard. The Government are also reducing the money going to local businesses, which rely on pay increases to revamp the local economy. From the perspective of Coventry and the west midlands, there is no change in the policies of this Government. The policies pursued by their predecessors in the 1980s have been dressed up with a different veneer, but it is the same old approach.
Police and fire services in the west midlands have been cut. It is difficult to get information about what the police and the Government mean by outsourcing. As I have always understood it, outsourcing means buying in goods and services. Leaving the police aside, does that mean that other services are to be privatised? We cannot get a clear answer on that. Over the next four or five years we are going to have a 25% cut in the fire brigade. That raises questions about the quality of services that will be delivered.
A large number of families in my constituency will be hit hard. More than 12,000 families claiming child benefit will either lose it or be affected by the freeze. There are 360 families who will lose their tax credits. Tax credits cut, child benefit taken away, and fuel duty rising—before the general election, this was the Government who were going to do something about fuel duty. Instead, they have started to increase it, which may affect the purchasing power of pensioners and families up and down the land. That means, in effect, that their standard of living will be drastically cut as the increase feeds through to food prices. The latest gimmick is VAT on hot food. Will that be extended in next year’s Budget to VAT on clothes and other goods that people buy? I am worried and chary when the Government start to go down that road.
In Coventry, we saw an 87% increase in long-term youth unemployment last year, and slapping VAT on regular purchases sends out a very sinister signal indeed. I have tried to cut my speech down as much as I can, so there are some issues that I shall not raise. The granny tax has been well documented, and I shall not go into it again tonight. In the west midlands, there are 390,000 income tax payers over the age of 65. Whatever did the pensioners do to the Tory party—
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important Budget debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), a fellow west midlands Member. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a company director.
I broadly welcome this radical, reforming Budget. We are fortunate to have a Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Treasury team who have been able, over the past two years, to steady the markets and instil a sense of confidence once again in Britain’s ability to earn its way in this globalised world and to repay its debts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s emergency Budget in June 2010 was crucial in signalling to the international markets that the British Government were serious about addressing our structural deficit and debt situation. His Budgets in June 2010 and March 2011 have played a significant part in the crucial task of ensuring that Britain will not be weighed down by crippling rates of interest and spiralling costs for servicing our debts; we have shown that Britain is able to reform its economy, earn its way out of recession and pay off its debts.
Last week, my right hon. Friend reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to dealing with the debts Labour left behind and that mean that we spend over £120 million every day on debt interest. He is rightly sticking to the plan. Our country’s credibility is helping to keep interest rates low for households and businesses in my constituency and around the country. If we listened to Labour’s calls for more spending, more borrowing and more debt, we would risk a sudden loss of confidence and a sharp rise in interest rates.
One of the most important things that this Budget has done is to provide even greater support for working families on middle and lower incomes. I welcome the largest ever increase in the personal allowance, which will provide a tax cut of up to £220 for 24 million income taxpayers, from next year. Taken with previous increases, this means that the coalition Government will have taken 2 million of the lowest paid out of tax altogether, and basic rate taxpayers will be up to £526 better off. Thousands of families in Dudley South will keep more of their income in their own pockets to spend on their own priorities for their own families. I am pleased that the Chancellor has listened and decisively dealt with the cliff-edge issue in relation to the payment of child benefit while ensuring that 90% of families will still be eligible for the benefit, again helping working families in my constituency.
On more than one occasion, I have taken my right hon. Friend to visit manufacturing and engineering businesses in Dudley South. I know that he has taken a great deal of time to visit businesses the length and breadth of this country to listen to their concerns and to see at first hand some of the innovation and creativity that is happening every day in the UK economy. So I am pleased that this Budget has unashamedly backed business, large and small.
The Government are right to be simplifying small business taxes and to have cut corporation tax again. This means that we are on our way to a 22% corporation tax rate, which will be one of the lowest in the world. There is a great big “Open for business” sign now hanging over the UK. As founder chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on family business, I know that that support will be widely welcomed in the family business sector, which is responsible for employing four in every 10 people working in the private sector, representing 9.5 million jobs throughout the UK and almost a quarter of our gross domestic product.
We cannot spend what we have not earned, and this Budget will help Britain to earn its way out of the disastrous financial situation that we inherited from the last Labour Government. The Chancellor has had to make many difficult choices, including on personal allowances for pensioners, but this is a radical, reforming Budget that will help Britain to earn its way in the world. It is a Budget that rewards work, backs businesses and puts Government Members firmly on the side of those who aspire to do better for themselves and their families.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Much has been said over the past few days about how the Budget will adversely affect pensioners, those on middle incomes and the less well off. There is no doubt that the vast majority of people living in Rochdale will be worse off, rather than better off, as a result of the Budget. But it is not just individuals who will be worse off; there is no doubt that businesses, especially small businesses, could have received much more assistance from the Chancellor. I want to concentrate on that subject this evening.
We are all aware that small and medium-sized enterprises create the most jobs in our economy. Given the present record levels of unemployment, I would have hoped that the Chancellor would do more to help small businesses, rather than just the larger corporations. The Government’s actions to stimulate the economy so far have failed, and if the Office for Budget Responsibility is to be believed, little in this Budget will improve growth. It is predicting growth of 0.8% this year, as opposed to its initial prediction of 2.5%. The cut in corporation tax might well encourage additional investment by larger corporations, but it will do little, if anything, to help SMEs to grow their businesses and create jobs.
I accept that there is some potentially good news in the Budget. Tax simplification for small businesses could work, enterprise loans for young people sound promising, and the expansion of UK export finance is a good thing in principle.
Simon Danczuk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention pensioners and the disadvantages to them of the Chancellor’s proposals.
The Government could get things right for small business by simplifying the processes, but none of those proposals will be enough to stimulate the economy. It is also fair to say that a number of this Government’s initiatives to help business have not worked. It has been pointed out that Project Merlin has failed to hit the mark, for example. It failed to provide £10 billion of investment for SMEs. The regional growth fund continues to fail to pay the money that it should be awarding. There is nothing to suggest that the Government initiatives—of which there are certainly many—will actually work. The Budget has also done nothing to allay the fears expressed by small businesses about fuel duty and fuel costs, which continue to go up. Related to that are the Government’s proposals to privatise the road network, which could place further costs on businesses.
Probably one of the biggest disappointments in the Budget relates to business rates. This April, they will increase by 5.6%, the biggest increase in 20 years. Business rates are the elephant in the room—one of what I would call the big three: costs to businesses are wages, accommodation and business rates. Greater Manchester chamber of commerce recently carried out research which showed that the 5.6% increase will add £54.4 million to the business rates that businesses across the region will have to pay, which equates to 2,407 jobs. In Rochdale, businesses will have to pay an extra £3.3 million, over and above what they are already paying, which will equate to 141 jobs. This is a real concern for local economic growth.
It is therefore not surprising that the British Retail Consortium, the British Independent Retailers Association and the British Chambers of Commerce are all calling for the hike in business rates to be revised downwards. It is no coincidence that retailers in particular are calling for reform of business rates, because they are the ones that carry the greatest burden. It is also worth pointing out that it is retailers that provide much of the employment for young people and women, so the Government could have done much more to help to stimulate employment for those two groups by reforming business rates. They could have used the Budget to really support and encourage small businesses, but they failed to do so. Instead of taking an active approach, they used the Budget to take a laissez-faire approach.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I would like to use my time in this debate to talk about how Wirral and the wider Liverpool city region can benefit from the Budget and how the rest of the UK in turn can benefit from Wirral’s advances and successes.
The Budget is a Budget of growth. It is concerned with repositioning the UK as a place to do business, to set up in business and to relocate big business. It sets out policies offering help to new start-ups, with the simplification of regulations and taxes, a Government loan guarantee scheme and the promotion of self-employment opportunities for all. It offers guidance and support to those businesses going through the new enterprise allowance.
The Budget also set about reducing corporation tax, going further and faster to make it the lowest in the G7. Members do not need to listen to me on this; they can just look at the actions of industry. GlaxoSmithKline has announced 1,000 new jobs for Cumbria, Nissan is creating 2,000 new jobs in Sunderland, and Jaguar, with 1,000 new jobs in Halewood on Merseyside, has increased its number of jobs to 4,500, trebling the number of employees in the past three years. That is because it is a good place for business. We have the “Open for business” sign up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) said.
Esther McVey
I am sorry, but I will not.
The Budget also offers clear support and incentives for firms taking on apprentices and young employees as well as support for key infrastructure projects, including roads, rail, ports and broadband. It is also supporting the construction industry, with housing development getting Britain building. As the debate was opened by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), I would like to quote from the Liverpool Daily Post, which this week carried the following headline: “Merseyside video game companies welcome Budget tax credits”. That was Sony, Evolution Studios, Rebel Play and Lucid Games referring to not only the tax credits, but the research and development tax credits and changes to enterprise investment schemes. The Budget is the beginning of a shift from the downward slide in enterprise, manufacturing and exports to an expansive vision and the aspirational upward mobility of UK plc, from which everybody in the UK should benefit. It is a seismic shift saying that we are open for business, and now we have the tools, infrastructure and tax system to enable it.
On Wirral specifically, Wirral Waters is one of the biggest and most visionary regeneration projects in the UK, and it has been enabled only because it became an enterprise zone at the last Budget. The scheme will create over 20,000 permanent new jobs in Wirral, help to create skills and apprenticeships for young people, giving them a future on their doorstep, and help to encourage new housing projects and international trade and investment. Last week I was with some of the Chinese developers hoping to come to the UK, including Stella Shiu, chair of the Sam Wa group, which will produce a 50% investment on the site, starting with the £175 million investment. None of that would have been possible had we not had an enterprise zone, the reduction in corporation tax or the new enhanced UK Trade and Investment—my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) is helping with its rejuvenation—and the localism agenda and planning, because had this been called in to the Secretary of State, the private company, Peel Holdings, would not have been able to pursue it. All in all, this was a catalyst for regeneration and jobs on the Wirral.
There is much to applaud in what has gone on, because we know that we have to strive, to move forward and to reposition the UK as a place to do business. We are starting here, we are starting now, and with further support from Ministers we hope we will be starting in Wirral, too.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on reading out her speech. I am not sure whether she got it from the Whips or those on the Government Front Bench, but it is patently obvious that it was completely—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot be made to give way, so the hon. Lady must resume her seat. It is up to him.
Esther McVey
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. As the Wirral is somewhere I have lived all my life, and as this is something I have given great thought to and know inside out, and it comes from the heart, I know that it is a part of the country where we need to succeed, and these are the sorts of tax incentives and the sort of Budget that we need in order to be able to do that.
Jim Dowd
Yes, indeed, and as for the next bit, I do not know. None the less, I will go on to make a few points.
All Budget statements are a spectacle. When I first came to the House, people used to dress up for the Budget and it used to be more of a spectacle. Some used to put on national dress and dress in top hat and tails and all the rest of it. They do not do that any more, and perhaps it is just as well, but what has replaced it is an altogether more depressing sight, because the Budget statement has become something of a pantomime—this does not just apply to this Government and this Budget, because it has become like this over time—with the Chancellor and his acolytes sitting on the Front Bench and making a few statements and the simpletons behind them simply responding, cheering and making completely idiotic noises, whether or not they know what the Front Benchers are saying. As I said, I do not limit my criticisms to this Government because it has happened over a number of years, although I think they are the worst example of it. I do not exempt Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber, because when our Front Benchers get up there are Pavlovian responses from this side as well.
What we really need to do is look at what the Budget means today, tomorrow and, more particularly, for the next few years. All Budgets are a mixture of imperative and choice, and this Budget is no different, but what is most striking about it is the choices it makes. The Tory party has never been an egalitarian party; it has always been an elitist party. It is not just that the Government are a Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich; what is more telling is just how right wing the Liberal Democrats are, given the opportunity—I exempt the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) because he is a decent sort of chap living in a world of his own creation. None the less we cannot get away from the fact that, were it not for the support of the Liberal Democrats, the Government would not get this Budget through tonight, they would not have got their reforms—or deforms—to the national health service through and they could not get through their reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. They would not be able to do anything.
Opposition Front Benchers—I criticise them for this—are a bit addicted to terminology and cliché. We are apparently told to refer to the “Tory-led Government”, but I will not do so because I do not think that that shares the responsibility anywhere near widely enough. This is a Tory-Liberal Government, and were it not for the support of the Liberal party they could not carry through the sort of distortion they have made with this Budget. The Tories are trying to pretend that they are leopards who have changed their spots. Not only that, but they are pretending that they have traded in their spots for presentable and attractive stripes and become vegetarian. I do not believe a bloody word of it. They are what they always have been, which is a party of the privileged with a role to demonstrate to those beneath it that they know their place.
The idea that the Tories are going to simplify the tax system by taking from pensioners has resonance only if we believe that they are taking equally from everybody. To the Liberals who talk about a Robin Hood Budget, I say, “Wake up. Get real.” Robin Hood, incidentally, was a myth, remains a myth and—although I do not wish to upset any colleagues and friends from Nottingham who are here this evening—originally came from Wakefield. The idea of his taking from the rich to give to the poor is, rather like this Government, complete and utter baloney.
I have two points to make in the odd few seconds that I have left. One is on child benefit, and the other is on stamp duty. If the Government had been serious about reforming stamp duty, they would have reformed the whole thing. I am not against people on £2 million paying 7%, and I am not against companies that use their machinery for purchases paying 15%, but the measure is very unfair on those at the bottom of the scale, who have to pay 1% or 3% on the whole cost of valuation. If the Government had been serious about reforming stamp duty, they would have addressed that.
On child benefit, the Government have introduced means testing. They can means-test universal benefits, that is right, but what is next? Winter fuel allowance? Freedom passes? If they undermine universal benefit, they undermine many things that benefit millions of people throughout the country. This Budget, like this Government, is a complete and utter fraud.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who is not in his place, on putting growth in the creative industries at the very heart of the Budget. It is a hugely beneficial development.
I will speak very much from a Welsh perspective. The Budget that the Chancellor presented to the House is of course concerned with the UK economy, but since devolution and the establishment of Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, differences have emerged. There are differences in our perspective on the Budget and its impact, and I will focus on the three significant announcements on tax, two of which have been wholly welcomed by my constituents, and one, the age-related taxation for pensioners, to which there has been a mixed response. I hope to address that later.
First, and in my view most fundamentally in the Budget, there is the raising of the income tax allowance. When this Government came into power, the threshold was below £7,000, and now it is heading towards £10,000. This year we took a massive step towards that, with an increase of about 14%, which is a huge jump and will make a huge difference. The measure is particularly welcome in Wales and, certainly, in rural Wales, the area that I represent, because that is where wages are comparatively low. The impact of raising the tax-free allowance is rather bigger in low-wage areas than in other areas, so it is to be hugely welcomed, and to be welcomed throughout the House.
The second fundamental step in the Budget is the one we are taking to make Britain open for business. At its heart is the level of corporation tax, and the Government’s strategy throughout this Parliament is to reduce it from 28p to 22p. This year we have accelerated that process with a 2p reduction, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) said very clearly, that sends out the message that Britain is open for business. It was terrific to see the GlaxoSmithKline announcement coming so soon after the Budget, and of course there are various reasons why it was made, including 1,000 jobs and £500 million of investment, but one narrative that the company used was the competitiveness that this Government want to introduce to British business.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and his party’s own economic commission in Wales that what we really need is differential rates of corporation tax throughout the British state, so that investment is directed at the poorest parts, rather than concentrated down here in the south-east?
Glyn Davies
I do not believe that that is the right way for us to go at this stage. There is an ongoing discussion about the issue in Northern Ireland, but we have not yet reached the stage of devolving taxation. We are talking about the issue, but we will have to see where we get to.
The central part of my speech is about how we can build on the UK Government’s business-friendly approach, and about the way in which the Welsh Government and the Government here can work together to build on it. We can do so in several ways and in a close, constructive partnership.
First, this Budget introduces capital allowances in enterprise zones, work on which has already taken place in Wales, and one area where the measure will be introduced is Deeside, where the Welsh Government have already suggested it might lead to 5,000 new jobs. We want to see that happen and to build on it in other parts of Wales, and by working together we can do so.
Secondly, there is the commitment to pursue railway electrification. Electrification to Cardiff has already been confirmed, and the crucial next step is electrification of the valleys lines, but only if the Welsh Government and the Government here work together on that objective will we reach that target. It is absolutely vital that we do so.
Thirdly, there is broadband and the super-connectivity of Cardiff. Cardiff, the capital of Wales, is a hugely vibrant city, and when I was there last weekend, as Wales defeated France and won the Grand Slam, I found the sheer vibrancy of the city something to behold. We need to recognise that we have a wonderful capital city in Cardiff, and we can build on that, but we can do so only by the two Governments working together and building on the business-friendly climate that the Government here have put in place.
Last of all in this part of my speech, on the enterprise loans to small and medium-sized enterprises which are being promoted, the Welsh Government have Finance Wales, and it has many characteristics of a bank. If we combine Finance Wales and the various initiatives being taken at Westminster, we can make a dramatic difference in the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales.
Finally, there is an issue with age-related pensions, and inevitably, if we raise the personal income tax threshold at the massively accelerated rate that we are doing, the two taxes will eventually merge. It is a difficult issue, which we have all had to think about, but the Government have been right to take that step.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
During the Minister’s opening speech, I asked him about a community, running along one of the spiral routes in my constituency, which still has dial-up—or wind-up—broadband. If I did not mistake him, I think he advised me to speak to the Scottish Parliament, but I find that a somewhat strange response, because the Red Book mentions a Scottish trunk road, the A82. Coincidentally, that happens to run through the constituency of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). It is interesting that, if someone is the apologist in Scotland for this Government, they need to get their trunk roads mentioned in the Red Book.
Prior to the Budget and against the background in my constituency of unemployment among women and young people that was falling in 2010, and a dramatic increase in the claimant count of 35% in young people and of about 22% in women in 2012, I conducted a survey to see whether there was any advice that the Government could take on board. It suggests that my constituents are completely out of tune with the Budget, because 93% said that it was a good idea to have a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund employment for young people in Stirling and throughout the UK; 85% agreed with a temporary reduction in VAT on the tourism and hospitality sector, an important industry in my constituency; and 87% supported a one-year reduction in national insurance contributions to give every small firm on my patch the incentive to take on extra workers. There was no mention of the reduction of the 50p rate for those earning £150,000, no mention of a raid on the age allowance for those of state pension age—a measure that has been in place since the 1920s—and certainly no mention of the so-called pie tax.
The latter proposal crystallises the chaotic thinking at the centre of the Government’s financial strategy. It must have sounded like a jolly wheeze—“We’ll tax pies and rotisserie chickens and so on”—but I have an image of us all wandering round Tesco doing our shopping with thermometers in our hands to check the ambient temperature of the chicken from the rotisserie. Will the VAT be put on to the chicken when I take it out of the hot cupboard, or will I find when I get to the checkout, having wheeled my trolley around the supermarket, cooling the chicken with the soft winds of Tesco or Sainsbury’s, that it has become a cold chicken, which means that the VAT will not be charged? This does not apply only to supermarkets. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) tells me that yesterday or the day before he went into a bakery shop in Callander in my constituency and got bread rolls. It is a very good bakery shop called Mhor Bread. In future, he might have to ask the person behind the counter, “Can you wait until the bread rolls cool down because I don’t want to pay 20% more for them?”
It is a mish-mash of a policy. However, I will try to give the Government some comfort and save Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tens of thousands of pounds on the consultation by pointing out that the European Court has already ruled on this issue by saying that where the level of service is minimal, the purchase should be considered as a simple food sale and not be subject to extra tax. I ask the Minister and the Government to abandon this foolish, mish-mash piece of financial thinking. It did not make sense when the Chancellor said it last Wednesday, it does not make sense tonight, and it will not make sense when hundreds and thousands of us roll our trolleys around supermarkets to cool down the chickens.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and, I hope, to support my hon. Friends in introducing an element of reality, bearing in mind the financial situation we face. I pay tribute to the Chancellor and to the Treasury team, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), for the way in which he introduced the debate. I shall come to the Budget’s focus on the creative industries shortly.
The starting point of such a debate must be the state of the nation’s finances. We must consider the debt of the nation and the deficit of the nation, as well as the structural deficit and the interest on that debt. As we know, £120 million a day is paid from the public purse to service the nation’s debt. I have heard the groans that come from the Labour Benches when we repeat these figures time after time, but they are still true, and that is the context in which the Chancellor and the Treasury team have to work. It has been said before and needs to be said again that the financial position is unprecedented, and any tax cuts in any Budget have to be funded. It is simply not an option to continue to borrow money time after time as the previous Administration did.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman believes that his Government’s policy is working, why has the Chancellor borrowed a further £147 billion?
Alun Cairns
I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, bearing in mind the scale of the debt that was left, which is the reason for the borrowing. When this Government came into office, a quarter of all spending—a quarter of every teacher’s, doctor’s and nurse’s salary—was being borrowed. Any individual, business or family knows that one cannot continue to spend and spend when the income is not coming in.
There are also economic uncertainties on the European scale, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) underlined, as well as global uncertainties. I fail to understand the logic of Labour Members who have called for tax cuts without saying from where they should be funded. We cannot spend our way out of a debt crisis, which would risk the triple A rating that the Government have managed to maintain and increase the interest rates not only paid by individuals and home owners with mortgages, but that the Government have to pay on the scale of the debt that was inherited. In the next five years, almost £700 billion has to be rescheduled, so the risk to the triple A rating cannot be overstated given the cost that could be added to the nation’s inherited borrowing. Those are the parameters within which the Chancellor has had to work.
Let me turn to some of the specifics in the Budget. Initially, Labour Members focused on the reduction of the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, and one could ask why they have now changed tack to focus on the age-related allowance. Some might say that they missed it previously, or that they know about their record in that regard. Labour Members are the masters of freezing allowances. The personal allowance was frozen in 2000-01, in 2003-04 and in 2010-11, so the arguments they made last week about the age allowance being frozen would apply to taxation for all workers when the rates were frozen at those times.
Labour Members are showing rank inconsistency. I appreciate that it would be wrong of me to call them hypocritical—I would not be able to do that under the rules of this House—but people outside may well draw their own conclusions. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West did not mention the age-related allowance because when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the last Budget of the previous Administration, he froze the age-related allowance. All Labour Members’ criticisms of the Budget could equally be made against themselves and the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I will happily take an intervention if any Labour Member wants to make a point about the freezing of the age-related allowance at that time. I think the silence speaks for itself.
In the time remaining to me, I underline and welcome the pro-growth Budget, the pro-growth approach to the creative industries and the allowances that have been introduced. I only wish that there was more time to underline the strong message that has been sent out to the whole world: “Britain is open for business. Britain is a place to invest and to work, and you will be rewarded.”
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
This Budget will not deliver on growth and it will not deliver on fairness, and it does not surprise me that it has been met with such a degree of concern and resentment. It has demonstrated missed opportunities, misplaced priorities, and a distinct lack of imagination. Ultimately it may hinder, not help, the families and businesses right across Northern Ireland who are struggling at this difficult time.
Now is the time to stimulate growth in our economy, not the time to hand a £42,000 a year tax cut to millionaires through the 45p rate. Aside from that, my party has three primary concerns about the Budget—the refusal to act on fuel prices, the attack on pensioners’ incomes—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
With the prices of diesel and petrol in Northern Ireland at the highest ever level and rising even higher, as they are across the United Kingdom, does the hon. Lady feel that the Chancellor and the Government have missed an opportunity, for example with the VAT increase, to help those who are under pressure because of fuel prices?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. I agree with him and will come on to that.
The other area that concerns me is the proposal on regional rates of pay. All these measures will hurt low and middle income earners and do nothing to stimulate and grow our economy.
Rather than handing out a massive subsidy to the wealthiest in our society, the Chancellor should have focused on growing the real economy, starting with mitigation measures against record fuel prices. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) stated, the problem of high fuel prices is striking in Northern Ireland where, since the turn of the year, we have had the highest diesel prices in Europe and higher overall prices than in any comparable region in the UK or the south of Ireland. Duty prices must be lowered to mitigate the rising cost of imported fuel. Ultimately, while we rely on such a volatile imported commodity, we will always face such pressures. However, short-term measures are necessary to help those who are in need now. High fuel prices are hurting our people and are hurting our economy by restricting growth.
I will now turn to the so-called “granny tax”. The elderly should not be forced to pay for the systemic problems in our economy—problems that were in part brought about by the same high-salaried workers who have benefited from the Chancellor’s tax cut. The impact of this proposal will be widespread across Northern Ireland, with almost 100,000 people affected and many new pensioners potentially losing more than £200 a year. It represents a further blow to the elderly, who have been particularly affected by inflation, which has effectively wiped out years of savings and pushed up food prices, while high fuel costs have put a severe strain on the affordability of home heating.
Finally, I will address the issue of regional pay that has been put forward for consideration. The Government are saying that people can do the same job in the public sector, but that those who live in the devolved jurisdictions or the northern reaches of England will be paid less. That is a scandal. Public sector workers in what are already the most disadvantaged regions will earn less and those same disadvantaged regions will suffer the loss of spending power that follows. Things may be different in the world of big donations, but in the area of public sector pay for workers doing the same job, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, there should be no premier league. I put the Chancellor on notice that my party will oppose, both in this place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, regional pay proposals that would further impoverish Northern Ireland and other less well-off regions.
The Budget will not deliver the necessary growth in Northern Ireland and will leave those who are most vulnerable in the current economic conditions, namely the young, the unemployed and the elderly, even more vulnerable. Those people did not get us into this situation and the Budget provides no signal that the Chancellor will steer the economy out of it.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Budget and the coalition Government will ultimately be judged on how well we recover from the economic mess left to us by the last Labour Government, many of whose Ministers occupy senior positions in the shadow Cabinet. To quote the Prime Minister, the coalition will
“give our country the strong, stable and determined leadership that we need for the long term.”
That is something that I often argue about in this Chamber. There are many ways in which this Chamber divides. In essence, I am a passionate believer in the long-term view, as opposed to the short-term view. There is more to do and more that we can do, but the Budget continues the work that the Government have done in their first two years and shows that we are building the long-term foundations that the economy needs.
That was demonstrated by the World Economic Forum’s most recent competitiveness report, which returned Britain to the top 10. It cites the lack of access to finance as one of the top factors that discourages business. I will make two points about that. I am pleased to see the extension of the enterprise finance guarantee, which will ensure that we get finance for the small and medium-sized businesses that need it the most. Secondly, it is good to see the details of the business finance partnership, which involves co-operation between the public and private sectors in lending directly to mid-sized businesses.
The Budget gives our economy a strong and stable long-term future by addressing the factors that are contrary to growth and that are thus making Britain uncompetitive in an increasingly crowded global marketplace. By reducing the complexity of our tax code and the rates at which businesses are taxed, we are signalling that we are again in a position to build on what Britain does best: creating innovative products that are attractive to consumers on the world stage. The Chancellor has shown the leadership that we need for the long term by aiming to double exports to £l trillion by the end of the decade. We have demonstrated that we are not only rebalancing the economy from public sector growth to private sector growth, but rebalancing our trading position to one that is led by exports rather than imports.
The Government are expanding UK export finance and setting out new plans to help smaller firms in new markets. We are right to concentrate on the BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—because they account for more than 40% of the world’s consumers and because, in recent decades, rising incomes in those countries have created a growing aspirational middle class. It will not be an easy task to get British products into the homes of those people. A recent letter to the Financial Times illustrates the problems that we face in exporting British products to those developing and expanding markets:
“Last month we had an opportunity to export some of our UK-manufactured products as we were more competitive than a Chinese competitor, only to find that there was a 22 per cent import duty to add to our cost, taking away our advantage. Yet when Chinese goods are brought into the UK there is no duty to pay.”
We are right never to allow protectionist rhetoric to creep into our political system, but we must also continue to challenge protectionism abroad. We must continue to work with our trading partners to negotiate fairer treaties and, where necessary, submit complaints to the World Trade Organisation and similar institutions.
By pushing for the abolition of import duties and the liberation of foreign markets, we are again building the foundations of an export-led recovery, with job creation, sustainable investment and economic growth. It is right that the Budget focuses not just on short-term gains through artificial stimuli, but on proper policy planning to assess the barriers to growth and tackle them head-on.
Many Members have said that there are winners and losers from the Budget. They are right. The winners are common sense, long-termism and opportunity. The losers are those who try to make political capital and who always take the short-term view.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell).
Over the past few days, I have been speaking to people in my constituency about the Budget, gauging their opinion and gathering their views. Everybody I spoke to was clear that, once again, the Tories have shown their true colours with a classic Tory Budget under which millions will pay more so that millionaires can pay less. That is evidenced by the facts, as we have heard throughout this debate, with 14,000 millionaires receiving a tax cut worth more than £40,000 a year, while 4.4 million pensioners lose an average of £83 a year.
It is a classic Tory Budget, but with a difference—it was possible only thanks to the support of the Liberal Democrats. Those same Lib Dems publicly opposed any change to the 50p rate of income tax until just a few weeks ago; those same Lib Dems, before the last general election, repeatedly stated their opposition to immediate public spending cuts, only to support a Budget reduction of more than £6 billion within two weeks of forming the coalition; and, lest we forget, those same Lib Dems promised not to raise VAT and then raised it. The Opposition will not forget the sycophantic sight of Lib Dem Members waving their Order Papers in glee last Wednesday at a George Osborne Budget—yes, a George Osborne Budget. I am sure the country will not forget that sickening display at the local elections in six weeks’ time. We can safely say that any lingering uncertainties about the Liberal Democrats’ wholesale abandonment of their progressive roots have finally been laid to rest by this Budget. British Liberal Democracy RIP.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Liberal Democrat policy of increasing the personal tax allowance to £10,000 by 2015, which was in our manifesto, is not only being delivered but being delivered quicker than that? It will take 2 million of the poorest people out of paying tax altogether.
Graeme Morrice
I have been told that I am not getting an extra minute, so I will just press on with my speech.
I want to say a few words about the 50p tax rate and about the granny tax, which has angered many people in my constituency, before finishing with the Government’s failure on jobs and growth.
The 50p rate raised about £1 billion in its first year, and its continuation could have been used to cut fuel duty, about which many of my constituents have written to me, to reverse the Government’s damaging cuts to tax credits or to help reduce the deficit. Instead, the Chancellor has chosen to give the richest 1% of earners a huge payout. People on middle and low incomes are already being squeezed by rising fuel, energy and food prices, and now their tax credits and child benefit are being cut. Yet again, the Government have made the wrong choice and proved how totally out of touch they are.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Yes, but somebody else will end up losing it.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he feel, as I and many people outside the House do, that as the threshold for a single person will be approximately £50,000, which will affect their tax credit, but for two people earning £40,000 each there will be no cut to their—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. If you want to put your name on the speaking list, do so by all means, but interventions have to be short.
Graeme Morrice
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The aspect of the Budget that has undoubtedly caused the most anger among my constituents is the decision to freeze the personal allowance of pensioners, which will help subsidise the Chancellor’s bumper tax cut for the rich. Buried in the Budget’s small print, the Government tried to make out that that was a tidying-up exercise, but nobody is fooled by that. The public are clear that it is actually a £3 billion tax raid on pensioners. No wonder it was the only aspect of the Budget that was not leaked in advance. In Scotland, there is a song that goes:
“Yi canny shove yer grannie aff a bus”—
the reason being, the song explains, that “she’s yer mammy’s mammy”. It seems to me that the Tories are quite happy to forgo a compassionate approach to our collective grandparents by shoving them all off the nation’s bus.
How will the Chancellor’s tough talk about cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, which he says is morally repugnant, be put into action if the resources provided to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continue to be cut, including 240 processing jobs at Pentland House in my constituency?
Finally, on growth and jobs, it has become increasingly clear that the Government are failing to deliver for business and drive forward growth. The reality simply has not matched up to the rhetoric, with record unemployment and flatlining growth. When even the Business Secretary describes Government initiatives to drive forward growth in key technologies as “rather piecemeal”, we know that they are in deep trouble.
My constituency has an excellent track record of attracting and sustaining innovative high-tech employers, but I know from speaking to some of those companies that they are frustrated by the lack of Government support and strategy. Many of them are doing well overseas and would like to expand and recruit new employees, but the toxic mix of a UK Government who are failing to create a supportive environment for sustained growth and a Scottish Government stoking up economic uncertainty with their obsession with breaking up the UK is making many firms think twice. Labour’s five-point plan for growth offers an alternative vision, and if the Government followed our advice and implemented a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, we would begin to see some progress in tackling the scourge of youth unemployment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am going to drop the time limit to four minutes, because we have 30 speakers to get in. If some Members wish to withdraw I will leave it at five minutes, but that does not seem to be the case. I am trying to be fair by everybody, and I say to Members who keep intervening that trying to be fair to each other would be very helpful.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This is a Budget that rewards work from a Government who are making work pay, and I want to express on behalf of the small businesses in Malvern and the surrounding cyber valley in my constituency the enthusiasm that exists for taking advantage of the opportunities for growth and the lower taxation rates for small businesses.
Since today’s debate is the technology debate, I point out that in my constituency we have a growing cyber sector. There is an enormous amount of business growth, and it is estimated that 500,000 jobs will be created in the sector over the next decade. Those jobs are great for young people. There is enormous demand among firms in my constituency for teenagers who may have spent a lot of time in their bedrooms on their computers and have become ethical hackers. People in my constituency with those skills are snapped up by local businesses. Perhaps that is why the number of unfilled jobcentre vacancies in West Worcestershire rose by 70% last month, which shows that there are a lot of businesses with the confidence to take on an additional employee.
As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I wish to make a point about the Government’s introduction of universal credit. We have talked a lot in these debates about the top rate of tax, but let us think about the rate that those on the lowest incomes had to pay for 13 years under Labour. Page 95 of the Red Book shows that the marginal deduction rate for a lone parent with one child working more than 10 hours was 100%. We are changing such disincentives to work by moving to universal credit, which will be very powerful in helping those on the lowest incomes into work and out of poverty.
I want to make the rather controversial statement that despite the bad press on behalf of pensioners on Thursdays, this Government have done more to help pensioners and future pensioners than any other Government in history that I can remember. First, there is the triple lock on the state pension, which will increase pensions every year by the higher of inflation, 2.5% or earnings. That is worth an enormous amount to today’s pensioners—no more 75p increases.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Did my hon. Friend, like me, hear the shadow Chancellor appearing on the Vine show during the week? The first person who came on after he had spoken was a pensioner, who denounced him and his measures.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend will also have heard in the Budget that we are abolishing the means test, which has been such a disincentive to saving for low-income pensioners, and bringing in a powerful simplification of the state pension. That will be worth much to future pensioners.
The Government are also introducing auto-enrolment, which will bring 5 million additional savers into the occupational pensions market. That is a most important step to strengthen the pensions system, and it has cross-party support.
Most important was what the Budget did not do. It did not make further changes to pension taxation and regulation, such as the amount that people can defer from their salaries to take as future retirement income. That is an important point for the overall stability of the system. Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that under the previous Government it was possible to put £250,000 into your pension fund? That was absolutely extraordinary, and I welcome the fact that this Government have lowered that limit substantially so that pensions provide fewer tax reduction opportunities for those on the highest incomes.
Finally, the Government have taken some difficult decisions on overall pensions policy and made some sensible changes that will stabilise the pensions system and make it more sustainable for the future. This is a Budget that rewards work and is good for business, and I urge all hon. Members to walk through the Lobby this evening to support it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is clear from today’s contributions that the Budget impacts in very different ways in different parts of the country. Members in the south, who mainly represent the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, tell us about the benefits of the Budget, but those benefits are few and far between in my neck of the woods.
On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, who last week hit the nail on the head, when, in response to the Chancellor’s Budget statement, he said, “Same old Tories”. He was absolutely right, and that point has been magnified by what we have seen this weekend. It is absolutely the same old Tories. But now there is an added dimension. It is the same old Tories but aided and abetted by their accomplices, their partners in crime, the Liberal Democrats.
In the Chancellor’s millionaires’ Budget, it is clear who will suffer the most—the people of the north, the poorest, and those looking for work. With few jobs available, it will be pensioners, families, the hard-working, the squeezed middle and the working poor who will suffer the most. It was notable that the Chancellor consigned to the dustbin of history the phrase, “We’re all in this together.” He is not saying it any more. Owing to the imbalance in the Budget, it is clear that most of us are in this together, but that the few at the top of society will be exempt from it all.
The regional disparity is all too plain to see. In the three south-east regions— London, the south-east and the eastern region—nearly 195,000 people will benefit from the cut in the top rate of tax. In the north-east, that figure is 5,000, and in Wales, it is 4,000. That is a massive disparity.
The people of the north-east will be forgiven for thinking that the Government have developed exactly the same approach as William the Conqueror—a 21st-century scorched-earth, slash-and-burn policy for the north. In just two years, they have abolished our Minister for the north, our local authorities have taken massively disproportionate cuts and the regional development agency has been abolished. My own authority of Gateshead has lost 1,500 jobs, and 67,000 public sector jobs have gone in my region while only 5,000 new jobs have come in the private sector.
We are clearly not in this together. There is no plan, no investment, not a sausage—not even a Greggs sausage roll. The Government’s plan to add VAT to warmed-up pasties could jeopardise Greggs breakfast club scheme for 65 primary schools in my region, four of which are in my constituency—not to mention knocking £35 million off Greggs’ share value last week. It is obvious that we are not all in this together.
Let us consider regional pay. We do not have a credible policy for growth, and now the Government are offering us regional pay.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be people such as police officers, nurses, and fire and other emergency staff who will be most affected by this attack on them in the form of the introduction of regional pay?
Ian Mearns
I could not agree more, and of course there will also be a depressing effect in the private sector. Last weekend, private sector bosses in the north-east came out clearly against regional pay.
If we are to look at regional pay, can we also look at regionalised utility bills for gas, electricity, telephone, water and vehicle fuel—and, while we are at it, council tax and grocery bills? If the Chancellor or the Prime Minister fancy paying £250,000—shall we say?—to have dinner with the chief executives of Asda, Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsbury’s, perhaps they could ask them to reduce the cost of grocery bills in the regions. Or they could ask the east coast main line to implement regional level funding for fares for people travelling up and down the country to get to work from far-flung fields. And why not go the whole hog and establish regional Parliaments and re-establish our RDA? Let us do things on a regional basis properly and fundamentally, but I really do not think that will happen. The people of the north-east will never forgive the coalition. In particular, they will never forgive the Liberal Democrats for their hand in it. Quite frankly, the Budget is shocking.
There is one last thing. As One North East, our RDA, winds up and prepares to close its doors for the very last time, may I formally, in the House, record the thanks of the people of the north-east for the work of our RDA and, in particular, Alan Clark, the chief executive, Paul Callaghan, the chairman, and his predecessor, Margaret Fay? They did a great job for the north-east.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
This is a Budget for long-term growth set out in extremely difficult economic conditions. The lowering of the corporation tax main rate to 24% and of the small profits rate to 20% will give us one the lowest rates of corporation tax in the OECD. Combined with the reduction in the top rate of income tax to 45p, that presents the UK as a lower tax country that rewards enterprise and will attract the sort of investment we saw just last week from Nissan and GlaxoSmithKline.
There has been much talk recently of the need for an industrial strategy. Lord Heseltine wrote in The Times today on this subject. Industrial strategy got a bad name in Britain because of the damage that such policies wreaked in the ’60s and ’70s, but the world is a different place now, and I believe that the risks of getting industrial policy wrong are much reduced. The quality and extent of real-time information on the performance and prospects of different sectors of the economy is far superior to what it was. Multinational companies have replaced nationalised industries. As large employers, they are far more mobile, and the UK is now in competition, for export markets and inward investment, with many more countries falling over themselves to be open for business. The status of Singapore, with its state-of-the-art education system and infrastructure built around the needs of global companies, such as GSK, has shown that it is capable of becoming a science hub for the whole of south-east Asia in less than 20 years. That is an example of what the UK is up against.
I was delighted, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced new finance packages in the Budget to promote trade and exports. Until recently, UK Export Finance, formerly the Export Credits Guarantee Department, was focused on larger companies, mostly in the defence and aerospace sectors. That changed with last year’s relaunch, and the organisation, now known as UK Export Finance, has a brief to support smaller companies. Export insurance policy is being widened to cover all products and services, including contract bond support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is vital that we now promote awareness of these new services among medium-sized companies in our constituencies.
We are making huge progress in this regard. The west midlands saw the largest increase in the number of exporters in the final quarter of 2011 compared with a year earlier. That followed a number of months in which the west midlands had experienced decreases in the number of exports. The improvement is most welcome. It is excellent that so many local firms are looking to sell to new markets outside the EU. Some 55% of west midlands exports are now going to non-EU countries. That must extend beyond the BRICs, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), to the next 11 countries, such as Bangladesh and Nigeria, which have huge growth rates. I am delighted that many companies in the west midlands and the black country are taking advantage of those opportunities.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The most significant thing about last week’s Budget is that it did not move the dial on economic growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that and said that it has not revised its expectations for growth or employment. On the basic problem facing the country—the need for jobs and growth—the Budget changes precisely nothing. If there was an argument within the Government about a plan for growth, it has been lost. Indeed, the pre-Budget discussion was not about jobs and growth but about which party in the coalition could claim credit for which tax rate they felt related to their own manifesto.
The Treasury Committee recently took evidence from the permanent secretary to the Treasury. He confirmed that regional policy work in the Treasury has been wound up. In fact, the only regional policy the Government have left is to cut public sector pay in the regions. The permanent secretary spoke of “intrinsic scepticism” about policies to drive growth beyond the fiscal measures that we know about. The Budget is the evidence that that scepticism has won through. The Government have hung their flag firmly on deficit reduction alone, abandoning the effort for a convincing plan for growth and jobs alongside it. The Government are persisting with a hit on manufacturing companies, through cuts in investment allowances, to pay for their corporation tax cut. It is not so much the “march of makers” as the levy on the makers to pay for the non-makers. Rhetoric and policy are pulling in two entirely different directions. It is not enough to say that we want to be open for business; the Government have to play their role in helping business to grow and succeed.
If the Budget changed nothing economically, it certainly sent strong political signals. At its heart is a tax cut for those earning over £150,000 a year, paid for by two groups: pensioners, through the freeze in the personal allowance, and also—this has been under-commented on—middle-income earners who are being dragged into the 40% tax bracket, and there are 300,000 of them. Reference has been made to the allowances being frozen before, but Budgets have to be taken in the round. The central message of this Budget is that pensioners and middle-income earners will now pay for a tax cut for people earning far more than them—four or five times more. That is what the Government have signalled politically in the Budget.
Let us think a little about the low-paid. The Liberal Democrats have claimed great credit for the increase in the personal allowance. It is true that it will be of help to some of the low-paid, but there is something else, which we should not forget. There are 300 families in my constituency, and hundreds more in constituencies represented in this House, who will be plunged into poverty by cuts to tax credits, of up to £3,800 a year, unless they can find more hours of work. The money that could have ameliorated that change has gone to a tax cut for people earning more than £150,000.
It is claimed that the Budget is fiscally neutral overall. However, although we know what the measures in it cost, we do not know what they will raise. In the end, the real picture might not be a fiscally neutral Budget, but a gross tax give-away to the richest in the country. That shows the political colours of the Government more than anything else.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
For me, the most significant figures in the Budget are in tables D.3 and D.4 in the Red Book, which set out receipts and expenditure over the next five years. Total tax receipts are increasing by £153 billion, from £550 billion to £703 billion. At the same time, cash expenditure will rise from £696 billion to £756 billion—a rise of £60 billion. However, of that increase, £17 billion alone will be down to the increase in debt interest. The cost of public pensions is rising by £7 billion, to £15.4 billion, net of contributions, while net expenditure on social security and the state pension will rise by £25 billion. In broad terms, over the next five years we have to raise an extra £150 billion a year in taxes to eliminate the deficit and pay for the increases in interest, social security, pensions and, of course, health.
The only way to raise such additional revenue—which will be an extremely difficult task—and tackle the curse of unemployment is by being completely open for business. The Budget, as this week’s cover of The Economist says, gives that clear sign. We have a reduction in the corporation tax rate, the patent box, above-the-line research and development tax credit reliefs for the creative sector, deregulation and, indeed, better regulation. Is that enough? No, it is not enough. The loan guarantee fund will also be extremely important, but, again, we will have to watch that carefully—not every six months in statements, but every month—to find out whether our businesses are getting the credit they will need for growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned exports, which are vital. The improvement in the export credit guarantee scheme is important, but it is still a fraction of the help that the Germans give their exporters. There need not be a cost to the Treasury; rather, the money can be recouped through the premiums on the scheme.
I have a number of brief suggestions to make in the last couple of minutes available to me. First, there has been concern about the effect of the reliefs on charities. At present, the tax relief fund for the excess above the standard rate is returned to the taxpayer—in the form of a tax refund—who can then keep it. It should surely be possible to require that this tax refund be paid to a charity; indeed, if it were paid in that way, it could be taken outside the suggested cap. As for the age-related allowance, it is important that fair notice be given—as it is with anything to do with retirement, whether changing the retirement age or changing tax arrangements. Although I understand the argument for bringing tax allowances into line over a period, the Government might consider letting personal allowances catch up with the age-related allowance. The additional cost of doing so could be paid for—I believe we must always pay for the things we suggest—by further restrictions on tax relief for higher rate pension contributions.
That brings me to a further suggestion. In the summary of Government receipts, income tax receipts are shown as net of everything except tax credits, yet the reliefs given on income tax are, in effect, a major item of expenditure. We should be explicit in the Government accounts about the cost of such reliefs—whether they are against pension or charitable contributions, or are enterprise reliefs—and not just net them off against income tax.
Finally, I have a couple of caveats. The first is about regional pay, which I suggest should be considered carefully. I am sceptical about its value, but I am willing to listen to the arguments. However, I am extremely sceptical about the value of relaxing Sunday trading rules during the Olympics, and I am firmly opposed to any permanent relaxation. This is not simply a question of keeping Sunday special as a time for families, friends or worship, although I for one consider that to be important; it is also about protecting the interests of those who work in the retail trade. However, in general, I welcome what this Government are doing to make Britain open for business.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who made some valid points.
The focus of last week’s Budget should have been on encouraging business and consumer confidence, because the failure of this Government is above all the failure to facilitate demand in our economy. On the contrary, their policy has led to a lack of demand in the following ways and policy areas. The first has been by reducing public expenditure on capital projects, which is especially telling in those parts of the UK that depend significantly on the public sector rather than the private sector for investment. The effect is especially evident in the construction industry, which is still in dire straits because of the lack of demand from either the public sector or the private sector.
In addition—we must not forget this—this Government, of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, have increased taxes on consumer spending by increasing VAT, which has reduced the income going to local businesses. When people spend money, that difference between 17.5% and 20% is taken out of the local economy. It does not go into local businesses; it goes straight to the Exchequer. Again, that is money being taken out of the economy. The Government are also reducing employee confidence, because they repeatedly talk about reducing jobs in the public sector, which diminishes demand—for example, by affecting the decision to move house, which has an impact on the housing economy and developments in the construction sector.
In all those ways, the Government are cutting demand at the very time we need demand in the economy to facilitate work for our young people. Indeed, we hear a roaring silence from the Government about our young people, who were barely mentioned in the Budget. The problem is that we have seen all this before. In the 1980s, when I was politically forged, I saw all that happening in the north-east, where I was brought up. For example, we saw 3 million unemployed, twice. [Interruption.] I am sorry that those on the Government Front Bench find that amusing, but that is what happened. A generation claiming benefits are still suffering the consequences of the Tory Government of the ’80s, and now we are seeing it again. That is why I feel passionate and angry about what this Government are doing—because what those policies did was drive people on to the dole, which at that time was paid for by two things: privatisations and North sea oil. We remember Harold Macmillan saying that the family silver cannot be sold off twice, and privatisation means it has now been sold. North sea oil returns are diminishing, so the Government are simply running out of money because they are not facilitating growth in the economy. One of the major reasons for that is that people and businesses cannot borrow money.
The root cause of this difficulty is the incredible centralisation in the banking sector, to which I referred earlier, which prevents businesses across the country from accessing demand. Again, we go back to the 1980s. Then we saw the demutualisation of great institutions such as the Northern Rock building society. It was based in the north-east where I was brought up, but it ended up a horrific behemoth in the mid-west of America, losing money and going out of business as a result of the American sub-prime mortgage crisis. The result is that a local organisation that had provided homes and jobs for local people was there no more. We need to go back much further than the last Labour Government to understand why all this happened. It happened because of what happened in the 1980s, as I have explained. We need a radical change of course.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I refer the House to my interest in Cobden Partners.
This is a Budget of fiscal conservatism and monetary activism. It is a Budget, above all, of economic expectations, setting out to people that we will reward work, support families, help those looking for work, back business and back aspiration. In the short time available to me, I would like to speak directly to the point of monetary activism, which is one of the Budget’s key pillars. I hope the Government will not take it as a criticism, because the Chancellor has emphasised that the Bank of England is independent and, of course, its policies are symptomatic of those followed all around the world.
Over the past 13 years under new Labour, the money supply expanded from about £700 billion in 1997 to £2.2 trillion in 2010. That was through a massive expansion of bank balance sheets—a huge amount of monetary activism led by central banks, with the Bank of England keeping interest rates too low for too long. That goes to the heart of points that Opposition Members have made. It has redistributed wealth towards the south-east and the first recipients of new money. I would say that it is at the heart of our difficulties. The scatter chart in the Red Book shows how the balance between our fiscal position and the bank balance sheet position is interlinked, and has placed us as an outlier.
When many people look at monetary activism, and quantitative easing in particular, they get worried about inflation—and why not? It would, however, be hysterical to worry about hyperinflation at this stage, when the asset purchase facility is at £325 billion—just one seventh of the money supply. I would nevertheless like to sketch out something that troubles me in my darker moments.
Right now, there is not a problem, but a housing bubble became a banking crisis—at least not a problem of inflation—which became a sovereign debt crisis, which has now been turned into an asset bubble in the bond market. The Bank of England has deliberately inflated bond prices in order to suppress long-term interest rates—interest rates that our constituents cannot do without because they are so indebted. The problem is that, as we know, all bubbles burst; the questions are when and what might burst the bond bubble. Inflation expectations might do it. If we were to look at M4 and M4ex from the Bank of England, we would see that there is no reason to doubt its inflation forecast. If we look at my preferred measure of the money supply, however, which is Kaleidic Economics MA, we can see that from July last year, year on year money supply growth was minus 2%; today, money supply is growing by that measure at plus 6%. We should thus be very cautious indeed about the Bank’s forecasts.
If the bond market bubble bursts, there will be pressure on the Bank of England to continue to prop it up. That will lead to further quantitative easing and create an expectation of rising interest rates. That could cause a flight from the bond market into cash; and it could cause the public, as they see QE continuing, to lose faith in cash itself, which could lead them to start spending.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give us an idea of when he thinks this bubble might burst—in the near or the distant future?
Steve Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as this is a critical problem. It is a problem of expectations; it about the human mind, which is extremely difficult to predict.
I was saying that, as we go through, we could find that people lose faith in cash. If they do that, they will spend it, and move into real value. Keynesians could end up celebrating an apparent boom, but actually one that is a crack-up of the currency. I sketch these events not to frighten, but to set out a perspective for the House of which we should be aware when we know that the central banks and the Bank of England have deliberately inflated this bond market bubble.
We could end up facing a choice: if prices and wages are accelerating, but less quickly than the money supply, the Bank of England will have to choose whether to supply more money or whether to abandon that monetary inflation and reveal the underlying havoc created by decades of inflationary money. Perhaps new money, instead of real resources, can be used to paper over the cracks. Perhaps expectations can be managed to avoid the bubble bursting. If I were to quote with just a little adaptation something that Hayek wrote in 1932, I would say: “We must not forget that for the last 86 or 88 years, monetary policy all over the world has followed the advice of the monetary activists. It is high time that their influence, which has already done harm enough, should be overthrown.”
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Last Wednesday, the Chancellor began his Budget statement by saying:
“This Budget supports working families and helps those looking for work. It unashamedly backs business, and it is on the side of aspiration—of those who want to do better for themselves and for their families.” —[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 793.]
That was a bold statement to make, and, unfortunately, not one borne out by the rest of his speech. As the Chancellor went on, I was thinking of my constituents—those working, the unemployed, families, pensioners, the disabled, young people and those in business—all of whom stood to lose or gain by the Chancellor’s Budget and all of whom had the same aspirations to do better, not just for themselves and their families but for their communities, too.
It was bad news from the start. The Chancellor’s warning of further cuts in welfare of up to £10 billion by 2016 simply means a further attack on some of my most vulnerable constituents, who through no fault of their own have to depend on welfare benefits. For most of them, there is no way out of their current situation, so this means that they will have to face further hardships.
The Chancellor’s proposals for the future of those reaching retirement and for those who have already reached it were no better. He might be proud to announce the largest ever increase in the basic state pension, but that brings little joy to the pensioners in North Tyneside who, because of massive cuts in support to local government finance, will see among other things their rents go up by 9%. For those living in sheltered accommodation, that all but wipes out the pension increase. The Chancellor’s inference that the age-related allowances need to be simplified as pensioners do not understand them is an insult to all older people, and a poor excuse for taking away this allowance. The move has, quite rightly, provoked a public outcry, especially when compared with the new lower level of top-rate tax, which will see the richest l4,000 people benefit by up to £40,000.
There was little in the Budget for the 1 million young people currently unemployed, unless they have the confidence to start up their own business. The news last week that the minimum wage for young people is to be frozen and that the maximum rate is to rise by only 11% shows this Government’s contempt for that safeguard for hard-working people, which was one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government.
The Chancellor’s announcement that local pay agreements should be introduced for the public sector is a further attack on hard-working people in the north-east. Regional pay will create a two-tier economy between the south-east and the rest of the country. As women make up half the work force in the public sector, they will be disproportionately affected by this move. Since the system was introduced in the Ministry of Justice, it has created inequality and tensions, and it has needed to be reformed. This issue could spark a whole debate in its own right. The fact that an area such as the north-east with more than 300,000 public sector workers would lose £78 million a year if there were a reduction of just 1% in public sector earnings surely demonstrates that such a move would be unfair and would have disastrous and far-reaching problems for the economy—and especially for the position of women in it.
The media have seized on not only the granny tax but the pasty tax, which, despite its flippant title, will have serious economic consequences for bakers throughout the country. I am pleased that the Minister is to meet me and representatives from Greggs. Let us hope that that is a move in the right direction.
I have presented a very dim view of the Budget, but it will have very dim consequences for the people of the north-east.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I believe that this Budget will support the economy of the black country, part of which I represent, and, in particular, the skilled manufacturing and high-tech industries on which so many of my constituents depend for their jobs. I am especially pleased about the Chancellor’s proposals for an above-the-line tax credit for research and development, about which I wrote to him at the end of last year.
We want to create a high-skill economy. Research and development is a crucial area of activity in my constituency, and at local centres of excellence such as the nearby Aston and Wolverhampton science parks. It is a perverse system that ensures that only those who are already in profit can benefit from the relief for R and D. Switching to an above-the-line tax credit in the form of a payable tax credit for large companies, irrespective of their corporation tax position, is critical to the safeguarding of the R and D that we have locally, and to attracting inward investment in R and D.
There was also good news for the large number of my constituents who work in Birmingham. Many local businesses supporting thousands of local jobs will applaud the £10 million that is to be invested in turning Birmingham into a super-connected city with ultra-fast broadband connections and a high-speed wi-fi service. The announcement came the day after BT’s announcement that it would upgrade the exchange at Cradley Heath in my constituency to support fibre broadband, and I know how much that will benefit local technology firms in particular. I hope that, having announced that funding for super-connected cities, the Chancellor will consider extending the next phase of the scheme further to include city regions such as the black country, so that businesses and residents can gain the full economic and social benefits of ultra-fast internet connections.
The Chancellor’s announcement of £150 million of tax increment financing to help local authorities to promote development has the potential to make a massive difference to our local economies. Having been born in Nottingham, gone to university in Birmingham and run my own businesses, I understand the attraction of focusing on the regeneration of our major cities. However, I ask the Chancellor to ensure that the finance that he announced is available to all local authorities, as areas such as the southern black country desperately need access to such funds if they are to transform the local economy and create the jobs that our communities need.
One of the local authorities covering my constituency has, to an extent, pre-empted the Chancellor’s announcement. Two weeks ago, the leadership of Conservative-run Dudley council agreed to pursue Dudley’s very own council-led local enterprise zone, centred on the Waterfront and Harts Hill areas in Brierley Hill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly). The council hopes that the project will create up to 10,000 jobs—particularly high-tech and high-value jobs—and will attract a number of major companies.
It was initiatives of exactly that sort that the Chancellor had in mind when he made his announcement on Wednesday. I hope that he, and Ministers in the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government, will do all they can to make it easier for local authorities to use mechanisms such as tax increment financing to stimulate growth and development in our towns.
As the BVCA said last week, the measures announced in the Budget
“should make for a more entrepreneurial economy and for a stronger society.”
Those thoughts will be echoed by the many businesses in Halesowen and Rowley Regis that will be assisted, and by the even greater number of people who will benefit from the new jobs that those businesses will help to create.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Given the shortage of time and the fact that some of my colleagues wish to contribute, I will confine my remarks to my constituency interests.
It was good to hear in Budget week that an outsourcing company that had shed 170 Barclaycard staff on Teesside last year would be taking on 580 new workers, and would be recruiting both at Fountain Court in Middlesbrough and at the bank’s contact centre in nearby Thornaby.
The Chancellor mentioned local enterprise partnerships in his speech. That theme has been taken up throughout the Budget debate, notably by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and tonight by my hon. Friends the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), and for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell).
We in the north-east regret the passing of the regional development agency. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) made a powerful speech on the subject, with which I fully associate myself. However, it has been said of Michelangelo “Had he worked with clay and not marble, who would remember him?” We must work with what we have, and we in the Tees valley must work with our local enterprise partnership and regional growth fund. Tees Valley Unlimited has worked with business to deliver projects that have created and safeguarded more than 1,800 jobs, securing private investment of £138 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke of difficulties in the distribution of the regional growth fund, but Tees Valley Unlimited secured more than £68 million for Tees valley companies in rounds 1 and 2 of the fund, and will be hosting a series of business engagement events to promote the fund locally and support company applications. The first will take place in Middlesbrough next month.
In his speech, the Chancellor declared that the country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the south-east of England. Those in my area are concerned about the future of Durham Tees Valley airport. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) tell the House that he had arranged a meeting between the Minister responsible for aviation—the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)—and all Tees valley Members of Parliament to discuss how the future of the airport could be assured.
In his speech last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out that the Chancellor was favouring Mayfair over Middlesbrough. It was nice to be mentioned in dispatches, but I can only buttress my hon. Friend’s point by saying that the Budget should have focused more on growth, long-term business support, and a modern industrial partnership between business and industry.
This Budget does not cast a broad light across the economy; it casts a deeper shadow. In a year’s time, all the confidence that is emanating from the other side of the House will be seen to have been misplaced, and we will suffer accordingly.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
My constituents welcome many measures in the Budget, particularly the raising of the personal allowance. The average wage in my city is less than the benefit cap, and it is the very people who were clobbered by Labour’s abolition of the 10p rate who will benefit most from that measure. The news of £100 million for service accommodation improvements and other welfare measures for armed forces personnel in theatre is especially welcome in the home of the Royal Navy. Today, however—with my hat as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people firmly on—I want to focus on the Budget measures that relate specifically to that demographic.
This April, pensioners will receive the largest ever cash increase in the basic state pension, and the complex means-testing system will be reformed to create a new single-tier system set above the means test for future pensioners. That is great news. Many of us have campaigned for such a reform for a long time. I was a critic of pension credit because of the massive “under-take-up” caused by its obscurity and bureaucracy, as a result of which thousands of pensioners in my city are living in poverty. It is better to have a bigger state pension for all.
The second measure that I welcomed was the move towards a simple single-person allowance regardless of age. Half of those pensioners pay no tax, and a high proportion of those who do, do not make use of this allowance. In that respect, the situation is like that of the flawed pension credit. This move will ultimately mean 150,000 pensioners no longer have to fill in self-assessment forms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies argued that this was reasonable and that pensioners had been protected from benefits cuts and tax increases and had lost considerably less than any other demographic group. I accept that.
What I have found harder to swallow is the inter-generational comparisons drawn in the media. We cannot expect younger generations to bear the burden of the economic crisis into which Labour spent us. That burden has to be shared, of course, but the notion that pensioners’ incomes are excessive because they exceed those of younger workers is bizarre. Our attitude towards pensioners is critical, not just in how we deal with the current crisis, but in how we inspire younger generations to make provision for their older age. I think we are also sometimes in danger of missing the opportunities that a greater focus on the aspirations of older people could bring. Historically, the Treasury and many other Departments have been guilty of that.
Local authorities, too, have not protected budgets for older people. They have not been focused on unmet need, and they have not been smart about advising people to pre-empt the exhaustion of older people’s assets by helping them to plan for the costs of care.
It is not just in these more obvious areas that older people are disadvantaged, however. Let us consider, for example, the everyday frustrations of ordinary businesses applying for credit in the current straitened times, and then imagine how much more difficult it is for a grey entrepreneur with a brilliant idea for a second career, but who encounters ageism from the local bank manager. Meeting older people’s unmet needs and aspirations will not just benefit today’s senior citizens: it will make a contribution to getting UK plc back on its feet, lessen the burden on the public purse, and lighten the load for younger generations.
So how can we ensure that the Treasury is firmly focused on these opportunities? Earlier this Session, I helped the Grey Pride campaign deliver a petition with 140,000 signatures to Downing street. It asked for a Minister for older people. In my opinion, that should be not another name on the Government payroll, but a new responsibility allocated to a Minister already enjoying the view both from the Treasury and the Cabinet table. I appreciate that the Chancellor has quite enough to do clearing up after his predecessor but one, so I think that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should assume this additional role. He might relish the savings for the national health service from a reduction in hospital admissions, the increase in capital mobility through targeted equity release schemes, and the substantial additional tax receipts from successful older workers.
We are used to hearing about sending for the men in grey suits, but now is the time for us all to listen more closely to the people with grey, or greying, hair, and there is a delicious irony in the fact that the current Chief Secretary is both the youngest Cabinet Minister and certainly the least grey-haired. I shall propose this for debate at the next Backbench Business Committee meeting.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It may surprise Members to learn that I shall begin by saying something positive about the Budget. I welcome its announcement of a range of measures—such as improving gift aid—that are designed to encourage more people to give to charities, including those working in the arts. However, I agree with Mark Pemberton, chief executive of the Association of British Orchestras, who has urged that any increase in private donations is not used to replace sustained local and national public investment, especially now that tax reliefs have been capped. At a time when public funding is being slashed, local projects—such as Reeltime, a community music project in my constituency—are in a very vulnerable position. The Westminster Government, the devolved Assemblies and local councils must protect and sustain these valuable projects, not view them as easy targets.
That was the good news. Unfortunately, the rest of the Budget was bad news. Last week’s Budget—and, indeed, the plentiful newspaper reports that preceded it—laid out a plan that will burden the many, not the few. On Friday, I was joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) during a visit to New Wellwynd church’s lunch club in Airdrie. Many of the people there were senior citizens, and it soon became clear just how angry they were about the Government’s new granny tax. Some 370,000 pensioners in Scotland will be affected by the personal allowance change, while a mere 16,000 will benefit from the removal of the 50p top rate of tax.
Perhaps my constituents would understand such measures if they could see that the Government’s “austerity plan” was actually working. However, it is delivering nothing but pain for hard-working families and vulnerable people across the UK. It is certainly not delivering growth, and the Chancellor is now being forced to borrow £150 billion more than he had planned in his spending review. He might need to arrange a few more dinner parties.
Most importantly, the Government’s plan is not delivering jobs. Young people are facing employment prospects that are as bleak as in the darkest days of Thatcher’s “price worth paying” economic policy. More than 1 million of them are now out of work. Long-term youth unemployment has more than doubled in my constituency in the last year.
It is therefore left to the Labour party to fight for jobs. Our national five-point plan includes a tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, and a tax break for small and medium-sized businesses. That is exactly where our focus should be: on keeping Britain working. Labour’s real jobs guarantee would help 115 young people in my constituency. Locally, it is our Labour council that is the last line of defence against the cuts. North Lanarkshire council has an action plan, which will get 5,000 people back into work over the next three years, and it is already helping local SMEs. This is the action Labour takes when facing a jobs crisis.
This Government, however, take a different path. They take one that is not fair on women, who are disproportionately affected by this Budget; not fair on young people, many of whom are being left to linger without education, employment or training; not fair on families, who are facing a reduction in child benefit and tax credits at a time when the cost of living is spiralling out of control; and not fair on pensioners, who have now been saddled with additional taxation. So who is it fair on? The answer is the Chancellor’s chums and the Prime Minister’s pals—their dining buddies. This Budget, sadly, contained the same old damaging policies from the same old Tories, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Like so many in the country, I had hoped for a Budget that would put jobs and growth first. Instead, again, we have been left with one that puts the few above the many, and the millionaires above the millions, and that does nothing for my constituents—those looking for work and those in work whose living standards are being squeezed and, in some cases, slashed. More than 4,000 people are out of work in West Dunbartonshire and, only last week, we had the shock of being named the most difficult local authority area in the whole of the UK in which to find a job, with 31 people chasing every vacancy. This Budget does nothing to help those people.
The Government have taken jobs out of my constituency, through the moves on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and jobcentre staff, and now they want to close our Remploy factory. Not only that, but they are cutting tax credits, housing benefit and opportunities for people to get back to work. Fuel costs and energy prices are rising, and the Government sit on their hands and do nothing. But with so much of the Budget leaked in advance, there was very little news left on Budget day, except for the granny tax. What is the message there? It is work hard, pay your taxes, plan for your retirement and then lose out to this Government.
Instead of recognising that government has a role to play in spreading wealth and economic prosperity to all parts of the United Kingdom, and supporting public sector jobs in constituencies such as West Dunbartonshire, the Chancellor’s plans for regional or localised pay will exacerbate the problem of wealth being concentrated in the south-east of England, with pay being driven up there and down everywhere else. The answer to the problem of low wages is not to help to drive them down.
The Prime Minister visited West Dunbartonshire on Friday. He visited Aggreko, one of six companies in Scotland in the FTSE 100 and a world leader in temporary power generation. I am delighted that he did so, because it is an excellent company, but I am very disappointed that he did not stop for an extra 15 minutes to talk to some of my 4,000 unemployed constituents whom this Government are hurting. If he could give us just a little notice the next time he visits, we will have a whip round and perhaps get access to some of his time.
The Chancellor’s plans are bad for our economic prosperity, and I live in hope that one day the Secretary of State for Scotland, and perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will do the right thing, stand up for the people they represent and oppose these plans. One of the first things the Labour party did after coming to government in 1997 was to deliver devolution and the Scottish Parliament, which should give Scots protection from the worst excesses of the Tories while ensuring that Scotland remains a strong part of the United Kingdom. What is the Scottish National party doing now that it has a majority in the Scottish Government? I am very disappointed that SNP Members have not been in the Chamber today. There is no doubt that my constituency is suffering; it has the highest number of jobseekers per vacancy and the second highest youth unemployment rate in Scotland, but just in recent weeks we have been excluded from the Scottish Government’s new enterprise zones and allocated exactly no money from their youth unemployment strategy fund. I really hope that my eyes are deceiving me and that the allocation of that grant is not linked to the upcoming Scottish elections. For too long, the SNP has been promising that everything would be fine if Scotland were to separate. The truth is that the SNP is not helping the people of West Dunbartonshire now and will not do so in the future.
Finally, I wish to say that this Government are, unfortunately, as blinkered as the Scottish Government when it comes to their plans for broadband. Yet again, they are overlooking areas such as mine, which is not a city and not a rural area; yet again, it is falling between the cracks.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
I am very grateful for this chance to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was beginning to lose the power in my legs from sitting for so long.
I get the feeling that a collective amnesia is setting in on the Government side of the Chamber. I thought that after the weekend the realisation would have sunk in that the Chancellor’s Budget took twice as much from pensioners as it did from the rich, but apparently it has not. As a result of the Budget, 4 million pensioners will face a real cut in their income. The rebuttal line I heard yesterday on television programmes from Tory central office was that there is no need to worry because a record increase in pensions is coming along. That piece of spin fails dramatically, however, when one considers that the rise is driven by high inflation. That is why the £5.30 increase will be introduced. That cancels out the benefit and leaves us with 4 million pensioners facing a cut in their income and paying for the cut in the 50p tax rate.
The most difficult part about the Budget is the Chancellor’s lack of humility and stubborn refusal to accept that his economic policy is just plain wrong. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here, so I hope that he can take this message back. If we look back at the figures in the March 2011 Budget, we see that the Chancellor said he was going to borrow £146 billion that year and forecast borrowing levels for the next six years. In this Budget he revealed that he is going to borrow £126 billion this year and again put forward his forecast for how much would be needed. All those forecasts were upgraded, which leads us to a situation in which this Government are going to borrow a further £150 billion-plus to feed their economic policies. If that is the Tories’ idea of clearing up a mess, I would not like to see them mucking things up. I must tell hon. Members that in the first draft of this speech the language was slightly different.
The situation brings to mind Winston Churchill’s words, which are particularly appropriate. He said that a politician needs
“the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
Our Chancellor cannot even do that. Last week, he had the brass neck—a Scottish coalfield term—to boast that this year’s borrowing would be £126 billion and would be £1 billion lower than the forecast in autumn 2011. What he failed to tell us was that on the original Budget figures it was £4 billion more than he originally thought he was going to have to borrow. The Tory Budget is a straitjacket for a flawed economic policy. Unemployment is up, borrowing is up and growth is down. We have only to look across the pond to see a different economic model working. The United States of America has taken a different approach to its economic problems and is succeeding with more than double the growth that we expect to see this year.
I am doing a lot of pruning here to keep within the four minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me finish with what will be my abiding memory of last week’s Budget—the sight of Liberal Democrats cheering wildly at the Chancellor’s tax cuts. A few weeks ago they sat with their heads bowed and then walked through the Lobby to vote through a Welfare Reform Bill that contained cuts in benefits to cancer patients. They must be very proud. In the words of the American actor, writer and comedian Albert Brooks,
“It is better to be known by six people for something you’re proud of than to be known by 60 million for something you’re not.”
For that reason, I will be voting against the Budget tonight.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I would like to address an area that has been eagerly awaited since it was heralded by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the advice fund. What we actually got was two lines in the Budget, with £20 million for the next two years to help the sector to adapt to the change in the funding environment. Given that a loss of £100 million is anticipated over the next two years, that £20 million does not even cover the 77% reduction in legal aid funding. As the Law Society said, it is a sticking plaster that will not heal the savage wounds caused by these cuts. What the sector needed was sustainable strategic specialist funding. It would have been good if it had been linked to the long-awaited advice review and if real needs had been taken into account; it would have been good if there had been acceptance that early advice saves money—but, no. What we got was a token amount with no strategy and I predict that the number of advice deserts will increase.
The increase in the personal allowance does little for the poorest, who rely on benefits to supplement low-paid work. Council tax benefit and housing benefit claimants will get just £33 a year, for as their income goes up, their benefits go down. Their weekly gain is less than the price of a loaf of bread—63p a week. That is coupled with changes to the working tax credits, whereby some of my constituents will lose £3,870 year. Truly to benefit the poorest and to make work pay, the Government should increase the disregards for council tax benefit and housing benefit and scrap the changes to the working tax credit that will affect thousands of hard-working families.
Moving on to the granny grab and the effect on pensioners, I have to declare an interest: my mum is 83. Every year she calculates her tax, and most years she gets it right and HMRC gets it wrong. I do not know what she felt most insulted by: the freezing of her personal allowance, for which she had saved over a long period of her life, or the excuse that it was a simplification. She asked me to put a comment to the Chancellor that although she may be anniversarily challenged, she is not numerically challenged. As the Chancellor likes simplification, I will tell him what she said. She said, “I might be old, but I’m not stupid.” To do what he did while at the same time reducing the 50p tax rate is the wrong measure at the wrong time.
So much more could have been done in the Budget. The Government could have looked at VAT levels, they could have cut fuel duty—a measure that would have helped motorists and the hard-pressed hauliers in my constituency—or they could have looked at jobs for young people. Instead, taxes have been cut for the richest 1% of earners. This Budget has the wrong priorities at the wrong time. It is a Budget of failure, not of success. The biggest failure of all is this out-of-touch Government’s failure to understand the priorities and the struggles of the millions of ordinary people who live in areas such as my Wigan constituency, and instead to prioritise giving rewards to the rich.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, having been out yesterday in sunny Gillan in my constituency, speaking to voters. Gillan has more than its fair share of millionaires, but the people I met and who needed help were mainly young people searching for work.
I give some credit to the Government for a positive element of the Budget in the form of loans for young people to set themselves up in business, and I hope that many of the enterprising young people in East Lothian take advantage of that. I have concerns, however, because in Scotland to be successful people will need, first, skills and, secondly, support. The reality, however, is that the Scottish National party Government are making swingeing cuts to further education, reducing access and opportunities for young people, and at the same time making cuts to local government, which has responsibility for delivering the business gateway. I hope that the Government will enter into discussions in Scotland to make sure that young people are not saddled with debt and bad experiences of failing—
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Danny Alexander
I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Lady just said. Does she agree with me that the increasing centralisation of services in Scotland stops councils and communities such as hers and mine taking the action needed to support young people back into work?
Fiona O’Donnell
In my area the greatest inhibition to young people gaining work is the lack of work—the lack of available jobs. That is something for which the Chief Secretary must take some responsibility. The number of young people in my constituency unemployed for more than six months has increased more than 120% in the past year. Although the numbers are small, that is starting to have a real effect in East Lothian, with young people not feeling that they have a future.
Culture, the arts and tourism are also important to our local economy. There is a relevant measure in the Budget. I will not take another intervention, but I hope that the Chief Secretary will respond to my concern about the effect of the removal of exemption from VAT for listed buildings. We have some beautiful villages. Will it be only the rich who can afford to live in a listed building? The churches in many of our villages, which are so important to community life, will also be affected by the measure. I hope that we will at least learn the rate at which VAT will be charged on listed buildings.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), I watched the sickening sight of the Lib Dems waving their Order Papers at the announcement of the increase in the threshold for tax on Wednesday. It is as though the Lib Dems can hold on to only one policy at a time, and the almost sadistic parent, the Tory partner in Government, distracted them with this one policy. In the meantime the child, who almost has an obsessive compulsion to focus on this one policy, failed to see the overall impact of the Budget on families in my constituency, who have little to celebrate.
If the Deputy Prime Minister is going to think about who he will invite to dinner, I would like him to invite the 225 families in my constituency who will be worse off because of the change in the rules for entitlement to working tax credit. To think that these families can go out and find those extra hours to keep their entitlement is simply not to understand the real world. At the same time, they are seeing their child benefit frozen. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary can give us some clarification, because it is not a simplification in child benefit for high earners, that is for sure. What will happen in a family when one parent earns £51,000 and one earns £151,000? Which income will be considered? Is it the higher income in every case?
Fiona O’Donnell
That is even more unfair. Two parents earning just over the threshold will be disadvantaged compared with two parents earning incredibly high incomes.
The morning before the Budget, I listened to Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day”. The appeal that was made to the Chancellor was that this should be a Budget which— I believe it was a quote from holy scripture—left those who have much not with too much, and those who have little not with too little. I regret that the Chancellor clearly was not listening to that message and that he has let down the most vulnerable in my constituency.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, can you believe it? I do not mean the fact that the price of my petrol is going up and the price of my pasty is going up. No, I am asking whether you can believe how many or how few are here. Of course, SNP Members are not here yet again. We have a Budget only once a year and there are two Tory Back Benchers and two Liberal Back Benchers. They have probably come in a taxi. Looking at them, you might see Tories and Liberals, but I see Lincoln, Burnley, Redcar and Stafford—I see four Labour gains. Those four hon. Members are enjoying their last days on those green Benches. Why are the rest of them hidden away? I will tell you. It is because there are only two things that resonate in this Budget, and the first is growth.
Last year the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor told us that growth this year would be 2.5%, but they have reduced it to 0.8% in a year. Something tells me, therefore, that the policies are not working. They said last year that the national debt would come down—all the cuts were to bring the national debt down—but this year they say the national debt will go up next year, the year after and the year after that. That is the policy that they have put forward. It does not need any more complication. Growth is virtually not happening.
But there is something far worse for our communities. The cuts that we have heard about, the cuts that we have fought against, have hardly begun. The real cuts come next year. This is the Government’s Achilles heel, but it is also ours because it will hurt people across the country, including in my constituency. It will be the market towns, the traditional Tory areas, that take the brunt of the cuts because what that lot are doing, like most Governments, is make cuts and centralise. They are removing jobs from towns such as Retford in my constituency. For the first time those small market towns are taking a disproportionate number of the cuts, with jobs going and the relocation of people in order, allegedly, to save money by putting them in one office. Who is going to spend to support the small businesses that are trying to make a living, or for the potential new small businesses, in those market towns?
That is one Achilles heel, but the Government have another that they have hidden and that has not been exposed: draw-down pensions. Most of the 300,000 pensioners who will be affected do not realise that, because of quantitative easing and the failure to put a counterbalance in the Budget, and because gilts are at an all-time low, draw-down pensions are being hugely cut. Let me give an example from my constituency.
A fairly well-to-do couple who have worked hard over the years have been retired for 14 years on a good pension. Their private pension of £30,000 a year between them has been cut overnight in the past month to £13,000 by the Government Actuary’s Department. That is a 60% cut in their pension. That is what the Government have done, but they have failed to address the problem in the Budget. It is a nightmare for pensioners such as those. Most of the 300,000 draw-down pensioners do not know that this reduction is coming because they are informed of changes on a three-year cycle. I challenge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on this point. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to sort it out, or are those people going to lose 60% of their pension because of your being in power this year?
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The central aim of this Budget should clearly have been to get growth going again in this country at all costs, and to do it in the fairest way possible. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear in its predictions that the Budget will have no material effect on the prospect of stagnant growth. The difference between here and the United States is that the Obama Administration stimulated the economy in exactly the way that Labour did in its last two stimulatory Budgets in 2009-10, and the US economy is now growing and unemployment is falling.
The fact is that there are two ways of cutting the deficit. The Chancellor’s way involves weaker growth, which means lower tax receipts and higher benefit spending. Dragging down aggregate demand—a crucial factor—pulls down growth another notch, and the whole downward spiral starts again. There is a real risk of that happening, because only 6% of the benefit cuts have taken effect; 94% are still to come. Indeed, that is exactly what happened when the ridiculous experiment with expansionary fiscal contraction was tried, twice, during the past 100 years of this country’s history. The Geddes Axe in 1923 and the May Committee in 1931 stifled growth, made unemployment rocket and stalled recovery all the way to the second world war.
The alternative is a jobs and growth strategy, which many Labour Members are continually emphasising. Such a strategy would put the unemployed directly back to work, reduce benefit spending and have a direct impact on growth in a way that quantitative easing and credit easing will never do. The only argument that the Chancellor has used against that proposal is that the bond markets would never stand for a rise in expenditure that increased the deficit.
In this Budget, however, it is simply not fiscally neutral to give away £3 billion to the super-rich, when there is not a shred of evidence to support the Treasury myth that tax avoiders will meekly come flooding back home from Bermuda and Monaco to pay their taxes because of a 5p cut. The Chancellor has chosen to give away another £1.5 billion to big business through the 2% cut in corporation tax, although the businesses are already sitting on an unprecedented stash of £700 billion. That equates to half of Britain’s GDP, which they are not spending. Why? Because there is no growth, and no demand in the economy. That £4.5 billion that the Chancellor has wasted on his super-rich friends and businesses could have been used instead, without any disturbance to the bond markets, to generate 250,000 jobs. That could have begun to mark the beginning of the turnaround of the British economy, which everyone, including the City, is now desperate to achieve.
I want to say one last thing about fairness. Before the election the current Chancellor said that he would not dream of cutting the 50p rate of tax if he expected people to accept a pay freeze in order to protect their jobs, but after the election the façade was dropped. It is not just the common or garden rich earning merely £3,000 a week who will be getting it; it goes right the way up to Bob Diamond on £300,000 a week.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
The preamble to the Budget was brilliantly set out by the Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), when he suggested that the Government have no “compelling vision” and no plans for a strategy for growth. Last week, in a remarkable sign of joined-up government, the Chancellor sought to lay out the absence of a compelling vision. We know from the growth projections set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has an unfortunate habit of being optimistic, that this is the slowest economic recovery on record. In terms of recovering our pre-crash levels of output, it is slower even than the great depression of the 1930s.
We have heard much about the Budget being fiscally neutral, but I suggest that it is also a growth-neutral Budget, for we have a clear post-Budget forecast, also provided by the OBR. Its verdict is a paltry revision upward of 1%—[Hon. Members: “0.1%”] That is even worse—one tenth. The contrast with countries taking the challenge of recession seriously could not be starker. In America, employment and business confidence is up, with the economy growing at twice the rate of our own, thanks to the interventions of the Obama Government. We know that the Prime Minister likes to be tucked up tight on Air Force One, but I suggest that he should also ask for a bedtime story from the President on how to grow an economy out of recession.
Instead, we have the fiscal stimulus of a cut in the 50p top rate of tax, based on some dodgy assumptions about economic behaviour and incentives. While millionaires and dining companions of the Prime Minister will get a £40,000 tax cut—“Bosh”, as Mr Peter Cruddas might put it—hard-pressed families will be pushed into poverty. In Stoke-on-Trent there are 1,220 hard-working families who, in less than a fortnight, stand to lose all their working tax credit if they cannot extend their hours from 16 to 24, and that is before we get on to the raid on pensioners. Like the previous Labour Chancellor, I am not wedded to the 50p tax rate. Governments generally should not be in the business of taking half the earnings of their citizens, but now is not the time to make this cut. It is the wrong choice at the wrong moment.
The Budget also fails to help our manufacturing base. What manufacturers in my constituency need now is support for investment, capital allowances for energy-efficient technologies and support for co-fund technology demonstrators. We are still waiting for details from the autumn statement on the package of measures for energy-intensive industries. We must ensure that our leading manufacturers, such as ceramics firms in my constituency, are not driven out of the UK.
I have a few last points. First, I welcome the decision on place-of-consumption reforms for internet gambling. This is big news for Stoke-on-Trent and we are happy to host Bet365.com, which pays its taxes in the UK rather than going offshore. However, there is no need for this reform to wait until December 2014; it should come in earlier. On the negative side, the decision to remove the zero rate of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings is a real error. When that is combined with forthcoming planning reforms, it speaks of a Government with little feel for the natural and historic environment of this country. What we needed was a pro-growth plan, not a growth-neutral Budget, and the Government failed to deliver it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This Budget is based on the old Tory adage, “If you want to make the rich work harder, pay them more; if you want to make the poor work harder, pay them less”, with the added twist of clobbering the old at the same time. But its real disgrace is the way in which the Liberal Democrats rolled over and agreed to the cut in the 50p tax rate.
When The Daily Telegraph 500 first wrote their infamous plea for a cut in that rate—
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not give way—any more than the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) did when I tried to intervene on him on that point.
When that letter was written, Lord Newby, the Liberal Democrat tax spokesperson, was quick to reject the appeal, but unfortunately the orange book clique that now runs the party won the day, and we should not be surprised. Back in March 2010, before the general election, the now Deputy Prime Minister boasted to The Spectator that his politics were defined by his belief in “freedom from tax” and in a smaller state.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not give way.
What happened to the party of Paddy Ashdown, whom I remember celebrating taxation as
“the subscription we pay to live in a civilised society”?
The Liberal Democrats are hiding their shame for backing the tax handout for the rich behind the fig leaf of the rise in the tax threshold. They claim, as the right hon. Member for Bath did earlier, that it helps the poorest—
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not give way. The Liberal Democrats would not give way to me on this point earlier.
The Liberal Democrats claim that the rise in the tax threshold is a progressive measure that helps the poorest; the truth is that it is not and never has been. We were reminded by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) at Prime Minister’s questions last week that the cause was originally championed from the right of the Conservative party by Norman Tebbit, but it was rejected even by the Thatcher Government as unjustifiable. It gives the same cash benefit to somebody earning £10,000 as to somebody earning £100,000—[Interruption.] Members should listen to this point. It gives a tax handout to, for example, every Member of this House. We, frankly, are not among those most in need; at this time, people such as us and those who earn more do not need a payout. The cruellest trick is to pretend that it is a progressive measure.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the impact of lifting the personal allowance and stated, first, that
“the poorest third of adults do not benefit at all”;
secondly, for families, that
“the highest average gain occurs in the second-richest tenth of the income distribution”;
and concluded that the assertion that increasing the personal allowance is progressive
“is not true if one considers the gains across all families”.
This Budget fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of growing the economy and it should fail to win the support of this House.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last week’s Budget did little to address the current issues of a flatlining economy and rising unemployment. In my constituency long-term youth unemployment has increased by 137% in the past six months, with 13 people chasing every job, and there is the highest unemployment rate for women in 17 years. Housing repossessions have increased by 10%, with more than 300 mortgage and landlord repossession claims this year. Those are the tragic consequences of that devastating economic policy and ideologically driven cuts.
The Chancellor put a positive spin on a worsening economic and fiscal forecast, when in reality he is meeting his borrowing forecast this year only because the £5 billion lost in tax receipts has been offset by a more than £6 billion under-spend in Government. He failed to disclose last week that, at a time when nursing posts are being cut, waiting times are increasing and there is an unprecedented top-down reorganisation costing billions of pounds, that figure includes £500 million being clawed back from the NHS.
According to independent analysis, the Budget includes £900 million less for the NHS than the 2010-11 comprehensive spending review, with £500 million being used on the deficit reduction programme. With increases in debt interest, rising public sector pension costs and social security payments, it is estimated that annual management expenditure will grow by 1.8% a year in real terms, leaving the total pot for public services falling by 3.8% a year in real terms in 2015-16 and 2016-17.
The Chancellor appears to be storing up further pain for an already beleaguered public sector while failing to address the real issues of the financial sector, and he has also failed small businesses. Instead of cutting corporation tax, which benefits the largest companies, in the hope—and it is just a hope—that that will lead to business investment, why did he not delay the rise in business rates? His latest scheme to boost credit to small businesses whereby banks pay a fee to the Treasury to access £20 billion-worth of funding at a low rate, in turn passing it on to SMEs for cheaper loans, suffers from serious design flaws. First, the £20 billion is to be released over two years. Secondly, the scheme has no targets. The previous attempt to boost lending to small business, Project Merlin, under which the UK’s five biggest banks agreed to make £76 billion of credit available, did not achieve the Government’s goals, even though it had targets attached, and the new plan is not compulsory. HSBC has already said that it will not be taking part. The scheme’s biggest flaw is that it does not address the real problems facing businesses. It will not be available to SMEs that have already been refused finance.
I want to record my dismay at the Chancellor’s priority of cutting from 50% to 45% the highest income tax rate for those on incomes of over £150,000. His explanation for doing so was that, because people were so successful in avoiding paying this tax, HMRC had recouped less than anticipated. In other words, he was saying, “Let’s not bother with collecting the tax at this level; let’s reward these people’s behaviour by cutting the rate by 5% and just hope that they see the light.” The Chancellor may say in response that he is clamping down on stamp duty avoidance. However, his commitment to address what he refers to as “morally repugnant” tax avoidance rings hollow given that on the day before the Budget he did a deal with Switzerland to block the EU savings tax directive, which is specifically designed to help to deal with tax evasion. Through that bilateral deal, the Chancellor has, in effect, set up a tax loophole that any dodgy accountant would be proud of in allowing people to carry on evading paying their tax.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
In my constituency at the weekend, I found that the thing that really stuck in the craw of my constituents was not that the Government had avoided making choices but that they had made the wrong choices, on the wrong things, in a really unfair way. Last week, Government Members were not waving their Order Papers in support of a Budget that redistributed from the have-a-lots to the have-nots. The have-a-lots did very well out of it, as we know from the changes to the top rate of tax. To the extent that there was any redistribution to the have-nots, it was from the have-a-bits, and when that happened, the have-nots got hit anyway by the fact that the VAT increase is still in place and by the cuts in services that will be taking place in the coming years. Government Members might think that they avoided a cliff edge in relation to child benefit, but I rather suspect that over the coming months and years they will witness a slow-motion car crash as the anomalies and inequities become clearer.
On growth and innovation, the Government did not get it all wrong; they have done some useful stuff in relation to the creative industries. I am pleased that they have listened to the motor manufacturers and others who have been calling for an R and D tax credit above the line and for that to be expanded. The Government have got that right, and I welcome that; I just hope that they get on and do it quickly. However, they could be doing so much more to stimulate innovation and growth. I do not share the view of Mr Peter Cruddas, who thinks that the way to make one’s business awesome is to give £250,000 to the Conservative party and allow the party to trouser it. There are other ways to do it, such as making more significant changes to credit or getting demand up. Government Members need to think again about whether blanket cuts in corporate tax are going to add to growth, because that treats businesses that make things and innovate in exactly the same way as businesses that only make profits. Just saying that the bank levy has gone up does not address that fundamental problem.
I take it with a pinch of salt, therefore, when the Chancellor boasts that the corporation tax changes leave our corporation tax rate 8% lower than Germany’s. We have a lot to learn from what Germany has done over many years. It has networked industrial and finance capital, and has had consistently higher investment and consistently higher rates of growth. That will happen in the future as well. When the Chancellor boasts of protecting the science budget, I want to know why Britain cannot ensure that there is a 10% increase in the science budget, as Germany will in the years ahead.
The director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering has said that
“simply reversing cuts isn’t going to be a game-changer for the UK. We need to be far more ambitious if we’re serious about having a high-tech future.”
I am serious about that, as are Opposition Members. The Budget, frankly, is not serious about that.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Let me be clear from the outset that this is a Budget from a Government who are intent on dividing Britain, pitting the private sector against the public sector and one part of the country against another.
However, I congratulate the Chancellor on one thing: he did not divide the press on the Budget. Remarkably, he united the press in universal condemnation of its unfairness. At a time when my constituents are seeing their living standards decline, it beggars belief that the Government are prioritising a tax cut for the richest people in our country. Some 14,000 millionaires will be more than £40,000 better off. I wonder whether it is really a coincidence that many of those in the Conservatives’ “premier league” Downing street dining club have done so well out of the Budget.
I want to tackle head-on the arguments that the Chancellor has made to justify the tax cut for the wealthiest. I do not think that the tax rate should be set in stone, but any decision to change it should be based on the evidence, not on ideology.
Emma Reynolds
No.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, it is impossible to judge the effectiveness of the 50p tax rate on the basis of one year alone. Many high-income earners brought forward a lot of their income to avoid the higher tax burden. Having pored over the document by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the effect of the 50p tax rate, I can tell Government Members that it is a really good read. The conclusion is that the behavioural responses to the 50p tax rate are highly uncertain and hard to assess. When changing the tax rate, the taxable income elasticity is particularly difficult to estimate. The evidence that Government Members posit with such confidence simply is not there.
The Chancellor claims that the rich will pay five times more than they do at the moment. However, the much-trumpeted increase in stamp duty and the new revenue from behavioural change will fall short of that. He is not only living on a different planet; he is living in a different universe. If the Government are serious about shifting the tax burden from income to wealth, that is something that we will look at. However, if they are serious about it, why did the Chancellor not introduce something systematic? Indeed, why did the Liberal Democrats not push harder for a mansion tax?
The last fantastical claim by the Chancellor is that top earners will suddenly unleash jobs and growth in our country because of the tax change. That is patently absurd. It is an ideological double standard to claim that to incentivise the rich to work harder we have to make them richer, but to incentivise the poor to work harder we have to make them poorer. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) wants to go back to the Foreign Office, it would make it better for all of us.
The Budget not only fails the fairness test, but fails to tackle the unemployment crisis that my constituents and millions of people across the country are facing. When we left office, unemployment was falling. Now, tragically, youth unemployment is at an all-time high with more than 1 million young people unemployed. European Governments in Austria and Finland have brought in a youth guarantee fund like that proposed by the Opposition.
The Budget has failed the fairness test and will create a divided Britain. The mask of compassionate conservatism has definitely slipped off. The Budget brings into sharp relief what we have known all along—it is the same old policies and the same old Tories.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I want to use the brief time that I have to talk about the effect that regional pay will have on my constituency in the north-east.
Regional pay fixes the wrong problem and addresses the symptom, not the cause, of some of the problems in our region. The pay gap in the north-east is not the result of a thriving public sector but the legacy of industrial decline and the loss of high-wage jobs in recent decades. The biggest employer in Middlesbrough now is not the steel industry or the chemical industry but the university, which is investing in skills and the future of our young people. That is the right balance for us at the moment. We need to improve skills and build new enterprise, and we cannot do that by cutting public sector pay.
What the Government are doing is classic policy wonkery. They have found an idea from a think-tank and are going to implement it with no research, no investigation and no long-term consideration of its impact.
Mrs Chapman
I am afraid I will not.
The Government have managed to do something quite staggering in the north-east—they have united our business community with the trade unions in Darlington and across the region. James Ramsbotham, the head of the north-east chamber of commerce, agrees with the trade unions and says of regional pay:
“The major issue with this is that the Government should be working towards making the economy more equal across the regions and not entrenching further disparity by reducing spending power in the North East.”
He hits the nail on the head. The fact is, regional or localised pay just will not work. It will not even fix the problem that the Government think they have identified. Why would a private sector company benefit from cuts to the pay of public sector workers in the north-east, who are their customers and the people from whom they gain their income? Where will the money come from to level up private sector pay to the level of the public sector? I notice that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who was so desperate to intervene earlier, is in his place and is now not attempting to intervene. I wonder whether he will vote to lower his constituents’ pay when he gets the opportunity.
Regional pay will take between £500 million and £1 billion out of the north-east each year. It fixes the wrong problem. The private sector does need to grow, with new enterprises, investments and skills, but regional pay will cause new problems. We already have recruitment difficulties in the north-east for senior public sector posts, and we have lost health services in Darlington because we have been unable to recruit consultants with the right skills mix for the town. That situation will only be made worse.
A graduate doctor coming out of university with considerable debts will want to maximise their income and locate themselves where they can earn the most money and get their debts paid off as quickly as they can. That will probably not be in my constituency in future. The mobility of public sector workers is often regarded as a problem. How will regional pay improve it?
This Budget provides tax cuts for the rich and pay cuts for the north, and it will cost more in tax credits and benefits to supplement the incomes of many workers in the public sector who are not well paid. Regional pay is also a bureaucratic nightmare, as the very policy think-tank that came up with it recognises. In the north-east, average pay is £19,000 a year. Just how low do the Government want it to be?
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
We had a culture-themed—if not cultured—introduction to the debate, and this is a remake Budget. It is certainly not “Chariots of Fire”, more “Upstairs Downstairs”. Upstairs, a £3 billion handout and the tax level down to 45% from 50% for those earning more than £150,000 per annum. That is £10,000 for 300,000 people and £40,000 for 14,000 millionaires. What does that buy? I refer Members to the fees for the Conservative party donor club. It is £10,000 for basic entry, but for £50,000 people can get a seat at the captain’s table. They get to meet the Prime Minister himself. I do not know why people were being asked for £250,000, because those figures were in the statement from Tory party headquarters.
Downstairs, there is the highest unemployment for 17 years. As for the working poor—they are what downstairs is all about—many, many people will lose more in benefits than is offset by the rise in the basic tax allowance. Then there are the changes in housing benefit such as the bedroom tax—a cut of up to 25% for having more than one bedroom. I know a widow who has been waiting eight years for a smaller house near her family. She has two extra bedrooms and so faces a 25% cut in her housing benefit because of this Government.
Then there are tax credits. I was on the Committee that debated the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2012 on 8 March. Section 4 provides that if an income falls by £2,500, no increase in tax credits will be paid. So if someone is on short time or their company has problems and they lose £2,500, they will get nothing extra. That means poverty for many people and will leave them unable to feed themselves and their children. There is also a general tax credit cut of £3,700 for most people and child benefit cuts for middle-income families. There is also the threat of regional pay for public servants.
That is all in this Budget package. Not content with attacking working people, the Government have also introduced the gran and grandad tax—not just granny tax—through cutting £3 billion of support in tax allowances for over-65-year-old citizens. That is what they are—citizens who have paid into this country for all that time. I am talking about 370,000 Scottish pensioners. It will not just be a Tory wipe-out at the next election; it will be a Liberal Democrat and Tory wipe-out in Scotland next time round.
And of course there was a sleight of hand. There have been £500 million in NHS efficiency savings. Is that going back into the NHS to pay for increased services? No. It has been taken by the Treasury. That will mean a £50 million cut in the Scottish budget because of the Barnett formula and the £500 million reduction in spending on the NHS in England.
These attacks are not justified by any benefits to the economy. The Government admitted that they will have to borrow £150 billion more because of the rising level of unemployment and the failure of the economy to grow. On the Budget prescriptions, credit easing has been running for six months and not one single business has taken up the credit easing that is now the Budget’s panacea for businesses.
What about operation Merlin? Some £10 billion less than was borrowed before has actually been borrowed in the last year by small businesses. I have found in my constituency that banks are foreclosing on deals they have already made with small business to get some of their debts back.
The Budget will not stop the crash. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that business investment will fall by 6.8% this year and by a further 2.5% next year. This might, in fact, be a remake of “Titanic” rather than just “Upstairs Downstairs”.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Any speech on the Budget must begin by reminding Members of what was not mentioned in last Wednesday’s statement: the fact that real economic decisions were made years ago, when the London parties began to introduce major cuts and participate in their own Dutch auction in the run-up to the 2010 general election.
The Chancellor has argued that it is possible to achieve something called “expansionary financial contraction”, under which the economy grows while Government spending is cut. The poster boys for such a strategy are rare. Commentators have pointed to Canada in the 1990s and the Republic of Ireland before that. What these examples had in common, however, was that their fiscal contraction came at the same time as others were enjoying growth. Our major trading partner, the EU, is in some difficulty, and therefore this is a very risky strategy. If we need any proof of that, let us remember that when the coalition in London began in 2010 expected growth for this year, according to the then newly founded OBR, was 2.8%. On Wednesday, however, the OBR said that growth this year would only be 0.8%. And all this with 90% of the cuts still to come!
Our solution, right from the start of the crisis, was to call for infrastructure spending on roads, hospitals, homes and schools to get people into jobs now and help us in the future. Low interest rates mean that borrowing is as cheap as we are ever likely to see, and that should be used to invest. We welcomed the announcement in the autumn statement of the national infrastructure plan, which included several elements of what we included in our build for Wales programme. I note, however, from the announcement on Wednesday, that the purported figure of £25 billion in the pot to be raised on pension funds has been knocked down slightly.
Something that is likely to hit the Welsh economy in particular is the continued progress of plans towards regional pay for public sector workers. Major employers, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions, will apparently be in a position to make such a choice later this year. We saw from the pay bands introduced in the Courts Service by Labour in 2007 that Wales and other low-wage economies in the British state are likely to be hit. Although I fully agree that the private sector needs to be helped in Wales, I do not think we will do that by cutting public sector pay.
It was disappointing that the Chancellor once again ignored our calls for a meaningful fuel duty regulator to stop price hikes at the pump. Working families and rural families spend more of their disposable income on travel, so we need to give them all the help that we can, while at the same time developing greener travel alternatives. Sadly, much of what I would have liked to see in the Budget is not there—ideas to create jobs through investment, a windfall tax on energy profits to improve housing and a U-turn on the major cuts. I would also like savings to be made by ending the higher rate relief on pensions, and a Twm Siôn Cati tax on international currency transactions should raise about £16 billion, which we could invest. I would predominantly like to see the Treasury scrap the unjust housing revenue account subsidy scheme in Wales—the only part of the British state where it operates—which means £80 million being taken from the poorest communities in Wales.
The last three decades have shown that the alternative to the austerity cuts will not come by changing the colour of the Government down here in London. The only hope for the people of Wales is for us to break the economic cycle and take on greater responsibility for our own future—to develop our economy, invest where we think is right and fight for a better Wales.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Time is short, so I shall not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about the disgraceful robbing of pensioners to pay for a tax cut for the rich or the terrifying lack of a growth strategy to help the unemployed, or about how Government Members have avoided saying that raising the personal allowance is costing a lot of money, much of which will benefit those higher up the pay scales, whereas tax credits, which they are cutting, target money much more effectively on lower-income households.
I will therefore turn straight to my concern about the imposition of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings, which unfortunately the right hon. Member for the historic city of Bath (Mr Foster) left until last in his speech, which meant that he ran out of time. On Friday, together with other members of the Llanelli Railway Goods Shed Trust, I met the team of architects that will conduct a feasibility study on ways to bring that historic listed building back into use and give it a new lease of life, while on Saturday I joined the Friends of Cwrt Farm to help clear ivy off the walls of that historic building. Both groups are worried about the potential VAT changes, which will affect the preservation of our historic buildings. They are concerned about the change in the Budget—described by the Chancellor as just closing a loophole—to abolish zero rated VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings and instead make such alterations subject to the full VAT rate of 20%.
I contrast that with the zero rating on new build. So much for this Government’s pretence at being the greenest Government yet. It would be much greener to encourage alterations to listed buildings, to make them practical to use in the 21st century. Furthermore, far from stimulating the economy, the change is likely to discourage people from undertaking such work. Having to pay VAT at 20% will mean less money for the alterations and therefore less work for local builders who undertake the work, and we all know about the difficulties faced by the construction industry at the moment. Labour is calling for a cut to 5% in VAT on all household repairs precisely to stimulate the construction sector and provide more work for builders, plumbers, carpenters, electricians and so on.
I am glad to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his place, as I am still very concerned that his Government are not succeeding in making banks do anything like enough to help business. In my constituency, I know businesses that have been subject to sudden changes in the terms and conditions of their loans, which they simply cannot cope with and which could easily send them under. My constituent Mr Alun Richards has encountered considerable difficulties with Lloyds bank. In particular, he has raised with me the issue of banks foreclosing on businesses and selling off the assets at way below market value. This is not acceptable to business customers, nor should it be acceptable to Lloyds bank’s shareholders. Last July, the firm acting as administrators for Lloyds sold one of Mr Richards’s assets—Mansel house in Swansea—for £125,000. The same property is now on the market for more than £300,000, whereas the local economic circumstances have not changed at all. That raises serious questions about such practices, especially as Mr Richards can cite many similar cases that merit investigation and changes to the law.
This Government need to get their act together on bank lending, getting the economy going, providing jobs for our young who are unemployed and thinking about fairness sensibly and properly. They should rewrite the Budget completely.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
This Budget comes at a crucial time for the British economy—at a crossroads, when business and families are looking to the Government to know that they are on their side as the economy stagnates and they face tough times. Some measures in the Budget are welcome. The creative industries tax credit—an extension of the Labour Government’s film tax credit—is a step in the right direction. Video animation, high-end TV and other creative industries—Arqiva in my constituency is an example—are strong in west London. Hounslow’s chamber of commerce is in the process of creating with partners a creative industry cluster. This is, however, only one step in the right direction, and we need to do more to invest in our work force and ensure that we have the designers, technicians, artists and animators of the future.
Local businesses have cautiously welcomed changes to corporation tax, although not without apprehensions. More than 95% of the nearly 3,000 businesses in Feltham and Heston are small businesses, and it is the worry of many that the Budget will disproportionately benefit larger firms and not our innovators. As the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said last week:
“Smaller firms will be disappointed George Osborne did not do more to support confidence and growth in the real economy.”
There are wider concerns about the Budget, as it missed the opportunity to maximise the creation of jobs and growth, which this country so badly needs. There is no necessary connection between cuts in corporation tax and growth. Businesses will just sit on assets if they do not believe that demand exists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) so effectively argued. There is no overall coherent plan.
The losers of the Budget are the young, the old, people on lower and middle incomes and charities. An estimated 855 families in my constituency are set to lose their working tax credits, and nearly 18,000 families are to be affected by changes in child benefit—and this is the 13th worst-affected constituency in the country.
At a time when people on middle and low incomes are being squeezed by rising fuel prices, and with families seeing cuts to their working tax credits and child benefit and long-term youth unemployment in Feltham and Heston up by 208% in the last year, it is the wrong priority to cut taxes for people earning over £150,000. We could instead have seen a cut in VAT to stimulate spending and make life a little easier for so many people. Local businesses have told me that they would have liked to see more to support them in employing young people—for example, a reduction in national insurance contributions for employers. The Chancellor’s announcement that charities will not be able to claim tax relief on higher rate gifts is also sending shockwaves through the third sector. The Government need to work with philanthropists and those involved in encouraging giving to explore ways of reducing this impact.
The Government promised change, but things have got worse, not better. Their policies have failed on jobs, growth and the deficit, and the Chancellor’s new Budget does little to address these grave problems. There are still 1 million young people unemployed, 800 of whom live in my constituency, and the Budget does not do anything to help them. It is not too late for the Chancellor to change his mind and turn it into the Budget for fairness and growth that my constituency so desperately needs.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
This has been an important debate—one that will prove, I believe, to be a turning-point in the history of this Conservative-led government, in the reputation and standing of this Chancellor and most of all in the ongoing national debate about how we as a country meet the economic challenges we face and how we ensure that the burdens of doing so are fairly shared.
It is a privilege for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). We have also heard powerful contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who spoke of the challenges facing young people out of work, from my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and from many more of my hon. Friends. It is a privilege, too, to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who argued forcefully that the tax cut for those on more than £150,000 a year is not and could not be the priority right now.
I could not help noticing one phrase that we did not hear from the Government side this evening—that “we’re all in it together”. It has been forgotten—at least by Government Members. I rather agreed with a man who told us in April 2010:
“When the Tories say we’re all in this together, what they really mean is you’re on your own. Their agenda is to take away help from those who need it, and offer it to those already at the top”.
He was right then, which is why it is so disappointing to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury defending this disgrace of a Budget today, when he would have opposed it two years ago.
But let us try to be fair to the Liberal Democrats tonight. It is true that they played a big role in the Budget, and they deserve congratulations on winning the inclusion of one of their long-standing policy priorities, to which they have been committed for many years and which will be recognised as one of the Budget’s most important changes. I do not mean the mansion tax or the tycoon tax: the Chancellor cannot stomach those. No, I am speaking of a different policy, a stroke of genius for which the Chancellor should not be allowed to claim all the credit. According to The Daily Telegraph, since as long ago as 1998 it has been Liberal Democrat policy to abolish age-related allowances for pensioners. So there we have it: the granny tax, a Liberal Democrat policy since 1998, has finally been delivered by this coalition Government. I look forward to seeing that in the Liberal Democrats’ leaflets.
It is hard to know where to start with a Budget which contains so much that is wrong, but the big story about this Budget is not what is in it, but what is missing. I am talking about its utter failure to do anything in connection with the major task that faces our country: the need to get unemployment falling and the economy moving, which is essential to dealing with the deficit and securing our long-term economic future. In that regard, the judgment of the Government’s own independent Office for Budget Responsibility is clear. It has stated:
“We have made no other material adjustments to the economy forecast as a result of Budget 2012 policy announcements.”
There is nothing in the Budget to make the Office for Budget Responsibility reconsider its view that the economy will bounce along the bottom, and that unemployment will continue to rise month after month after month.
This is a Budget that fails on growth, but it is also a Budget that fails on fairness. It pilfers £500 million from the health budget at a time when the NHS is under pressure and needs every penny that it can get, and it introduces badly designed changes in child benefit which mean that a one-earner family on £55,000 will lose most of their benefit while a couple on as much as £99,000 can keep all theirs.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
While my hon. Friend is dealing with some of the measures that are not specified in the Budget, would she care to comment on the £10 billion additional cuts in the Department for Work and Pensions’ budget for benefits, which may well cause severe harm to her constituents and mine, and those of many Labour Members in particular?
Rachel Reeves
I said earlier that the big story about the Budget was what was missing from it rather than what was in it. My hon. Friend has identified another thing that is missing, namely an explanation of how the Government will balance the books after the last two years of the current Parliament. We all know that the Government are now borrowing £150 billion more because of the failure of their policies and their decision to cut too far and too fast, which choked off the economic recovery. As a result, deficit reduction will have to continue well into the next Parliament, but we have not heard how.
The Chancellor said that the Budget was about rewarding work. A Budget that takes tax credits from low-paid working couples with children, plunges them into poverty and leaves them better off if they leave their jobs is not a Budget for work, is it? As for the notorious hit on pensioners with modest incomes, springing it on people with no notice and then dressing it up as a simplification was not only ill-judged, but profoundly disrespectful to the millions of pensioners who made sacrifices to save during their working lives.
Alun Cairns
Did the hon. Lady make the same protests when her right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) introduced a granny tax in preparation for the financial year 2010-11?
Rachel Reeves
This is not just about freezing an allowance; it is about freezing an allowance this year, next year and the year after, and for many years to come. It is also about getting rid of the allowance, because it is disappearing for people who will retire next year. Next year people will receive not a reduced allowance but no additional allowance at all, and as a result they will be £323 worse off because of the choices that this Government have made.
I am sure that in a moment we will hear protestations from the Chief Secretary about his great triumph in raising the personal tax allowance for working-age people, but families with children have already lost £450 on average from the VAT increase, and another £530, starting on 6 April, through cuts to tax credits and the freezing of child benefit. Does the Chief Secretary really expect families to be thankful to be getting less than half this back in 2013? Is it not more likely that they will see this for what it is?
Ian Lucas
My hon. Friend rightly stresses the importance of VAT. Charities are among the types of business that are affected by a VAT hike. Chariotts in my constituency provides services to disabled people, and it will have to hike its charges by 20%. That will have to be paid by those disabled people, because of the VAT increase that this Government are pursuing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace?
Rachel Reeves
I agree. These are hard times for the charitable sector, and the VAT increase has hit it hard. That is one of the many reasons why charities, as well as ordinary families and businesses, would benefit from a reduction in VAT to 17.5% until the economy recovers. Charities are also affected by changes in tax allowances, and many have expressed fears that that will also create a big black hole.
Ian Swales
VAT cuts most benefit those who spend the most. Does the hon. Lady think that now is the right time to propose a policy under which the biggest winners would be pop stars, bankers and premiership footballers?
Rachel Reeves
I suggest that after this debate the hon. Gentleman should sit down and read an economics textbook. It is well known that VAT is a regressive tax. The VAT increase has hit those on lower incomes particularly hard, as they have lost the most as a share of income. The evidence for that stands up to scrutiny. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand economics, that is his look-out, not mine.
Returning to my point, is it not more likely that families will see this measure for what it is: giving a little with one hand, while taking much, much more with the other? Warm words from the Government parties will not help families pay the bills, and fine words about fairness demean the very concept of that word.
This month, the Chief Secretary told his party conference:
“It’s only the Liberal Democrats who are brave enough to tell some of the wealthiest people in the land that—at a time when millions of families are struggling to get by—they will have to pay more.”
He seems not to have been so brave when it comes to standing up to the Chancellor. Perhaps I am wrong, however. Perhaps the Chief Secretary is making an even braver choice, in telling families that they will have to pay more while he spends £3 billion on a tax cut for the richest 1%, with a tax cut next year of more than £40,000 each for 14,000 individuals earning £1 million a year.
The people are not fooled, however. They know that they are worse off under this Government. So tonight we will vote against this Budget. It is a Budget that fails the biggest tests: on jobs and growth, a gaping hole where there should have been a plan for action; and on fairness, where millions were asked to pay more so millionaires could pay less.
Is not the truth that this Government have been listening to the wrong people? They have been listening to those who are struggling to get by on more than £150,000 a year, but they should have been listening to those who are suffering from the consequences of their failed economic policies: working families on modest incomes, about to be hit by a tax credit bombshell; small businesses looking to invest, but struggling to balance their books; young people applying for every job going, desperate to start working. These are the people whose lives the Prime Minister needs to understand. Perhaps he should have had some of them round for dinner.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
This has been a fascinating debate and some excellent contributions have been made by Members from both sides. I refer, in particular, to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a typically thoughtful contribution, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who, along with a number of other Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), warmly welcomed the package of measures for the creative industries in this Budget. Indeed, a number of other Labour Members welcomed that point, too. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) referred to, among other things, broadband funding in his constituency, which he welcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) rightly made the point that we should be highlighting the positive news for business in this country, and she highlighted some of the positive news in her constituency.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm what corporation tax rate companies will be paying in this country? Will it be the lowest in the G20?
Danny Alexander
I can certainly confirm that, as a result of the measures in this Budget and the measures that we announced in earlier Budgets, we will have not only the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, but one of the lowest rates of tax in the G20. That will make a fundamental difference to this country’s attractiveness to investment from overseas.
Danny Alexander
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but first I wish to mention some of the other contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) talked about the benefits of the Budget for rural areas. A number of Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies rightly referred to the absence of a contribution from the Scottish National party and to the damaging policies of the SNP Government in Scotland for the economy. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has just come in now, for the very closing speeches. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who represents Plaid Cymru, did make a speech, and I will refer to some of the points he raised.
Sir Stuart Bell
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe the corporation tax reduction will lead to growth or to shareholder dividends? Will he confirm that we actually get to that rate in 2014?
Danny Alexander
We have confirmed that we will get to that rate by 2014. The hon. Gentleman should know, as I am sure he has closely studied the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report published alongside the Budget, that the OBR assesses that the cut in corporation tax announced in this Budget will, in fact, lead to an increase in business investment in this country—that is something the OBR has confirmed.
This debate has mainly been significant for the astonishing omissions in speeches from Labour Members. There were no references, except in a few cases, to this country’s fiscal position, to the huge deficit that Labour left us or to the huge debts that this country has accumulated thanks to Labour’s profligacy in office. There was no reference at all to the scale of the mess that the Labour party left this country, far less an apology from any Labour Member to the people of this country for the mess they left this country in. The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), in an otherwise interesting speech, used the phrase “dangerously complacent”. I think that refers to the opinions of the Labour party in relation to this party’s fiscal position.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Talking about omissions, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it is to the advantage of the Liberal Democrats to vote for regional public sector pay? The north of Scotland, Northumberland, mid-Wales and the west country will all be losers—is he going to vote for that?
Danny Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman had studied the Budget resolutions, he would know that there is no vote on that subject on the Order Paper tonight, so the opportunity to do so simply does not arise.
To return to the fiscal position, let me be absolutely clear: we on the Government Benches will not return to the model of growth based on unsustainable debt, irresponsible spending and over-reliance on one sector, the City of London, and one region, the south-east of England. Neither will we jeopardise the progress we have made in tackling our debts. That is why this Budget will have a neutral impact on the public finances, and implements the deficit reduction as planned. The Opposition should know that this is their mess but we are clearing it up.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that investing in physical infrastructure is vital and is being done by this Government? Does he share my joy that people in Norfolk will soon see the new A11 being built from January to March next year?
Danny Alexander
I certainly share the hon. Lady’s joy that the new A11 is being built by this Government. It has been campaigned for by Members from Norfolk for many decades and never agreed to before. I just wish that I could say the same for my constituents regarding the long-awaited investment in the A9 that the Scottish Government still are not delivering.
On omissions, we heard a lot of carping from the Labour party about individual measures but there were almost no references to the single biggest measure in the Budget. Opposition Members should follow the money in this Budget. More than three quarters of the money raised in this Budget is being spent on one policy measure alone—the biggest tax cut for people on low and middle incomes in this country for a generation. We have set the goal of raising the personal tax-free allowance to £10,000—from the Liberal Democrat election manifesto to the coalition agreement to the pockets of the British people in this Budget. Next month, the income tax personal allowance will rise to £8,105. That gives real help to the working people of this country this year. Taken with the previous increase that has come through this year already, it will lift more than 1 million low-income people out of tax altogether, but we are going further and faster.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is clear that the Government are going further on personal income tax cuts, but it is equally clear that they have not got a strategy for growth. How many jobs will be produced by the cut in the 50p rate?
Danny Alexander
First, I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for at least agreeing that we are going considerably further on the personal income tax allowance. That was sadly lacking from most of the contributions from the Opposition. They will also know that the OBR’s forecast that was published alongside the Budget revised downwards the forecast for the claimant count this year, next year and in every year over this Parliament.
As I was about to say, in this Budget we have announced the largest ever increase in the amount that people can earn tax-free—an increase next April of £1,100 to £9,205. That is a tax cut of £3.5 billion for working families and is the biggest ever increase in the personal allowance. It is the biggest income tax cut for people on low and middle incomes for a generation—a tax cut for more than 23 million people. It means £220 for every basic rate taxpayer, or £170 in real terms. The tax bill of someone who works full time on the minimum wage will already have been halved by this Government.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
While he was arguing for the rise in the tax threshold, did the right hon. Gentleman at any time argue for the people who are losing their working tax credit from April this year, or did he just not bother to argue for those very low-paid people?
Danny Alexander
We have argued for measures to ensure that people on low and middle incomes are taken out of income tax altogether. We have made significant changes to the tax credit system, which, frankly, under the previous Government, reached way up the income distribution. The changes we have made are appropriate and fair, and it is right that we have drawn back on a system that was costing many billions of pounds under the previous Government.
Taken with the previous increase in the income tax personal allowance, this measure means that this coalition Government have reduced tax paid already by basic rate taxpayers by £350 in real terms. It is this coalition Government who, as a result of the measures in this Budget, will have lifted 2 million people out of income tax altogether—59% of them women, to respond to a point made during the debate. That is the right measure on taxation and the Labour party should support it. Labour thought it was right to double the tax on people on low incomes, but we do not; we think it right to halve the tax on people on the minimum wage.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and being so generous with his time. Does he agree that one of the important measures in the Budget that will help people trying to get into work is the change in the oil and gas taxation regime, especially on decommissioning, which could create huge investment and huge numbers of jobs in areas such as Great Yarmouth?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the decommissioning relief and the additional field allowances that we announced in the Budget will make a significant difference to investment in the oil and gas sector.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Danny Alexander
I will take no lessons on the treatment of elderly people from the man who was responsible for the 75p increase in the basic state pension.
Danny Alexander
So not one word of apology for the 75p increase in the basic state pension, not one word of apology for the mess that he and his colleagues left this country’s economy in—[Interruption]—and not one word of recognition that the costs of reducing the 50p rate are paid for more than five times over by other measures that impact on the wealthy.
Mr Speaker
Order. The House needs to calm down a bit. I was listening intently, because I wanted to hear the Chief Secretary’s answer, and I was struggling somewhat to do so. I want to hear what he has to say.
Danny Alexander
It is no surprise that Labour Members want to drown out any reference to their record in government.
I think I know why the record increase in the income tax personal allowance has not been welcomed by Labour Members today and was hardly mentioned by the two Opposition Front-Bench speakers, despite the fact that Labour used to call itself the party of working people. This debate has also revealed something of lasting significance about the Labour party—
Simon Hughes
Given that the shadow Chancellor is so keen to talk about pensioners, will the Chief Secretary remind us of the increase pensioners will have next month compared with what they got under Labour, and what they will have by the end of this Parliament in the citizen’s pension compared with what Labour never did in 13 years?
Danny Alexander
My right hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely spot on. From next month, pensioners will see the largest ever increase in the basic state pension, because we have put in place the triple lock promised in our manifesto to ensure that never again will pensioners be awarded derisory increases of the sort that Labour brought us. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister, who is in his place, we will also be introducing, as the Chancellor announced, the single-tier pension at £140 or thereabouts a week, so that new pensioners will no longer be trapped in the means-testing system that Labour left them in for so long.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Danny Alexander
The full depths of the economic incompetence of the Labour party have been revealed in the course of the debate. [Interruption.] They are opposed to most of our spending reductions. They are opposed to many of the revenue-raising measures in the Budget. They have opposed tax cuts for business. I heard from the deputy Leader of the Opposition that they are opposed to our cap on unlimited tax reliefs for the wealthy. We know what Labour’s economic plan for this country would be—income taxes up, business taxes up, borrowing up, debt up, and interest rates and mortgage rates up. The only thing that would go down under the Labour party would be the British economy. It may seem astonishing that the party that got Britain into the worst economic crisis for a generation now wants to put us right back into the mess that this coalition Government are trying to get the country out of. The Labour party of the 1970s and 1980s is back and I hope the British public have been watching.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
When the Chief Secretary meets the Chancellor every morning at the Treasury to receive his instructions for the day, has the Chancellor ever once explained to him how his party can possibly blame the spending of the Labour Government for the deficit while having supported every single penny of spending right up to November 2008— 18 months before the general election?
Danny Alexander
There we see it again—a party in denial about the mess it got this country into. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman is a rational man and has played a great role in Scottish politics, but he ought to have a bit more sense than to pretend that his party has no responsibility whatsoever.
Danny Alexander
The Budget is fair. It raises additional taxes from the wealthiest and asks the wealthiest in this country to pay more. That is why, for example, we are capping—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is so much noise that I am not sure the Chief Secretary can even hear that his right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is seeking to intervene. Perhaps he can hear and does not want to give way, but if he cannot hear, he is not able to give way.
Danny Alexander
You are quite right, Mr Speaker. I could not hear my right hon. Friend, but I am happy to give way to him.
Mr Davis
I will start by saying that I entirely support the growth orientation of the Budget, which is much better than everything we have heard for the past 10 years, but I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for raising a narrow issue, because 90% of the effect of one of his tax changes falls in and around my constituency—the VAT change on the production of static caravans. That will have an impact which, he says in his own Red Book, is £40 million positive, but the cost in unemployment will be £45 million negative. Will he review this issue?
Danny Alexander
My right hon. Friend will know that all these measures are consulted on, but I think the measure is appropriate. As he knows, mobile caravans are subject to VAT, but static caravans are not. Static caravans that are used for residential purposes, which people make their main home, will continue not to be subject to VAT. That may be some comfort to him.
I shall draw my remarks to a close by referring to the measures in the Budget that deal with the wealthiest in society. We have capped reliefs on income tax which the wealthy exploit. We have capped benefits; now we are capping reliefs. It is, if you like, a tycoon tax. We have introduced a new stamp duty land tax at the rate of 7% on properties worth more than £2 million. We are increasing the stamp duty charge to 15% for residential properties over £2 million and we are consulting on a new annual charge for people who continue to envelope their properties—a mansion tax on tax dodgers, if you like.
This is a fair Budget. It is for the millions, not for millionaires, a Budget for the many, not the few, and I commend it to the House.
Question put.
Mr Speaker
Before I put the questions on the remaining Budget resolutions, I must inform the House that motion 67 on Stamp Duty Land Tax (Higher Rate for Certain Acquisitions by Companies etc.) has been corrected since the original printing. The version in today’s booklet of Budget resolutions is the correct version.
The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Income tax (charge and main rates)
3. Income tax (basic rate limit)
4. Income tax (personal allowance for those aged under 65)
5. Corporation tax (main rate for financial year 2012)
6. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial year 2013)
7. Corporation tax (small profits rate and fractions for financial year 2012)
8. High income child benefit charge
22:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 244 - Question accordingly agreed to.
9. Loss relief
10. Gains from contracts for life insurance etc.
11. Income arising under a settlement
12. Qualifying time deposits
13. Expenditure on research and development
14. Real estate investment trusts
15. Manufactured overseas dividends
16. Loan relationships
17. Companies carrying on leasing businesses
18. Corporate members of Lloyd’s (stop-loss insurance and quota share contracts)
19. Insurance companies and friendly societies
20. Equalisation reserves for Lloyd’s corporate and partnership members
21. Financing costs and income
22. Company distributions
23. Capital gains tax (annual exempt amount)
24. Capital gains (foreign currency bank accounts)
25. Collective investment schemes
26. Enterprise investment scheme
27. Venture capital trusts
28. Capital allowances
29. Remittance basis of taxation
30. Employer pension contributions
31. Finance arrangements
32. Giving through self-assessment return
33. Gift aid and other income
34. Site restoration payments
35. Changes of accounting policy
36. Controlled foreign companies
37. Foreign permanent establishments
38. Ring fence trades (chargeable gains)
39. Oil activities
40. Tobacco products duty (rates)
“Table | |
|---|---|
1. Cigarettes | An amount equal to 16.5 per cent of the retail price plus £167.41 per thousand cigarettes |
2. Cigars | £208.83 per kilogram |
3. Hand-rolling tobacco | £164.11 per kilogram |
4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco | £91.81 per kilogram”. |
41. Alcoholic liquor duties (rates)
Description of wine or made-wine | Rates of duty per hectolitre £ |
|---|---|
Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 4 per cent | 78.07 |
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent but not exceeding 5.5 per cent | 107.36 |
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent but not exceeding 15 per cent and not being sparkling | 253.39 |
Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent but less than 8.5 per cent | 245.32 |
Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength of 8.5 per cent or of a strength exceeding 8.5 per cent but not exceeding 15 per cent | 324.56 |
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent but not exceeding 22 per cent | 337.82 |
Description of wine or made-wine | Rates of duty per litre of alcohol in wine or made-wine £ |
|---|---|
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent | 26.81” |
42. Alcoholic liquor duties (drawback)
43. Fuel duty (private pleasure craft)
44. Air passenger duty (rates of duty from 1 April 2012)
22:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly agreed to.
45. Air passenger duty (general)
46. Machine games duty
47. Amusement machine licence duty (rates)
Months for which licence granted | Category A | Category B1 | Category B2 | Category B3 | Category B4 | Category C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
£ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | |
1 | 555 | 280 | 220 | 220 | 200 | 85 |
2 | 1105 | 555 | 435 | 435 | 395 | 165 |
3 | 1655 | 830 | 655 | 655 | 595 | 250 |
4 | 2205 | 1105 | 870 | 870 | 790 | 330 |
5 | 2755 | 1380 | 1085 | 1085 | 985 | 410 |
6 | 3305 | 1655 | 1305 | 1305 | 1185 | 495 |
7 | 3860 | 1930 | 1520 | 1520 | 1380 | 575 |
8 | 4410 | 2205 | 1740 | 1740 | 1575 | 655 |
9 | 4960 | 2485 | 1955 | 1955 | 1775 | 740 |
10 | 5510 | 2760 | 2170 | 2170 | 1970 | 820 |
11 | 6060 | 3035 | 2390 | 2390 | 2170 | 900 |
12 | 6295 | 3150 | 2480 | 2480 | 2250 | 935”. |
48. Vehicle excise duty (rates for light passenger vehicles etc)
CO2 Emissions figure | Rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Reduced rate | Standard rate |
g/km | g/km | £ | £ |
130 | 140 | 110 | 120 |
140 | 150 | 125 | 135 |
150 | 165 | 160 | 170 |
165 | 175 | 265 | 275 |
175 | 185 | 315 | 325 |
185 | 200 | 450 | 460 |
200 | 225 | 590 | 600 |
225 | 255 | 805 | 815 |
255 | - | 1020 | 1030 |
CO2 Emissions Figure | Rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Reduced rate | Standard rate |
g/km | g/km | £ | £ |
100 | 110 | 10 | 20 |
110 | 120 | 20 | 30 |
120 | 130 | 90 | 100 |
130 | 140 | 110 | 120 |
140 | 150 | 125 | 135 |
150 | 165 | 160 | 170 |
165 | 175 | 185 | 195 |
175 | 185 | 205 | 215 |
185 | 200 | 240 | 250 |
200 | 225 | 260 | 270 |
225 | 255 | 450 | 460 |
255 | - | 465 | 475”; |
49. Value added tax (anti-forestalling charge)
50. Value added tax (exempt supplies)
51. Value added tax (public bodies)
52. Value added tax (imported goods of low value)
53. Value added tax (groups of companies)
54. Value added tax (means of transport)
55. Value added tax (non-established taxable persons)
56. Landfill tax (standard rate)
57. Landfill sites in Scotland (retrospective provision)
58. Landfill sites in Scotland
59. Climate change levy (taxable supplies for use in recycling processes)
60. Climate change levy (general)
61. Inheritance tax (indexation of rate bands)
62. Inheritance tax (exemption for gifts to charities)
63. Inheritance tax (settled excluded property)
64. The bank levy
65. Stamp duty land tax (prevention of avoidance: subsales etc.)
66. Stamp duty land tax (rates: residential property where consideration exceeds £2m)
“More than £1,000,000 but not more than £2,000,000 | 5% |
More than £2,000,000 | 7%”. |
67. Stamp duty land tax (higher rate for certain acquisitions by companies etc)
68. International military headquarters
69. Financial sector regulation
70. Incapacitated persons
71. Repeal of miscellaneous reliefs etc
72. Relief from tax (incidental and consequential charges)
PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION: RATES OF INCOME TAX)
22:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 22 - Question accordingly agreed to.
PROCEDURE (PAYMENTS INTO CONSOLIDATED FUND OF NORTHERN IRELAND OF AIR PASSENGER DUTY)
PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FOREIGN BANK LEVIES)
PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH TAXATION OF SWISS RESIDENTS)
PROCEDURE (INFORMATION POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN FOREIGN TAXES)
Business without Debate
Deferred Divisions
Delegated Legislation
E-Tabling of Written Questions
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was a bit slow on the uptake. I told him that he should do his point of order before the Adjournment, but anyway we will give him a go.
Andrew Bridgen
What powers do you have, Mr Speaker, to censure Her Majesty’s Opposition, who spent five days opposing the cut in the top rate of tax from 50p and then abstained from voting in the Lobby?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the shadow Chancellor said:
“There will be a vote next week, and we will vote against the 50p change.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 960.]
What guidance can you provide, Mr Speaker, to right hon. and hon. Members to look at the Budget resolutions, where they will see clearly that resolution 72 referred to an additional rate of 45p, which was obviously a change from 50p?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman is seeking to offer that guidance, but he is a constituency neighbour of mine, so I know that what he would not seek to do, for it would be unworthy—and he would not be unworthy—is continue the debate that we have spent the past few days having. So we will leave it there for tonight. He looks contented, as he is smiling at me beatifically and that is a boon to the House.
Jerusalem (Humanitarian Issues)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to debate humanitarian issues in Jerusalem. The debate comes in advance of the presentation of a petition to the Prime Minister supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Amos Trust, Friends of Al Aqsa, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Pax Christi, calling on the Government to take urgent steps to stop the Israeli Government’s gradual but relentless eradication of Palestinian life and culture in Jerusalem. The Minister will not need to take my word for it that Jerusalem is facing a political and humanitarian crisis as people are denied the basic rights of a civilised society. His own UK mission in East Jerusalem issued a joint report with European colleagues last year. They concluded that if current trends of settlement growth and home demolitions
“are not stopped as a matter of urgency, the prospect of East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state becomes increasingly unlikely and unworkable.”
The clear and long-standing position of the European Union is that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, that East Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and that the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel is illegal and not recognised by either the UK or the EU. Yet that annexation is being reinforced with the Jerusalem municipality openly stating that it does not want the Palestinian population of Jerusalem to exceed 30%. Reducing the population from 38%, where it currently stands before any natural increase, to 30% can be achieved only by resorting to ethnic engineering that would be unthinkable in a liberal democracy and would require illegal and inhumane measures. However, we all know that this mission has been under way for years.
The first of those measures being implemented is the building of the wall that allows the exclusion of tens of thousands of Palestinians born in Jerusalem from their own city. Palestinians living outside the wall but inside the city boundaries have the status of Jerusalem residents and Jerusalem taxpayers but can access the city’s services, schools, hospitals and transport system only with the greatest of difficulty, if at all. The two major checkpoints for Palestinians render movement from outside to inside the wall extremely difficult. This can mean having to wait hours to get through a checkpoint and can put hours on a person’s work or school day, reduce access to religious sites, cause severe delay for a medical appointment and cause huge disruption to economic activity.
Many Palestinian organisations and businesses have been forced to leave Jerusalem as a result, but that could probably be considered a good result by some in the Israeli authorities. The International Court of Justice has called for sections of the wall built in East Jerusalem to be dismantled, but far from dismantling the wall the Israelis are rapidly extending it. Currently, they are building a wall that will completely encircle the small community of al-Walaja on the borders of Jerusalem so that villagers will be able to get in and out of their village only through an Israeli army checkpoint. Many people have gone to al-Walaja to see the wall and speak to the villagers, but the Israeli army does its best to discourage visitors. Only this month soldiers forced 55 Harvard students back on to their bus and arrested the villager Shireen al-Araj who was showing them the wall. That was a clear attempt at intimidation.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that far from being a wall, what he is describing is a fence, a tiny proportion of which is wall? Does he recognise that the reason it was built in the first place was to prevent suicide bombers from coming into Israel on a daily basis? That is something that it fortunately has achieved.
Alex Cunningham
I do not really think it matters whether it is a wall that is 20 feet thick or a fence—it is a barrier to the Palestinian people going about their normal business and I do not think it should be there.
One of the most sinister ways of removing Palestinians from living in Jerusalem is the rule that Palestinians’ “centre of their life” must lie within the Israeli-defined municipal boundary of Jerusalem. This prevents many who study or work for extended periods of time from returning and enriching their city’s experience. The “centre of life” requirement is of course particularly Kafkaesque when Israelis are making it more and more difficult for Palestinians to live and work in Jerusalem because of the wall and checkpoints.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
All of Jerusalem has been ravaged by war and terrorism. I am aware that all sections of those living in Jerusalem—Jews, Muslims and Christians—have the right to live and the right to guidance and support. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that applies to all groups of Jews and Christians as well?
Alex Cunningham
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that everyone should be living together in peace and harmony with the right to the same human rights within the city of Jerusalem, and I hope that one day we will get there. To finish my point, the authorities make it impossible for the centre of Palestinians’ life to be Jerusalem, and then expels them because it is not.
Furthermore, planning rules have been made to ensure that as little land as possible is available for Palestinians to build on. Fewer than 200 building permits are granted each year, even though the EU heads of mission in East Jerusalem assessed that 1,500 housing units are necessary to meet Palestinian housing need. A building permit is rare, mostly because the Israeli municipality has zoned most Palestinian areas to prevent building—according to the UN, that restriction applies in all but 13% of East Jerusalem—but even those who live in areas where building is permitted suffer years of delay and mounting costs in seeking permission to build.
Palestinians face an impossible dilemma as their family grows: do they live in squalid overcrowded conditions, move out of the city, or risk building illegally? Many take the chance of building without a permit, resulting in about 85,000 Palestinians being at risk of losing their homes. In addition, Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem are being demolished by the Israeli authorities: they demolished 670 homes between 2000 and 2008, and recently rubber-stamped the decision to demolish homes in Silwan to make way for a tourist park, which alone will make another 1,000 Palestinians homeless.
That comes at the same time as the building of illegal Jewish settlements continues unabated, forming an inner and outer ring around Jerusalem. The inner ring, home to around 200,000 settlers, combined with the wall cuts off Jerusalem from the west bank. The outer ring, home to another 100,000 settlers, further isolates the west bank from the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem. Moreover, settlements continue to be built on land confiscated from Palestinians. On the fringes, homes are being seized by Israeli settler groups on the pretext that the land on which they are built was once in Jewish ownership, but to which those groups have no legal entitlement.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it speaks volumes about the arrogance of the occupying power that following the UN Human Rights Council’s vote last week, by 36 votes to one, to send a delegation to investigate the illegal settlements—illegal under international law—in East Jerusalem and the west bank, the Israelis have refused to co-operate with the council, refused admission to the delegation, and indeed is considering sanctions against the Palestinian Authority for even daring to raise the matter?
Alex Cunningham
It is clear that the world at large wants to do something about these issues, so why will the Israelis not let people in? What do they have to hide? I want an answer to that question, too.
The inequality of treatment of Palestinians’ claims is outrageous. They are legally barred from reclaiming property in West Jerusalem that they were forced to abandon, even if they still have the title deeds and the key to the front door. To ensure that Jerusalem can become the capital of Israel and Israel only, and to try to ensure that it never becomes the shared capital with Palestinians, Israel has used planning laws, home demolitions, settlement building, the wall and insecure residency rights, even as the international community, including the UK, the EU and America, has sat back, talked and done nothing practical to stop Israel. We all know about the influence of the US and of US and European aid to Israel. Why is no one taking action that will result in change?
Let me tell the House about Raya and Issam—two people who best illustrate the injustices faced by the Palestinian people. Raya lives in Jerusalem. Her husband, Issam, lives 15 minutes’ drive from the centre of Jerusalem in a village just outside the city limits in the west bank, but he cannot visit his children’s school and could not be with Raya in hospital when she had their baby, because his village is outside the city boundary. He says:
“It’s easier for me to go on holiday to Germany than it is to visit my children's school in Jerusalem.”
When they married, Issam applied for a family unification permit, so he could live with Raya in Jerusalem. The application cost him $5,000 in lawyer's fees, but was refused on the grounds that he worked for the Palestinian Authority five years earlier. The authorities also cited the fact that he had been in jail during the first intifada 20 years ago, despite his being there only for writing slogans and waving banners. Issam’s 15-minute drive has now turned into a two-hour nightmare, involving travelling by bus to Ramallah and waiting at the notorious Qalandia checkpoint twice a day to take the children to and from school, because an Israeli settlement has blocked the route from his village to Jerusalem.
As a brief aside, there are still 4,417 Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails as of January 2012, including 310 people with indefinite detention without charge or trial, 170 children, 27 elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and seven women.
It is on the record, from both Houses, that the UK has “made representations” month on month, year on year, to the Israelis objecting to increased settlements and home demolitions, making it clear that these actions are unacceptable, are illegal under international law and must stop, but what we are not told is how the Israelis reply, and we are never told of any positive outcome from these conversations.
Israel is accelerating the pace of settlement expansion, demolitions, expulsions and arrests in a way that makes the two-state solution increasingly unviable. Words are not enough; actions are clearly needed, and it is vital to demonstrate that breaches of international law have consequences, not only in diplomacy, but in the wider area of political and economic agreements.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the two-state solution, but does he agree that until the Hamas element of the Palestinian Authority accepts the Quartet principles, there can be no negotiated peace process?
Alex Cunningham
There will always be issues associated with Hamas and various other groups, but tonight we are talking about basic human rights within the city of Jerusalem and it is time that some of them were restored.
There are three sensible measures that I am calling on the Government to consider. They should insist on guarantees that products manufactured in Israeli settlements reaching the UK do not benefit from preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Where there is any doubt that the goods originate from Israel’s side of the green line, they should not benefit. It is astonishing to me that not only do we not financially penalise these settlements of which we disapprove so vehemently, but as taxpayers we subsidise their activities.
Alex Cunningham
I think I have given way enough.
According to research compiled by the Norwegian Government, Elbit Systems “supplies an electronic surveillance system called Torch for the separation barrier”,
yet Elbit Systems benefits from an EU research programme, FP7, which is the EU’s main research funding project. Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories is partially owned by two illegal settlements and exploits resources from occupied territories. Ahava benefits from three FP7 European projects.
Is the Minister therefore prepared to call publicly on the European Commission to ensure that companies that aid and abet the occupation of East Jerusalem and other occupied territories are barred from benefiting from EU projects? Will the Government work to ensure that the companies are also barred from public contract tendering processes? These measures would go a good deal further to end Israel’s intransigence in East Jerusalem and the occupied territories.
Last summer I took my place with countless Palestinians and others and waited for hours to get through the Rafah crossing to enter Gaza. I saw the indignity that those people suffered waiting to get into their homeland, and once in Gaza learned of the very real challenges for everything from education to the supply of goods being faced by the Palestinian people. I toured the refugee camps and spent time with families and children living needlessly in poverty. I saw the beautiful beaches crying out for a tourist industry, and a people eager to pay their way in the world. But just like their brothers and sisters in Jerusalem, their lives are controlled by the restrictions placed on them by the Israeli nation.
I look forward to the day when I can visit Jerusalem, to make my own pilgrimage to the sites associated with my Christian faith. But the Jerusalem I want to visit is the international city that it should be, free and fair for all residents regardless of their religion or nationhood, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested. It is time to demonstrate that we are not prepared to support or even tolerate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, and that as a nation we in Britain will work to do something about it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to respond to this short but important debate. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing the debate and on the measured but impassioned way in which he approached the topic.
The humanitarian situation in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories is an issue that remains a high priority for both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. This evening, in response to the many points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I hope to set out the actions that the Government are taking. The Government’s position on the status of Jerusalem is clear. East Jerusalem is an occupied territory. The solution to Jerusalem must be sought as part of a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Any solution should enable Jerusalem to be a shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states. Moreover, that solution must allow access for all those for whom Jerusalem means so much, whether they be Jews, Muslims or Christians.
The Government share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about Israeli actions in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories. Those concerns relate to demolitions and evictions; the construction of illegal Israeli settlements; severe difficulties of access to Jerusalem for Palestinians from the west bank, or for those residents of Jerusalem who live beyond the separation barrier; the removal of residency rights from Palestinians; and detentions. I shall address each of those matters in turn.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Does the Minister not agree that Israel is doing everything it can to prevent the Palestinian people from developing economically?
Mr Browne
I will come to that point. This is quite a narrowly prescribed debate, but I note that there will be an opportunity in Westminster Hall at 2.30 tomorrow afternoon to debate Israel and the peace process, so anyone who does not have an opportunity to speak tonight on this rather more narrowly prescribed topic will be able to join me in a few hours’ time to discuss the subject tomorrow when the net will be cast more widely.
Robert Halfon
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has joined us on these Benches tonight.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, before 1967, the Jews in East Jerusalem had no rights at all, and were not allowed to visit the holy sites? Does he also agree that Israeli Arabs in Jerusalem have far more rights than many Arabs in Arab countries, in that they elect MPs and live in a democracy?
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. For the avoidance of doubt, will he make it clear that he will not succumb to or support calls for sanctions against Israel and the 6 million people who need to live and work in that country?
Mr Browne
Let me come to the subject in hand, and the hon. Gentleman can draw his conclusions. We are not talking about those measures this evening, but I would like to address the points made by the hon. Member for Stockton North.
First, like hon. Members, the Government are concerned about the threatened and actual demolition of Palestinian homes, particularly in the Silwan district of East Jerusalem. According to the United Nations, 515 structures were demolished in East Jerusalem and the west bank in 2011—a 40 % increase compared with 2010. Such demolitions and evictions are causing unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians. They are harmful to the peace process and they are contrary to international humanitarian law in all but the most limited circumstances.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), raised the issue of demolitions with the Israeli ambassador on 23 February, and again with the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Dan Meridor, on 19 March. Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tel Aviv and embassy officials have also lobbied the Israelis, at ministerial and municipal level, on this issue. We have received a welcome assurance from the Jerusalem municipality that it has no plans to conduct wide-scale demolitions in Silwan in the immediate future. As hon. Members are aware, evictions and demolitions are also a pressing issue in Area C of the west bank. The United Nations estimated that by the end of 2011 there were more than 3,000 demolition orders outstanding in Area C, including 18 issued to schools. There is also an increasing number of demolition orders against infrastructure projects that have been funded by international co-operation programmes, including those of the European Union.
In East Jerusalem, Palestinians, and indeed international organisations, face severe difficulties in obtaining building permits. On average, only 4% of building permits requested by Palestinians for Area C were approved last year. Together with our European Union partners, we continue to press Israel to address these serious concerns about the planning regime in Area C. More fundamentally, we urge Israel greatly to accelerate the process for transferring authority over Area C to the Palestinian Authority.
Secondly, another significant concern for the British Government, this House and the international community is the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, including in East Jerusalem. The combination of the growing settlements and the separation barrier erected by Israel is increasingly separating East Jerusalem from the west bank, making it increasingly difficult for East Jerusalem to function as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Settlements, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. They make negotiations more difficult and constitute a growing threat to the feasibility of a two-state solution, a solution supported by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the international community and a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. Settlement activity has no justification and should cease immediately. We have repeatedly given that message to Israel, including at the most senior levels.
Along with EU colleagues, we are deeply concerned at the agreement recently reached between the Israeli Government to move settlers from the illegal west bank outpost of Migron to a new settlement in the west bank. We note that Israel’s Supreme Court has rejected the Government’s petition to allow settlers to stay until 2015. Had the deal been ratified, it would have set a dangerous precedent, entirely contrary to Israel’s obligations under the Quartet roadmap. Hon. Members will be aware of the statement issued by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, on 16 March calling on the Israeli Government to rescind their decision. We will continue to urge the Israeli Government not to pursue their current approach of legalising such illegal outposts.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that Israel has demonstrated its ability and determination to remove illegal settlements, for example in Gaza, in exchange for a peaceful resolution and that, therefore, so-called—in some cases—illegal settlements can of course be negotiated away in land in order to have peace with the Palestinians, but what is required is for both sides to sit around the table to determine a peace treaty so that everyone can live in peace and harmony?
Mr Browne
We of course wish both sides—if I can put it in those terms—to live in peace in harmony. That is very much the Government’s ambition. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that the Government do not support sanctions on Israel or any attempts to delegitimise Israel, but we do want Israel to honour the undertakings that I think people across the world expect it to honour with regard to settlements.
Alex Cunningham
If nobody is going to place any sanctions on Israel for what it is doing, what can be done to bring a solution? Talk is getting us nowhere.
Mr Browne
I want to address some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points and will then get to that point.
The Government will continue to argue for a just outcome for all the people affected by illegal settlement construction and the confiscation of land due to the separation barrier. That includes funding from the Department for International Development to the Norwegian Refugee Council to provide legal support to communities affected by the occupation.
I want to address a couple more issues, because time is short, and then see what more time I have to accommodate the wider points that have subsequently been made. The Government remain deeply concerned about restrictions on freedom of movement between the west bank and East Jerusalem. The permit system for Palestinians to enter East Jerusalem, whether for work, education, medical treatment or religious worship, is lengthy and complicated. There are heartbreaking stories of sons and daughters unable to obtain permits in time to visit parents dying in hospital or to attend funerals of relatives. Those Palestinians who have regular permits can spend hours queuing every morning at the checkpoints. We have lobbied the Israelis hard on the issue of movement and access, and there have been some improvements on the west bank, but there is still a long way to go.
A related concern is how many Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem face the threat of losing their residency rights in a way that does not apply to Israeli residents. There are families who are forced to live apart, or forced to move to the west bank, because they cannot obtain permits to stay together. There are also concerns about reported moves by the Jerusalem municipality to change unilaterally the boundaries of the city in a way that might deprive thousands of Palestinians of their right to residency of Jerusalem.
The restrictions on movement and access, as well as on building, not only affect individual Palestinian lives but have a very harmful effect on the Palestinian economy. It is estimated that the movement and access restrictions cost the Palestinian economy as much as 85% of its GDP every year.
Mr Browne
Let me come to a key point that I want to make, and then I shall give way if I have time.
Israel needs to show a greater flexibility on the movement of people and exports in order to increase employment and to reduce aid dependency. We did see some welcome flexibility earlier this month when we saw the first exports from Gaza to the west bank since 2007. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, welcomed that in a statement on 9 March, and it is an important step by Israel towards fulfilling its commitment to allow economic development for the 1.6 million people in Gaza. We hope that further transfers of goods to the west bank, including fruit and vegetables, textiles and furniture, will now also be permitted.
But—and this might reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—I want to add that, on top of everything I have said, having I think made the Government’s position very clear, it would be wrong to give the impression that the Government are concerned only about Israeli action, although Israel has particular obligations under international law as the occupying force.
As the annual Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights and democracy report, to be published next month, will highlight, we also have serious concerns about reports of abuses carried out under Hamas rule in Gaza. Those include arbitrary detention, the mistreatment of detainees and the use of the death penalty. We are also seriously concerned about rocket attacks fired by militant groups in Gaza.
We continue to believe that the way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including in relation to Jerusalem, is through negotiations. Negotiations remain the best way of giving the Palestinian people the state that they need and deserve, and the Israeli people long-term security and peace. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) wishes to intervene, I just about have time to accommodate him.
Mr Slaughter
I thank the Minister for pointing out some truths—I think to Government Members as well. He is going slightly off the subject by talking about the death penalty in Gaza, and perhaps he will also reflect on the 20 Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli air force recently, as they too suffered the death penalty. His Government are not so good, however, on action. They did not support and, therefore, effectively sabotaged in the United Nations Security Council the Palestinian bid for statehood. If the bid goes back to the UN General Assembly in April, will the Government support non-member status?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It was meant to be a very short intervention, but that was almost a speech. If you need to, you will have to put in for your own Adjournment debate.
Mr Browne
As I said, there will be an opportunity in Westminster Hall tomorrow afternoon for a debate three times the length of this one about such matters, but the Government’s position is very clear: we wish to see the two-state solution, which I have just described, and we make our judgments based on what we think is most likely to achieve that outcome.
We continue to urge both sides to demonstrate the political will and leadership necessary to break the current dangerous impasse and to achieve a sustainable solution to the problems highlighted in this evening’s debate.
I am grateful to Members on both sides for fitting so many informed and passionate contributions into the short period that was allotted for our deliberations on the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Development
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
3. What steps his Department is taking to address governance issues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
Good governance is central to improving the lives of the Congolese people. We supported voter education for 2 million citizens; we are working to increase mining revenues by a total of $2.8 billion over 10 years through improved transparency; we are empowering 2,500 communities to control their own development; and we are strengthening public financial management in the DRC.
[Official Report, 14 March 2012, Vol. 542, c. 241.]
Letter of correction from Stephen O’Brien:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin).
The correct answer should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
Good governance is central to improving the lives of the Congolese people. We supported voter education for 2 million citizens; we are working to increase mining revenues by a total of $2.8 billion over 10 years through improved transparency; we are empowering 1,700 communities to control their own development; and we are strengthening public financial management in the DRC.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Intellectual Property Office (Performance Targets)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, (Baroness Wilcox) has today made the following statement:
I would like to advise the House of certain changes to the targets set for the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for 2012-13. The revised targets are as follows:
1. Publish the Government’s decisions on changes to copyright legislation proposed by the Hargreaves review, following consultation.
2. Make progress during 2012-13 on key European policy dossiers so as to reflect UK priorities.
3. Pursue UK business interests in IP in key emerging markets throughout 2012-13 by promoting the development of strong national IP regimes and delivering a refreshed portfolio of products and services for UK businesses overseas.
4. Efficiently deliver high-quality patents, so that 90% of patent search reports are issued within four months.
5. Efficiently deliver high-quality trade marks so that:
a. Between April 2012 and December 2012 applications for trade marks, for which we have not raised any issue and no opposition has been filed, are registered within four months in 85% of cases, within five months of 90% of cases, and within six months in 95%; and
Between January 2013 and March 2013 applications for trade marks, for which we have not raised any issue and no opposition has been filed, are registered within seven months in 70% of cases.
b. The correct decision is made in at least 99% of applications.
6. Our business outreach activities will reach at least 25,000 businesses, 85% of whom (based on a sample) will say that what they learned has helped improve their (or their clients’) business performance.
7. Surveyed IPO customers will give an average score of eight out of 10 for the service they receive.
8. Achieve a return on capital employed of 4%.
9. Deliver an efficiency gain of 3.5%.
10. Improve the IPO’s engagement index so that our score is at least equal to that of the Civil Service 2012 benchmark.
These targets reflect the purpose of the Intellectual Property Office, which is to promote innovation by providing a clear, accessible and widely understood IP framework, to enable creators, users and consumers to benefit from knowledge and ideas.
Principal Civil Service Pensions Scheme
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
At the spending review 2010 the Government announced increases to member contribution rates in public service pension schemes saving £2.8 billion a year by 2014-15, to be phased in from April 2012. The contributions are to be increased progressively with protection for the low paid, to minimise the potential for members to opt out of the scheme.
Last year the Cabinet Office consulted on a structure of tiered contribution rates that meet the requirements. The consultation opened on 28 July 2011 and closed on 20 October 2011, and over 3,400 responses were received. These regulations bring the increased contribution rates into force, which will apply to service from 1 April 2012 and continue throughout the financial year. The Government remain committed to securing in full the spending review savings in 2013-14 and 2014-15 from further increases to member contributions in public service pension schemes, and will consult formally on implementation in due course.
Copies of the amendment scheme have been laid before the House.
HMS Vengeance (Long Overhaul Period)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I wish to inform the House that the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract valued at £350 million with Babcock Marine Ltd for the long overhaul period (Refuelling) (LOP(R)) for HMS Vengeance, to take place at Devonport dockyard, Plymouth. HMS Vengeance is one of the four Vanguard class submarines carrying Trident missiles which provide the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
The LOP(R) is essential to enable HMS Vengeance to remain operational. The Work programme, which is scheduled to last approximately three and a half years, will involve the installation of a new reactor core, the energy source that powers the 15,000 tonne vessel. The new core will provide the submarine with sufficient fuel for the remainder of her planned service life. The LOP(R) will also include the installation of improved strategic weapons system equipment and the integration of a tactical weapons submarine command system. The LOP(R) will also enable Vengeance to achieve safety re-certification.
The awarding of the £350 million contract will secure around 1,300 jobs in Devonport dockyard, with a further 700 in the supply chain. It will ensure that Devonport remains a centre of engineering excellence, preserving the UK’s sovereign capability and many highly skilled jobs for years to come. The contract has been awarded using an improved performance-based contracting strategy agreed as part of the Babcock marine terms of business agreement, which aims to return significant savings of several hundred million pounds to the MOD over the 15-year duration of the agreement.
This is the last time the Royal Navy’s submarines will require refuelling, as newer classes of submarines are designed with sufficient fuel for their entire service life. Extended maintenance periods, however, will still be required to ensure safe and effective operation of submarines, so the unique capability at Devonport to carry out deep maintenance will remain vital in the future.
Iraq Historic Allegations Team
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
On 1 November 2010, I informed the House that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) had been established and had started work to investigate the allegations of abuse of Iraqi citizens by British service personnel that had been brought to the MOD’s attention.
Since its inception, the IHAT has been under the superintendence of the Provost Marshal (Army) and has employed a number of Royal Military Police (RMP) personnel, as well as retired civilian police investigators.
The IHAT arrangements have now been the subject of a detailed scrutiny by the Court of Appeal, in particular as to whether it would meet the requirements of independence. The Court examined the responsibilities of RMP personnel and other members of the Army’s provost branch in relation to detainees in Iraq. It emphasised that there was no evidence of any member of that branch actually being involved in misconduct against detainees. But the Court concluded that the existence of those responsibilities meant that there was the possibility that the IHAT would have to look into their conduct. This means that an IHAT involving the RMP would allow the public perception of the possibility of bias.
I have absolute confidence in the ability and integrity of the Provost Marshal (Army) and of the Royal Military Police, to conduct appropriate and effective investigations. At the same time, however, public confidence in the IHAT’s work is extremely important to the Government, as is the Army’s reputation. I accept the Court’s conclusion as to public perception and the issues that may arise in the context of a full investigation into these allegations.
We will not, therefore, seek to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal. The MOD will, instead, reconfigure the IHAT to meet the Court of Appeal’s concerns. I have therefore decided to remove the Royal Military Police role in relation to the IHAT. Instead, that role will be carried out by the Royal Navy Police, which is headed by the Provost Marshal (Navy). This change is already being implemented and will be complete by 1 April 2012.
Given further concerns raised by the claimants regarding the location of the IHAT, we will also look into the cost-effectiveness of relocating its investigations away from a military base. Such changes would necessarily increase the duration and cost of the investigations and in the current financial climate it is not clear that they would be justified; accordingly I have set work in hand to test this issue.
It is important to note that the Court of Appeal judgment did not state that a public inquiry was needed into these allegations. However, the Secretary of State for Defence will keep this under review in light of the results of IHAT’s investigations.
The IHAT is also best placed to undertake two further related investigations that have emerged since it was set up. These additional investigations will start once the IHAT has been restructured:
The previous Secretary of State committed the MOD to a review of the Baha Mousa public inquiry report to assess whether more can be done to bring those responsible for the mistreatment of Baha Mousa to justice. An additional team will be established within IHAT to undertake this review.
The judgment last July of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of al-Skeini, has also obliged the Government to undertake additional investigations into some further cases that were not part of IHAT’s original scope. Another team will be established to investigate these specific cases.
School Reform
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Today I am announcing our next steps in reforming the school funding system. These build on the plans we consulted on in July 2011, “A consultation on school funding reform: Proposals for a fairer system”. Since that consultation, we have given very careful consideration to creating a system that allocates funding on a fair and transparent basis and targets additional funding towards pupils who need it the most.
The current system for funding schools makes raising the aspirations and attainment of all pupils difficult to achieve because funding does not always reach the pupils who need it most; we are clear that we need to tackle this. We want funding to follow pupils and pupils with additional need to attract additional funding. We also want to enable good schools to expand more easily so that more pupils can benefit and we want schools to know easily how their budgets have been calculated so they can plan better.
In our last consultation we sought views on the introduction of a national funding formula, which would distribute money to local authorities based on the current needs of pupils. We also proposed simplifying the way that local authorities distribute that money to schools so that the whole process is more transparent and supports the needs of pupils.
Support for reform was widespread but responses also suggested this model would need refinement and careful implementation. Getting the components and implementation of a fair national funding formula right is critical and we need to manage transition carefully so there is the minimum disturbance for schools. In the current economic climate, stability must be a priority.
The plans we are setting out today in “School funding reform: Next steps towards a fairer system” are our first steps towards introducing a national funding formula and explain how the system will operate from 2013-14.
They show how local decision-making will be much simpler, more transparent and efficient. They will mean that administrative burdens on schools, academies and local authorities will be reduced and that funding arrangements are more understandable to head teachers, principals and governors, with less need for complex data and calculations. Local arrangements will be strengthened by improvements to schools forums.
Schools will receive the stability they need as our plans also announce that the minimum funding guarantee will remain at minus 1.5% per pupil for 2013-14 and 2014-15. Schools will also be able to receive earlier notification of their budgets and academies will be funded on a more comparable and equitable basis through the Education Funding Agency.
As well as funding for schools, our plans will support locally-driven simplification of the funding arrangements for early years and a new funding system for children aged 0 to 25 who have high educational needs. Improvements to funding for high needs provision will mean it can be more responsive and will enable greater choice for children, young people and their parents.
I am also taking steps in advance of introducing a national funding formula to address a clear anomaly in the current funding system where a small number of authorities receive funding at a level that does not reflect the mandatory pay levels for teachers in their schools. The local authorities affected are Haringey, Barking and Dagenham and Newham.
All these steps will prepare us for introducing a national funding formula in the next spending review that will ensure fairer funding across the country, where funding follows pupils, schools have more control over their budgets, and children are funded on a more equitable basis no matter where they live.
Copies of this publication will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.
CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
On 30 June 2011, Official Report, column 62WS, I published a vision for the way ahead in simplifying the CRC energy efficiency scheme. Since then we have engaged extensively with stakeholders and have developed a set of proposals that will radically reduce the administrative burdens for those businesses and public sector that are included in the CRC, without undermining the energy efficiency objectives of the scheme.
Tomorrow, the Department, together with the devolved Administrations, will publish a formal consultation setting out our ambitious simplification package. These proposals will radically reduce the administrative costs to participants by reducing the complexity of the scheme, and reducing the overlap with other climate legislation.
Our proposals will shorten the CRC qualification process. They will simplify what counts as a supply, and reduce the number of fuels covered by the scheme from 29 to four. These four fuels represent over 96% of total CRC emissions. We will reduce the reporting required through reducing the number of reports that participants are required to submit and the length of time participants need to keep records. We will allow companies to participate in natural business units, by allowing more flexibility to disaggregate undertakings.
I know that maximising policy coherence, and minimising unnecessary overlap between climate policies is one of business’ top asks. As we committed to last year, we will reduce the overlap between schemes at registration. In particular, climate change agreement facilities and EU emissions trading system installations will not be required to purchase CRC allowances. Our proposals will also create greater alignment between CRC and company greenhouse gas reporting (GHG) by adopting for CRC the emission factors used for GHG reporting purposes.
Our simplification proposals will remove the detailed metrics of the performance league table out of legislation, and place them in Government guidance. The flexibility of guidance will enable us to review and adapt the league table in the future to maximise its impact as a reputational driver of change. Amendments to the framework will be made in the light of experience on its impact on participants’ behaviour.
These proposals will help us meet our simplification objective of optimising the projected energy and carbon savings delivered by the CRC energy efficiency scheme while reducing the complexity and administrative cost.
My Department and the devolved Administrations welcome comments on our consultation proposals that will be published tomorrow. We will the look to implement the proposals so that the amended legislation is in place by April 2013.
Waste Water National Policy Statement
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
On 19 March the House of Commons debated the waste water national policy statement which I laid for approval on 9 February 2012. In the light of the satisfactory completion of that process I am pleased to announce that I am today designating it as a national policy statement under the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Planning Act 2008, and laying copies before the House as required by section 5 (9) of the same Act.
National policy statements are critical to the new planning system which will help developers bring forward, in the case of the waste water NPS, waste water projects of national significance without facing unnecessary delays, while ensuring local people have an opportunity to say about how their communities develop, and decisions are made in an accountable way by elected Ministers.
Designation of this policy statement is a significant step forward in achieving the objectives of the Planning Act, to clarify the policy framework for nationally significant infrastructure projects, while providing a degree of certainty to developers as to what waste water infrastructure of national significance is required in the future.
International Criminal Tribunals
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In line with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s strategic framework priority of safeguarding Britain’s national security by countering terrorism and working to reduce conflict, and as a demonstration of the Government’s continued support for international justice as a key pillar of our foreign policy, I am pleased to announce additional UK funding for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
We will provide £1 million to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, taking the UK’s total contribution to £3.3 million since 2009. This contribution underlines the UK’s steadfast support for the Special Tribunal which is key to holding to account those guilty of serious crimes and ending the climate of impunity for political assassination in Lebanon. The UK is, and will remain, committed to working towards Lebanon’s continued sovereignty and stability.
We will contribute a further £750,000 to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, taking the UK’s total contribution to around £4.4 million since 2006. This demonstrates the UK’s continued commitment to Cambodian reconciliation and development and bringing justice to the victims, and families of victims of the horrific atrocities and deaths of around 2 million Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge.
Finally, we will make available an additional £600,000 for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, taking the UK’s total contribution to around £27.6 million since 2002. This will help allow the Special Court to complete the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. The Special Court will be the first court to deliver judgment on a former head of state related to charges of war crimes for actions he took while in office.
We believe there should be no impunity for the most serious crimes at the international level. The effective prosecution of those who commit these crimes is fundamental to preventing such crimes, which in turn is vital in the development of communities which are more stable and prosperous. I take this opportunity to applaud the important continuing work of all of the international tribunals.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 85078 about staff pay to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), 8 December 2011, Official Report, column 455W. The correct answer is:
Following my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s announcement of an urgent review of public appointments, to determine the extent of arrangements whereby the tax position is (or perceived to be) minimised, the FCO is undertaking a full review, including of our arm’s length bodies, to assess all our payroll arrangements. Full details of the review will be reported to the Cabinet Office.
Public Records (Colonial Documents)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In my statement to the House on 5 December 2011, Official Report, column 6WS, about the colonial administration files held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), I informed the House that the first batch of files would be available at the National Archives (TNA) in April 2012. I am pleased to be able to confirm that those files will be open to the public from 18 April.
This first batch will include files from Aden, Anguilla, Bechuanaland, Brunei, British Indian Ocean Territories, Sarawak, Seychelles and Malaya as well as the first tranche of papers from Basutoland, Bahamas, Kenya and Cyprus.
Following the schedule approved by Professor Badger, the independent reviewer for the migrated archives of colonial administration files, the remaining files will be released progressively over the next 20 months. A timetable has been published on the FCO’s website. The aim is to have all the material available for public view at the National Archives at Kew by the end of 2013.
Dementia
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today, the Prime Minister launches his challenge on dementia to tackle one of the most important issues we face arising from an ageing population. The challenge sets out the Government’s ambition to increase diagnosis rates, raise awareness and understanding and to strengthen substantially our research efforts.
Dementia is one of the biggest challenges we face as a society and we are determined to transform the quality of dementia care for patients and their families. In England today an estimated 670,000 people are living with dementia, a number that is increasing with one in three people set to develop dementia in the future.
England was one of the first countries in the world to have a national dementia strategy and progress has been made since the launch of the strategy in 2009. But we are determined to do more to address this challenge.
The Prime Minister’s challenge sets out three key areas where we want to go further and faster, building on the progress made through the national dementia strategy. The three areas are:
driving improvements in health and care;
creating dementia-friendly communities that understand how to help; and
better research.
We know that we need to do more to raise diagnosis rates for people with dementia, with an estimated 42% of people with dementia currently having a diagnosis. Only when the condition is diagnosed can people and their families and carers get the support they need to help them. As well as when they normally see their general practitioner, the five-yearly NHS health check will be also used as an opportunity to identify risk factors for dementia such as hypertension, alcohol and obesity. Over 65 year olds will also be made aware of memory services and those at risk will be referred on.
We are also making sure that the NHS has the right incentives to identify signs of dementia when people are in hospital. From April 2012, £54 million will be made available through the dementia commissioning for quality and innovation to NHS hospitals in England for those who assess over 75 year olds admitted to hospital to check for signs of dementia. From April 2013, we will build on that incentive so that hospitals are rewarded for demonstrating good quality care for people with dementia.
The Government will also take further steps on research. The United Kingdom is world renowned for dementia research, but we still do not know enough about this devastating condition and the level of public participation in dementia research trials remains low. The funding for research into dementia and neurodegenerative disease will double to over £66 million by 2014-15 (compared to 2009-10). The Medical Research Council will be making major funding available for BioBank with a view to scanning the brains of 50,000 to 100,000 participants. This will build a world-leading resource for research into dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases. We also want to see more people with dementia taking part in research. Inviting patients to participate in research will become part of a quality marker for memory clinics.
Finally, the challenge of dementia is not one for Government alone, but for all society. We want to develop awareness and understanding, and tackle stigma, so that all parts of society can contribute. The Government will continue to fund awareness campaigns for dementia and by 2015 the aim is to have at least 20 cities, towns and villages working together as dementia-friendly communities, where local businesses, organisations and individuals come together to support people to live well with dementia, helping them remain independent for longer.
Three champion groups will be convened to bring together the leading organisations and groups with an interest in dementia to support the delivery of the Prime Minister’s challenge. The champion groups will report on progress to Department of Health Ministers who will report to the Prime Minister in September 2012.
“The Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
I will update the House on progress in due course.
Alcohol Guidelines (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Today we have laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the Science and Technology Committee Report on Alcohol Guidelines (Cm 8329). Clear and easily understood information is central to ensuring that everyone is aware of the risks of excessive alcohol consumption and can make informed choices about responsible drinking. The response sets out the Department of Health’s intention to commission a review, led by Dame Sally Davies, as the UK Government’s principal medical adviser to look at the current drinking guidelines, and the evidence base.
Copies of the Government’s response are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper office. It is also available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/03/response-alcohol-guidelines/.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (David Anderson Report)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to say that in accordance with sections 14(3), 14(4) and 14(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, David Anderson QC has completed the report on the operation of the Act in 2011, which will be laid before the House today.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
TPIM notices in force (as of 29 February 2012) | 9 |
TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 29 February 2012) | 9 |
TPIM notices imposed (all of the individuals who were subject to a control order at the time the TPIM Act received Royal Assent are now subject to a TPIM notice) | 9 |
Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices | 4 |
Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused | 7 |
During the reporting period: no TPIM notices were extended; no TPIM notices were revoked; and no TPIM notices were revived.
A TPIM review group (TRG) has been set up in order to keep every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The TPIM review group did not meet during this reporting period.
No individuals were charged in relation to an offence under section 23 of the Act (contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice without reasonable excuse) during the period.
Section 16 of the 2011 Act provides rights of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State in relation to decisions taken under the Act. No appeals were lodged under section 16 during the reporting period and no judgments have been handed down by the High Court in relation to TPIM cases.
National Policing Improvement Agency
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I undertook to update the House on the transfer of the National Policing Improvement Agency’s (NPIA) critical functions to successor bodies.
On 1 April, the Central Witness Bureau, Crime Operational Support Unit, the National Missing Persons Bureau, Serious Crime Analysis Section and Specialist Operations Centre will transfer from the NPIA to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, an important pre-cursor organisation to the National Crime Agency, which will become operational in 2013. These are the first operational areas to move to a successor body; a signal of their national importance in this special year.
Work is continuing on the development of the police professional body and the new police ICT company. I will update the House as plans for these bodies are confirmed.
I envisage that the NPIA functions transferring to the professional body would include, among others: learning, development, strategy and curriculum; authorised professional practice; exams and assessments; the international academy; the National College of Police Leadership; uniformed operational support; some specialist training; and the Criminal Justice and Local Policing Unit. I see the police professional body as being the holder of a body of knowledge for the police service and the transfer of key aspects of the NPIA’s research, analysis and information unit will help to establish this ambition.
Turning to plans for other NPIA functions, I intend:
To transfer to the Home Office responsibility for the NPIA’s Police Science and Forensics services; policy for police special constables; the NPIA’s Automotive Equipment Section; management of the contract for the Airwave radio system and its replacement (including associated staff); some policy responsibility for police work force strategy (though some will also sit with the new professional body and will have an important role to play in relation to the work force); the secretariat for the reducing bureaucracy programme; and the National Police Air Service project team (which will continue to report to Chief Constable Alex Marshall) These functions, together with those I outlined in my written ministerial statement of 15 December 2011, will transfer into the Home Office in autumn 2012.
To transfer to the Home Office, as an interim measure, Hendon data centre services (HDS) in autumn 2012. This temporary move will provide continuity for many of the police service’s critical national identity systems.
To transfer the NPIA’s Proceeds of Crime Centre to the National Crime Agency when it is established in 2013. The NPIA’s statutory powers to train, accredit and monitor financial investigators remain priorities, and, in due course, I intend to bring forward legislation to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act to allow for these responsibilities to be passed to the NCA. In the interim, I will ensure the important work of the centre is preserved until the NCA is fully operational.
For the police professional body, once established, to continue the NPIA’s existing and important relationship with the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism and the Home Office-funded Police National Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Centre. The Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism will continue to provide management support and oversee the CBRN centre budget after the creation of the new body.
I will continue to update Parliament as we make further decisions on remaining functions, the future of the NPIA estate and the creation of its successor bodies.
Secure Estate for Children and Young People (Response to Consultation)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Today we are publishing our response to the consultation on the “Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People for England and Wales” alongside plans for the secure estate until 2015.
Both are joint publications between the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board.
Custody is the appropriate sanction for those young people who commit the most persistent and most serious crimes. Custody is always a last resort but can help young people face up and address their offending behaviour. It is also an opportunity, if properly delivered, to set young people on a more constructive path.
The recent reduction in the number of young people in custody means that the secure estate is now going through a period of change. This has presented us with an opportunity to consider the most appropriate configuration of the estate and consider whether different regimes can deliver improved outcomes.
The response to the consultation and the future plans for the secure estate can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: www.justice.gov.uk.
Bus Policy, Regulation and Funding
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am today announcing a series of reforms which I propose to make to improve the system of local bus subsidy and regulation in England. These are set out in the paper “Green Light for Better Buses”, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am also pleased to announce today an extra £15 million in funding for increasing the uptake of smart ticketing equipment, particularly among small and medium-sized companies. This makes a total bus funding package of £115 million, if taken alongside last week’s announcement, Official Report, 23 March 2012, column 81WS, on Better Bus Areas (£70 million) and the Green Bus Fund (£31 million). This considerable sum underlines the coalition Government’s firm commitment to investment in transport infrastructure, tackling congestion, and decarbonising transport.
Over the past year, I have been discussing with bus companies, local transport authorities and passenger groups the need for reforms to the bus services operators grant which the Government pay to every company that runs local bus services. The system of subsidy we have inherited is poorly targeted. It does not distinguish between profitable services and those that require local council support. It does not take into account the differing public transport needs of urban and rural areas. And it does little to incentivise fuel-efficient buses.
The proposals I am announcing today have been carefully formulated to attract more people onto buses, to ensure better value for the taxpayer and to give local transport authorities more influence over their local bus networks. They also signal a move to break the link between fuel use and subsidy.
The Government have also responded today to the recommendations from the Competition Commission’s report into the supply of local bus services in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland and London). We have committed to introduce regulatory changes that will remove the barriers facing bus companies that attempt to engage in competition on new bus routes and in new bus markets.
We will also support and guide urban areas in their efforts to introduce new reasonably priced tickets that can be used on any bus, not just on those of a single company. And we will help local councils in their procurement of tendered bus services.
Night Flying Restrictions (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The current restrictions on night flying at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports were set in 2006 and are due to expire in October 2012.
The Government’s forthcoming aviation policy framework will set out key parameters for aviation, including on noise annoyance to local communities. To ensure our proposals to replace the current night flying regime can take account of the aviation policy framework which the Government have committed to have in place by next spring, and will include the framework for managing noise, we will extend the existing night flying regime at these airports for a period of two years until October 2014. As a first step to replace the current regime in 2014, we will launch a first stage consultation later this year which will seek detailed evidence of the effectiveness of the current regime including costs and benefits and airlines’ fleet replacement plans. This will be followed by a second consultation next year which will enable us to take account of adopted policy when developing our specific proposals.
The Government will take into account the freeze in quota limits during this extension period when setting the next regime and expects airlines to continue to improve their environmental performance in the interim.
Further details of the extension and the timetable for setting a new regime have been published on the Department’s website.
Olympic Penalty Charges
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) made proposals to me, following consultation, for the level of penalty charges and associated fees that should apply for civil contraventions of parking and other traffic management measures in traffic regulation orders and notices made for defined games purposes on the Olympic route network (ORN) and elsewhere in England. I am today announcing my decision on these proposals under the provisions of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.
The ODA proposed that in most locations the normal level of penalties and fees should apply, and that in all places the normal discounts and surcharges for early and late payment should apply. However, they also proposed that in order to help secure a high level of voluntary compliance with the temporary parking and other traffic management measures essential to the games’ success, increased penalties of £200 should apply on the ORN, and in two of the residents and business parking protection (or “LATM&P”) areas being established around the games venues—around the Olympic park and in the Greenwich river zone. In addition ODA proposed a higher vehicle pound release fee of £300 in the same two areas.
I have decided not to approve higher than normal penalties and fees on the ORN and in these areas, and to require all penalties and fees to be set at normal levels. I endorse the importance of securing a high level of compliance with the temporary traffic management measures, for the benefit of both the games and local residents and businesses. However I am not persuaded that a higher level of penalties and fees is an essential addition to the strategy of communication and advice to residents, businesses and motorists about the measures and their enforcement that is already well under way, supported by plans for effective on-street enforcement activity during the games, including tow-away resources. I consider that increased penalties and fees would be an unnecessary burden in a challenging economic climate when we are already asking businesses and commuters to consider making significant changes to their travel behaviour during the games.
My decision concerns penalties for contraventions of new temporary measures implemented for the games. It is consistent with that taken by the Mayor of London on 15 March not to approve temporary increases in the penalties and fees for contravention of existing measures in traffic regulation orders on the ORN in London and in the same residents and business parking protection areas.
I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of ODA’s table showing its proposals and the normal penalties and fees applicable in different locations.
Social Fund Allocations (2012-13)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that the gross discretionary social fund budget for 2012-13 will be £703.4 million.
With the net funding available, I have been able to allocate a gross national social fund loans budget of £561.4 million and a national community care grants budget of £141 million from 1 April 2012.
To provide help to area budgets facing unexpected and unplanned expenditure I will retain centrally £1 million as a contingency reserve.
I will allocate a gross national social fund loans budget in line with the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The aim is to control and manage the national allocation while providing consistency of outcomes for budgeting loan applicants wherever they live. All loans budget expenditure will be made from the gross national loans budget of £561.4 million.
Community Care Grants
Following a review in 2011 into the funding allocations methodology, allocations to social fund budget areas have been adjusted to achieve a fairer distribution of the £141 million national budget between areas and to move to the optimal funding position for the new locally based service from 2013.
Details of individual community care grant allocations are contained within an explanatory note that I will place in the House Library today.
Background Note about the Discretionary Social Fund Budget
The discretionary social fund budget is cash-limited. Funding for community care grants is allocated to each budget area for management by social fund benefit delivery centres on 1 April each year. The gross discretionary social fund budget allocated for 2012-13 is £703.4 million. This is made up of:
New money (net AME) | £178.2 million |
Forecast loan recovery | £525.2 million |
This is to be allocated as follows:
Loans | £561.4 million |
Grants | £141 million |
Contingency reserve | £1 million |
State Pension Age Changes (Bridging Pensions)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Some defined benefit occupational pension schemes pay members who retire before state pension age a higher pension at the outset, which is then reduced at state pension age to take account of the payment of state pension. This allows a member’s total retirement income to be smoothed over the period of retirement, alleviating possible financial hardship between the date of retirement and the payment of state pension.
These arrangements are often described as bridging pensions, but they are also referred to by other terms, including, integrated pensions, step-up pensions, claw-back pensions and state pension offsets. They can either be part of a scheme’s basic design, or an option offered to members at retirement of either a bridging pension, or a level pension from the outset. Where there is an option the amount payable after age 65 will be lower if a member has opted for a bridging pension, so that the overall cost to the scheme will generally be calculated to be the same whichever option is chosen.
The Government are aware that the changes being introduced to state pension age may have implications for some pension schemes which provide bridging pensions, and individuals who are receiving them. And we recognise that some changes to legislation will be necessary in order to take account of the changes to state pension age. In particular, the Finance Act 2004 places an upper age limit of 65 on the payment of bridging pensions.
At Budget 2012 the Government announced that changes would be made to the Finance Act 2004 to align the bridging pension rules with the state pension age changes.
We recognise that the rules of some schemes providing bridging pensions may specifically refer to the current 65 upper age limit and that in some cases the rules may not provide for their terms to be amended easily, or even at all. They could then be in a position where they are unable to adapt the terms on which their scheme provides bridging pensions in order to take account of changes to state pension age.
I therefore propose to introduce a limited power for the trustees of schemes which currently provide bridging pensions within the terms of the Finance Act to amend their scheme’s rules (if they wish to do so) to take account of later state pension ages. This will allow trustees to adapt the terms of any bridging or integrated pension arrangement offered, but only to the extent that they consider this to be necessary or desirable in order to take account of the changes to state pension age and to the Finance Act. It will not allow them to make wider or more general changes.
Personal Independence Payment
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
Disability living allowance is being replaced by a new benefit called personal independence payment for people aged 16 to 64.
We will be publishing a formal consultation later today on the detailed benefit rules that will underpin personal independence payment. We are running a full consultation that will run for 14 weeks from 26 March to 30 June 2012.
The consultation also covers the rules governing eligibility and payability of PIP for certain groups. It provides further details on how we will reassess DLA recipients and what the passporting arrangements will be under personal independence payment.
This consultation follows our initial consultation which was held between December 2010 and February 2011 on the reform of DLA, including the high-level structure of the new benefit.
Today’s publication will inform the development process. We welcome views from disabled people and their representative organisations. We will actively engage with these groups throughout the consultation period to ensure we get the detailed design right.
I will place a copy of the formal consultation in the Library.
Workplace Pension Reform
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that today I will be laying one of the final building blocks to enable the start of automatic enrolment from later this year—the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2012.
Alongside this draft order I will be placing a copy of the Government’s response to the consultation on the 2012-2013 review and revision of earning thresholds for automatic enrolment in the House Library. Following the commitment made to the House by my noble Friend Lord Freud, the Minister with responsibility for welfare reform, during the passage of the Pensions Act 2011 this response includes an analysis of the impact of the revised thresholds.
I would like to thank the pensions community for their input to this work. This collaboration needs to continue if we are to make automatic enrolment a success.
These papers will be available later today on the Department’s website:
http://dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/auto-enrolment-revaluation.shtml.
Grand Committee
Lord’s Resistance Army
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking with international partners to bring to trial Joseph Kony and other leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army at the International Criminal Court.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I should remind speakers in this debate that it is strictly limited to one hour. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I first requested this short debate nearly 18 months ago after meeting Juliet, a courageous young woman, on the day that she delivered a letter to the Prime Minister asking for help for victims of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army. Juliet had been captured by the LRA; she had been raped, and lost her child in childbirth. The British charity, War Child, had brought Juliet to London. Juliet’s case is not an isolated one. There are thousands upon thousands of children like Juliet, and teenagers such as a boy called John. John was abducted by the LRA when he was in his early teens. Beaten, force-marched, kept hungry for days and trained to use weapons, he was told to use other children as target practice. This afternoon, I have met James Odong, World Vision’s associate director of peacebuilding, who is present at our proceedings. He was himself abducted by the LRA at the age of 19 and held for 47 days. He says:
“As a young man in captivity, I saw children brutally murdered right in front of me—and children forced to kill … Many of them have seen things no child ever should”.
Pernille Ironside, senior adviser for child protection at UNICEF, graphically describes how she heard of a girl escaping the LRA who was,
“brutally slaughtered … as a deterrent to everyone else”.
She shockingly describes the slaughter of babies for cannibalism. She, like James Odong, believes that we need to have a different way of tackling the complex problems raised by the LRA. James believes that international justice must put children at the forefront and be accountable to them; that strong national and local-level child protection systems are crucial; and that children themselves have a role to play in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The failure to contain the LRA has also led to the creation of a no-man’s land in the DRC, from which it is able to launch new incursions into Southern Sudan. It is said that it has been able to operate with impunity with the connivance of paymasters and facilitators in Khartoum, because of their desire to undermine South Sudan’s fragile new democracy. The LRA is a useful tool in the hands of Khartoum, and has become part of a resource war within the region.
Today’s debate is timely for two reasons in particular: the role of the International Criminal Court and the role of public opinion in ending a culture of impunity. Just a few days ago, on 14 March, the ICC secured its first conviction since its creation a decade ago. It convicted Thomas Lubanga for his responsibility for the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children, and using them to participate actively in hostilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The court’s first conviction shines a light on the brutal practice of conscripting and using children to take a direct part in hostilities—children who are often sent to the front lines of combat or used as porters, guards or sex slaves. A total of 93 victims were represented in the trial, with nine former child soldiers testifying in the proceedings.
That conviction puts perpetrators of unlawful child-soldier recruitment on notice that they cannot expect their crimes to go unpunished. In 2005, the ICC’s very first arrest warrants were issued against Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti, and three other LRA commanders —Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen—so no one should be more on notice than him, along with the armed groups using children in around 15 conflicts worldwide. Most recently, al-Shabaab has joined their number in Somalia.
The protection and rehabilitation of children affected by armed conflict should be at the forefront of our minds. Failure to help former child soldiers risks the long-term development and stability of the whole region. Perhaps the Minister can establish for us whether the ICC intends to make a reparation order, or for it to be provided through the Trust Fund for Victims in order to assist the rehabilitation of individual victims. Will he also tell us whether the United Kingdom uses its leverage as a donor to militaries in countries such as the DRC, Uganda and South Sudan to include a formal mechanism in funding agreements that requires disarmament, demobilisation and the reintegration of child soldiers as part of the capacity-building activities?
I said that the debate was topical for two reasons. First, it is set against the backdrop of the role of the ICC, but the second reason is the surge of global interest as a result of the “Kony 2012” viral video, which has been watched on the internet by more than 100 million people worldwide. It certainly illustrates the new power of social networking. Made by an American advocacy group, Invisible Children, it tells the story of Kony and the LRA. Some have criticised it as simplistic, celebrity-centred, income-generating for its makers and inaccurate in implying that Kony is still at large in Uganda, which he quit six years ago. The personal criticism and the extraordinary media frenzy are said to be contributory factors in the mental breakdown of its maker, Jason Russell, who has been arrested and detained in San Diego. Whatever the reason, it is a cruel paradox that Russell has been taken into custody while the man he wants to bring to justice remains at large. Whatever its inadequacies, this internet campaign has been a game changer, mobilising millions of mainly young people worldwide, and has focused on 20 April as the day to make the infamous Kony famous. I even see posters in my son’s school demanding that Kony is brought to justice. Surely this is welcome.
Perhaps we should contrast the impact of Russell’s internet campaign with our failure to apprehend a mass murderer who boasts that he cuts off the lips, ears, noses and breasts of victims and who has ravaged and destabilised vast swathes of Africa for over 25 years, seriously undermining our development objectives. In October 2009, I asked Ministers questions which still remain unanswered. I ask again today. Who funds the LRA? Who arms it? Why have western intelligence agencies not pooled resources to track down Kony? Why have the UN and the African Union been so lamentably inadequate in protecting civilian populations?
In May 2010, President Obama signed into law the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, which calls on the US Government to develop a comprehensive strategy. The United States is also spending more than $1.5 million a month supporting 100 military advisers in Africa working to track down the LRA and its leaders. I hope the Minister will tell us how that operation is proceeding and what assistance we have offered in ensuring its success. I hope he will also expand on the welcome news broadcast on Saturday last that the AU special envoy, Mr Francisco Madeira, has announced the launch of a joint military task force.
Given all these initiatives, as the ICC’s prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, says in an interview on “Kony 2012”:
“It will be bad for the world if we fail”.
We must capitalise on the welcome surge of interest in Kony and rebuild regional co-operation, scale up Ugandan military operations, strengthen civilian early warning mechanisms and promote defection. Poor co-ordination between regional Governments has enabled the LRA to exploit ungoverned spaces in the triborder region.
What should be our lodestar in determining our approach? In any attempt to bring Joseph Kony and other LRA leaders to justice, the UK must put the needs of children at the centre. To effectively stop Kony and the LRA in countries such as the DRC, the Central African Republic, Uganda and South Sudan, the security sector—the police and military—must be adequately trained, salaried, resourced and made accountable; and, as the LRA has adapted, so must the intelligence community. It must spare no effort in locating the leaders of the LRA.
I for one am grateful that “Kony 2012” has succeeded in pushing this scandalous issue up the agenda, perhaps making 2012 the year when Kony is finally brought to justice. I am grateful to all noble Lords participating in today’s short debate.
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in yet again highlighting this crucial human rights issue in such a powerful and consistent way. I want to focus on one issue relating to this: the International Criminal Court and the importance of the international rule of law in upholding human rights. By and large, most conflicts arise from one group of people feeling that they are superior to another or one group of people feeling that they are inferior to another. International law reminds us that we are all equal before the law and are all subject to the law. The International Criminal Court came into being in the Rome statute. Its objective has been said to be to,
“bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide”.
Joseph Kony was accused on arrest warrants of 12 counts of crimes against humanity and 21 war crimes. That evidence was mounted by the Office of the Prosecutor. I want to take a slightly sideways approach to this because Jason Russell did a huge international public service in raising this issue through the viral campaign on the internet, but I want to question who the target is. Of course, Joseph Kony ought to be, but what are we asking of the legislators? Is it really just to say that we want one man—one criminal—among many brought to the International Criminal Court, or do we want to see a day when we have universal application of human rights upheld by the International Criminal Court? In that case, his message needs to be directed to President Obama because the US remains a country that has not signed. It originally signed the wrong statue and then unsigned the wrong statute. How a nation that has done so much to uphold freedom and respect for human rights around the world can rest in not lending its support to the International Criminal Court in this prosecution needs a viral campaign many times more powerful than the one that we have seen. I hope that we will see that.
The question of resources is very powerful. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the fact that the US has taken initiatives and passed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, and it has promised $4.5 million per month to fund the campaign to try to track Kony down. That was sensational but why not have that channelled through the International Criminal Court to strengthen the court in its efforts to bring this man to justice? According to the latest records, the Office of the Prosecutor had a budget of €112,000—not per month but per year. It has one member of staff to bring this man to justice. If we want to see justice done and this man before a court, as we all desire, it behoves nations such as the United States to get behind us wholeheartedly and join the International Criminal Court, which will strengthen it in the process.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this debate and for introducing it with such passion and understanding. The crimes of the LRA and Joseph Kony are horrendous and well known. Atrocities against civilians have been considerable, and children have been used as soldiers and sex slaves. They have also been turned into drug addicts so that even when they stop being soldiers they remain condemned to a certain kind of life all their lives.
Arrest warrants have been issued by the ICC since 2005 and very little has happened. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Kony and his cronies must be brought to justice, but I want to approach the question from a slightly different angle. What would happen if they were arrested and brought before the ICC? The trial would drag on; evidence would be degraded by the time of the trial, as has happened in several other cases before the ICC; or the evidence would fail to measure up to the very high standards required by the ICC for evidential justification. There would be considerable costs involved and the world would eventually lose interest in the trial and what the LRA had been doing. Painful memories of the victims would be revived and, within the countries involved, permanent problems that gave rise to the LRA and other things would remain unresolved.
While I agree entirely that we ought to be doing everything within our power to arrest Joseph Kony and others, we should be paying attention to two important things that are in danger of being neglected. First, we should be looking very carefully at the ICC. It demands standards of proof which are too high. In its conception, it has been modelled on domestic courts of justice and tribunals. That does not work at the international level. It also tends to be heavily cumbersome and dilatory. Proceedings of domestic courts cannot, as I said earlier, be models for what goes on at the international level. Again, the ICC is concerned not with ordinary crimes of rape, burglary and murder, as domestic courts are, but with multiple atrocities. How are cases involving multiple atrocities, in a context where the international law is not entirely clear, to be dealt with? It is also important that the judges should have some experience of dealing with cases involving multiple atrocities of this kind. So we should reflect a little more carefully than we have done so far upon the way in which the ICC has proceeded. It is dilatory and enormously costly. Judgment does not come until quite a few years later, and, more importantly, memories get revived when victims would rather forget.
The second important question we should be looking at is this: justice is absolutely important, but peace and domestic reconciliation are equally important. Once upon a time, the LRA had domestic support and was funded. The question that we should therefore be asking is: how can we create a situation in which domestic issues can be satisfactorily resolved before they get out of control or are hijacked in the way in which the LRA and Joseph Kony have hijacked such issues? It is also important, as many people have pointed out, that we should be looking not merely to the ICC to provide an answer, but also to domestic justice mechanisms. For example, in the Acholi tribe in Uganda, to which Kony belongs, there is a very conventional way of dealing with situations of this kind, which is called mato oput. It involves admission of guilt, asking for forgiveness and paying compensation. This is not enough, because things will go wrong, but nevertheless it provides one important way in which a traditional society is able to deal with crimes of this kind. While the ICC is necessary, we ought also to try to integrate traditional mechanisms of justice, restoration and reconciliation into the ICC procedure.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, for nearly two decades the LRA roamed across northern Uganda, causing 2 million people to flee their homes, and tens of thousands to be kidnapped, mutilated and killed. Over that time, more than 20,000 children were killed. Violence and disease killed 1,000 a week at the height of the conflict, and more than 70,000 people are still in IDP camps.
Joseph Kony, the self-proclaimed mystic, led the Lord’s Resistance Army on a massacre of civilians, as other noble Lords have commented, slicing off the lips of survivors and kidnapping children for use as soldiers, porters and sex slaves. Threatening to destabilise the whole of the region, Kony has repeatedly failed to sign a final peace deal, demanding that he should not be prosecuted by the ICC for war crimes.
Following the ICC’s indictment of Joseph Kony, the African Union formally designated the LRA as a terrorist group, accusing it of murder, rape and child kidnappings in east and central Africa. The AU’s security commissioner, Ramtane Lamamra, called on the UN Security Council to do the same. He has urged all countries to declare the LRA to be terrorists and to forbid its criminal activities on their territory. Mr Lamamra has welcomed the support for the AU by the recent US deployment of 100 specialist troops and appealed to other international partners to,
“reinforce and support … our own regional states in order to enhance their efficiency in fighting the LRA”.
It is of some concern that reports are circulating that Uganda is complaining that the Congo is obstructing its US-backed hunt for Kony. General Jean Claude Kifwa, leading the fight against the LRA for the Congo, has dismissed tensions with Uganda, suggesting Uganda may be dragging its feet in the hunt for Kony. Mistrust between Congolese and Ugandan forces has hampered the sharing of key intelligence and operational plans by the Ugandans, and tensions between Uganda and the DRC have not abated.
Ida Sawyer, a leading Congo analyst with Human Rights Watch, has commented that:
“On their own, regional governments have not shown the capability or resolve to protect civilians from LRA abuses, or…capture the LRA’s top leaders”.
In 2009, the successful author, Jane Bussmann, published a harrowing account of her experiences with the LRA. She, too, confirmed the lack of commitment in the Kony capture plans.
The AU’s efforts will only be the sum of its parts. Two years ago, an AU-led regional initiative was agreed. It included installing a 5,000-strong regional task force and three tactical sector headquarters, a joint operations centre and a joint co-ordination mechanism. Has this initiative been abandoned in favour of the new announcement? Over the past few days, the AU has announced that arrangements for a regional force are in place, seemingly a knee-jerk reaction to the “Stop Kony” video. Comprising troops from Uganda, South Sudan, the CAR and the DRC, it will be based in Yambio. What confidence do our Government have that this plan will overcome the operational tensions and shortages in key equipment and resources any better than previous joint operations?
There is a lack of resources, particularly in intelligence-gathering, military analysis, logistics and air troop transport, over this huge region. Can the Minister confirm when the joint operational centre in Dungu became available, when it became operational and how the required resources are expected to be provided?
Finally, what opportunities are our Government creating to liaise with Governments in the region to provide co-ordination and communication resources for communities to complete early warning systems such as cellphone tower networks, the completion of which has been extremely slow?
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I too warmly congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and on his comprehensive and powerful opening speech.
I will never forget visiting northern Uganda during the LRA’s reign of terror and talking to children and teenagers who had escaped from Kony’s army, with experiences similar to those highlighted by my noble friend. One girl, aged 13, wept as she recalled the morning when she was forced to kill a boy with a panga knife and drink his blood. She still had nightmares but asked, “What else could I do? It was either him or me”. Justin, aged 14, described how he had been abducted, force-marched to a training camp in a Khartoum-controlled area in South Sudan, beaten, kept hungry, given live ammunition and forced to use other children as target practice. One terrible day, his friend tried to escape but was recaptured, staked out on the ground and Justin and his other friends were forced to trample him to death. Then Justin broke down, telling how the LRA had killed his father as a punishment for his escape, so he feels guilty for the death of his dad.
I recount these memories—and there are many more—because such horrors will be being replicated today wherever Kony and his LRA troops are terrorising local people. I hope that they highlight the urgent need to put an end to their activities, and for resources for rehabilitation for individuals who have been traumatised, such as those young people. In northern Uganda, young people who had been victims of LRA atrocities desperately wanted education, to put their past behind them and to build a future. At that time, the Uganda Government did not provide free secondary education. I hope that any countries where young people are now suffering in similar ways will provide access to appropriate education to promote healing as well as an opportunity to develop independence, self-esteem and dignity.
Mention of South Sudan as the location where Justin was taken for training highlights the close relationship between the LRA and the notorious President of the Republic of Sudan, al-Bashir, who is also wanted by the ICC. He gave land to Kony’s LRA to carry out their training and perpetrate their atrocities on local people in South Sudan, including murder, rape, abduction of individuals and destruction of property. Although the LRA is not so active in South Sudan at the moment, there is always a fear that Khartoum has used it to try to destabilise the new republic—and may do so again.
The concerns I have identified highlight the urgency of the need to apprehend Kony and his troops. The case for his indictment by the ICC is clear, as failure to do so may encourage perpetrators of atrocities to believe that they can continue to carry them out with impunity elsewhere.
However, I finish with one plea by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Gulu, who suggested that, if Kony is sent to The Hague and his trial takes place far away from the people who have suffered at his hands, they may not understand the western approach to punishment, which is culturally very different from their traditional customs, with sophisticated procedures of public repentance, recompense and ultimate reconciliation, as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. The archbishop’s wise consideration of the divergence between the demands for justice as seen by the international community and the expectations of local people may be a salutary reminder of the need to consult those who have suffered most when rulings are made far away and in a foreign context, and to consider ways of bridging the gap so that victims and their communities who have suffered so much can feel that justice has been done for them, their needs have been met and true healing can begin.
I conclude by asking the Minister how Her Majesty’s Government intend to use the presidency of the UN Security Council to try to bring this matter to a conclusion.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his dogged focus on equatorial Africa and for drawing our attention to the atrocities there. I hope Her Majesty’s Government will see this as a unique time to garner the resources and international political will to arrest Joseph Kony and other LRA leaders.
Definite figures are hard to come by, but it is estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 children have become child soldiers to swell the ranks of the LRA, and that nearly half a million people are currently internally displaced. The mutilation, abductions, and killings have been systematic, but it is equally shocking that this has been going on since 1986—just over 25 years. Before even thinking of other conflicts that have come and gone during this time, but merely of the natural disasters that have rightly demanded the world’s priority, I wonder why this situation of similar gravity seems never to be at the top of the priority list of the international community. The resources needed to heal former child soldiers alone are enormous. This is a unique time simply because, looking back, this has gone on for far too long.
In addition, over this time much international intervention has been perceived to have occurred only where western economic interests or security were at stake, particularly oil. The arrest of Joseph Kony is an international justice issue which could do something to correct that perception. It is most encouraging that the Americans have sent 100 non-combatant troops to assist the regional forces in capturing Joseph Kony. Will the UK Government consider sending similar assistance or lobbying the UN for further resource? Although the US admits that the UPDF is
“a flawed and uncertain instrument for defeating the LRA”,
there does not seem to be any other realistic option, and capturing Kony would, many believe, dissolve the LRA, as it clearly has no economic or political agenda and cloaks itself in messianic terms to give purpose to its spurious existence.
Furthermore, surely the reputation of the ICC, whose arrest warrant has been outstanding since 2005, demands that Joseph Kony be captured and tried according to law? This unique time for the ICC could also provide the momentum to capture Kony. Will the Minister please give some indication of the UK Government’s view as to whether offering a reward would assist in his capture? I believe that with the necessary political will and logistic support he can be arrested.
It is most persuasively a unique time because, as the chief prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Ocampo, has said, the “Kony 2012” campaign has “mobilised the world”. Of course this campaign is not without contention, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined: it incorrectly focuses on northern Uganda, where the LRA previously operated, and the attempt to make Joseph Kony famous rather than infamous may not resonate correctly with local people. However, in less than four weeks, over 100 million people viewed this video, and it is the first example of campaigning created by and aimed at generation Y. It has been viewed mainly by people under the age of 25 in the US, Canada and the UK—more by women than men—and this is a group traditionally not engaged with politics. However, given the right issue, this group will campaign politically and I and, I suspect, PICT are grateful that viewing the video did not have the option to e-mail one’s MP. This political use of social media will in the future require deft footwork by Whitehall and politicians to keep up.
As Rachael Smith of the Millenials Think Tank has commented:
“What the Kony 2012 video has unleashed is the feeling of empowerment amongst a generation that has struggled to find their voice through conventional channels. What this campaign has done is highlight the power of social media to carry a message, a desire and to make demands”.
It is immensely encouraging that the issue young people have decided to focus on is a justice issue which deeply affects children. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to support them.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, the Kony T-shirt makes me shudder. I agree with my noble friend that the viral video may have made some important mistakes, notably the assumption that its principal actor is still in Uganda. However, as the noble Baroness has just said, it has alerted millions to the glaring fact that this arch-criminal, after years of being hunted, has still not been caught. The video focuses on Uganda because that is where the atrocities have mainly taken place, and where there are still terrible memories of thousands of mutilated or tortured children and bereaved families. I have met President Museveni and his wife Janet several times here and in Kampala, and I have been a UK patron of her trust to help orphans and AIDS victims in Uganda. I have great respect for what they have achieved, mainly the growing stability and increased prosperity of a country that was ravaged by previous rulers, but there is a legacy of neglect of the north and of the Acholi people for which the Ugandan Government carry a heavy responsibility. It was in those conditions that Kony and his fellow torturers were able to flourish, giving Kampala the pretext to clamp down everywhere. Opposition has been regularly suppressed by the President to the point of even frequently arresting his own former doctor and his allies.
The area concerned is immense. The Anglican Diocese of Northern Uganda is located within the districts of Gulu and Amuru and covers an area of over 11,000 square kilometres. Most of its population of about 450,000 people were internally displaced and confined to as many as 51 IDP camps. Even now that the area has returned to relative peace, about 20 per cent of those displaced have still not returned to their villages. According to the UNHCR, 90 per cent have gone home and about 125,000 remain in need of assistance. This mass resettlement has put pressure on already weakened family support systems, social services supplied by churches and charities, and natural resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, many victims will always bear the scars of the brutality of Kony’s irregulars.
I believe that the Ugandan army has done a lot to pursue the LRA over many years and, as we have heard, it is now being assisted by the US. Leaflets are regularly distributed to encourage defections, and children occasionally escape. I suggest that it is largely because Kampala has failed to develop and control the north that Kony has been able to evade the Ugandan army for so long.
In this country and within this Parliament, we have had strongly links with Uganda, not least because of the presence of several Peers and Members of Parliament who were born in Uganda and bring direct knowledge to our debates. I suggest that we do more than we are doing at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Popat, is travelling to Uganda today to visit the Parliament in Kampala and will also visit the business community. Our economy has benefited from many Ugandan Asians who were the victims of past tyrannies and we must encourage and have encouraged their safe return home. We have had frequent exchanges through the Commonwealth in order to share methods and technology, and may they long continue. However, much work still needs to be done to strengthen institutions concerned with the rule of law, democratic government and human rights in Uganda. I hope the Minister will reassure us that the UK energetically supports this work as well as the development projects in the north with which we were concerned a few years ago. I do not know whether we still are. Oil discoveries on Lake Albert are good news, but they do not always solve problems. They can aggravate them.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate and I associate myself with what he and others said to the effect that Joseph Kony is unspeakably evil. He has been responsible for barbarity and causing human misery on a massive scale.
I would like to say a word or two about the power of the internet. The “Kony 2012” video by Jason Russell has done a great deal that is good. As others have said, it has brought the activities of the LRA and Joseph Kony to the attention of the world. It has had a substantial impact on millions of people, young people in particular, whose awareness of what has happened and interest in international politics has been awakened in a remarkable way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that that is all to the good. However, we need to be careful because the video has undoubtedly caused some considerable offence in Africa, particularly in Uganda, because of its implication that Uganda now is associated with the horrors of what went on some years ago. The reality is that there has been great progress. The LRA has not been active in Uganda for some time. Its numbers are reduced and the northern region is now largely peaceful. It is important for peoples and government to develop a culture in relation to the internet that benefits from the increase in awareness that it brings but that is also more critical and less sensitive to internet publications. In that way, the best can be achieved and the worst can be avoided.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in calling for greater and broader support for the International Criminal Court. It is 10 years since the Rome statute established it. While the ICC has been hugely welcome, it has in many ways been a disappointing decade in terms of solid achievement. The conviction of the warlord Thomas Lubanga for coercion of children as soldiers has been its first success and is to be hugely welcomed, but it has been a long time coming.
In some ways, that has been the result of internal problems at the court and a lack of direction. It is to be hoped that the appointment of a dynamic new chief prosecutor in Fatou Bensouda will make a difference. It is also to be hoped that the ICC will widen the scope of its investigations to look at countries outside Africa, to which its attention has so far been largely directed. But the absence of important states—the United States, China and Russia—as signatories to the Rome statute has been and remains the principal difficulty facing the ICC and imperils its future success.
One reason for that is that if the ICC wishes to prosecute crimes by states not party—let us remember that Uganda and the DRC are both states party—the only route to prosecution is referral by the UN Security Council. With the United States, Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council, such referrals are difficult to secure because unanimity is difficult to achieve. The normal route has been by the establishment of a commission of inquiry, as in Darfur and Libya, followed by a referral by the Security Council. There is room for diplomatic efforts to work on three fronts: first, to persuade non-signatories to join the Rome statute; secondly, to work within the United Nations to secure referrals from the UN Security Council; and, thirdly, to redouble efforts by the United Kingdom Government and other Governments to support the ICC in its work and to emphasise its importance.
To take two examples that I mentioned when the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked a Question of my noble friend last Thursday, it would, for instance, be a major step forward if we could secure referrals in respect of Myanmar and North Korea. Both countries have histories of well documented abuse of human rights by the regime. In Myanmar, where for many years the imprisonment and torture of political opponents of the regime has been routine, there are encouraging signs of progress. But that should not stand in the way of bringing the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice. In North Korea, the imprisonment of families of dissenters has led to the children of dissenters being imprisoned for the dissent of their parents.
These misdeeds should not be protected; their perpetrators should be pursued in the same way that Joseph Kony is now rightly being pursued. The role of the ICC is to work towards achieving that. Everything the international community and the United Kingdom Government can do to further that aim must be done.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate and for bringing to it, in his usual way, his extensive expertise and understanding of the subject. The conviction last week of Thomas Lubanga by the ICC, which was just mentioned, represents real progress for international justice and confirms that the judges were being scrupulously fair. Now, attention must focus on the others accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including war criminals such as Charles Taylor, Gbagbo, Bashir, Saif al-Islam and, of course, Joseph Kony and his collaborators in the terrible crimes that they have committed. All these need to remain a priority for the court.
I do not want to say too much about the Invisible Children video, except to observe that it is somewhat simplistic, patronising to Africans and—in some respects, as many noble Lords have said—misleading, particularly on the issue of where Kony is. He may be in Uganda; he moves in and out of the borders of the DRC, the Central African Republic and South Sudan. That is how he operates; you never really know where he is. Even with its limitations the video does, however, prove the power of celebrity and social networks, as other noble Lords have said. We have learnt a serious lesson for when we want to get a message across.
Now Obama’s boys, as the US contingent in the region is called, operate from bases in all the threatened countries, and military efforts effectively operate alongside efforts to persuade Kony’s followers to defect. When one of Kony’s many so-called wives saw a photo recently of another “wife” smiling out of a leaflet, proving that she had escaped to safety, she also decided to flee. Incidentally, that leaflet was another Invisible Children initiative and was published in three local languages.
It is estimated that Kony’s force now totals something in the region of 200 to 500, down from thousands at its peak. That is encouraging but it emphatically does not mean that the LRA is a spent force, or that it has lost the capacity to attack or to terrorise communities. Last year we saw 278 attacks, and there have been 20 this year in the DRC, forcing 3,000 people to flee their homes. The affected countries will need assistance and support and, as a US State Department official recently said, what we think about where Joseph Kony is is not as important as where the four regional armies think he is. The four countries—the DRC, Uganda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan—have agreed to work together on this, which represents real progress. We should strongly emphasise the need for African government leaders, institutions and civil society to have a central role in these efforts.
The reality is that we will certainly not see a US “Black Hawk Down”-style military debacle, such as we saw in Somalia. The campaign generated by the video in recent weeks has succeeded in hardening the US commitment to engagement against the LRA, however, and has led to more co-ordinated and concerted action. But there are justifiable anxieties in America, especially ahead of the US election, about US servicemen being killed in Africa, which will naturally prevent the US Army from going beyond its “advise and assist” role. We may, therefore, see other kinds of interventions such as the use of drones and other technologies, including the essential building of cellphone towers and early warning systems in the regions. These provisions will allow for “find and capture” Special Forces operations without resorting to more heavy-handed military intervention. It is also important that the AU has launched its “regional co-operation initiative” to end the LRA—the first time that has happened. This has taken time because of reconciling the demands of its own member states and its main financial backer, the European Union.
All the evidence shows the need never to underestimate the ability of the LRA to resist capture. We hear that approximate locations are known to Governments, the UN and NGOs. What apparently is missing is the ability to act in a timely and effective way.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, I think we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising this important and, in many ways, grim topic. He is right—so are several other noble Lords—that the unprecedented and astonishing response to the “Kony 2012” campaign has highlighted the British public’s strength of feeling about the Lord’s Resistance Army and its appalling activities. The UK Government completely share that concern. We utterly condemn the atrocities carried out on the orders of Joseph Kony.
I am pleased that the dreadful human suffering at the hands of the LRA is getting increased public attention. I welcome that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I assure your Lordships that the UK Government remain very actively involved. We continue to work with international partners to disband the LRA and to bring to justice Joseph Kony and the other LRA leaders who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court. However, we should recognise that apprehending Kony has not been, and will not be, an easy task. The noble Baroness has rightly just warned us that although the LRA may be diminished in number, it remains an extremely dangerous operating force, casting a deep shadow over the entire vast region. It is estimated that there are about 300 remaining fighters operating in a huge area, across remote and immensely hostile terrain. Previous military attempts to stop the LRA have always resulted in brutal revenge attacks, casting a paralysing feeling of terror over the whole area. A concerted international effort is certainly therefore still required to bring Kony to justice, and the UK is playing a key role in this.
The UK leads on the LRA at the UN Security Council. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we are taking a very active role there in bringing the issue to the fore. We secured the UN Security Council presidential statement of November last year, which has tasked the UN to deliver a coherent, co-ordinated and results-focused regional strategy to combat the LRA. We have pressed for better co-ordination and intelligence-sharing between the UN peacekeeping operations—MONUSCO—which are mandated to provide protection for civilians who are at risk from the LRA. The UK is an active member of the international working group to co-ordinate the international response to the regional problems of the LRA. We have pushed for increased co-operation among regional Governments to bring Joseph Kony and other LRA leaders to justice. We will continue to discuss the issue with Governments in all the countries affected by the LRA.
Our contributions through the EU have been instrumental in supporting the EU’s multifaceted approach to the LRA. The aim is to ensure that the struggle against the LRA is pursued on the civilian front as well as the diplomatic and military front in a comprehensive way. With the support of international partners, including the EU, the African Union has been able to develop a regional counter-LRA operation, which includes a regional task force—an operation constituted of Ugandan, Congolese, South Sudanese and Central African Republic troops in the region. We speak to the ICC regularly and provide it with updates on the pursuit of Kony. Noble Lords have raised the ICC issue, on which there may be time to make a further comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether DfID’s aid was associated with conditions. DfID’s aid to the DRC is on an enormous scale—£790 million over the four years 2011-15. The programme covers a diverse range of issues, including work to improve standards of transparency in the trade in natural resources, support to promote economic development through improved networks of roads, better access to education and work to reform the security sector to make it better administered and more accountable. I have to qualify what I say, but I hope that meets most of his concerns on that front.
I wish to say a brief word about the ICC, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bates and Lord Marks. The broader issue of why the ICC is not signed up to by great powers such as the United States and China is a matter that we have debated fully. I would love to have more time to speculate with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on why the USA will not sign up to it. It expressed its fears at the time and we have debated them since in the Chamber. I must leave the issue there, but he is absolutely right that it remains a great hole in the entire ICC system.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also asked who funds the LRA. We are advised that there is no particular outside source of funds. It just grabs resources from civilians, villages and from wherever it can. Who arms the LRA? The answer is that it attacks check points and seizes caches of arms and weapons. Again, we do not have any evidence of any systematic outside help on that. Why is there no pooled intelligence? There is now pooled intelligence. The joint intelligence operation centre in Dongo has now started and we seconded an officer there about a year ago. The British officer is a major director of the operation there and, of course, we fund him. As for the protection of the civilian population, it is reasonable to ask why it has all taken so long to get these things organised. We now have the MONUSCO disarmament and repatriation programme and the AU’s regional task force has now formed and is now deploying. Indeed, it is just starting work this week by setting up operations in South Sudan. As we are debating this matter, it will open in a few days.
Many other fascinating points were raised by people very closely concerned with this. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked why there was no reward for capture. The difficulty is that there are so many militias and groups searching around for Joseph Kony, including those now getting organised through the AU and MONUSCO, and so many different sources of intelligence. There is also such terror in the villages about he what will do to them that I am not sure that that would work, but it is an interesting idea to put forward.
Can we do a lot more in Uganda? We certainly can do more, although the aid to Uganda programme is very extensive at the moment. I have a long list of the different programmes of support, which there is no time to read out, that have been pushed by DfID in committing £100 million to post-conflict development in northern Uganda over the current five-year period: building legitimacy and improving the capacity of local government to deliver services to the public; supporting government, civil society and communities to engage in peacebuilding and reconciliation, and many other matters that are simply impossible to recite in the time available. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, spoke eloquently about the issue, as did the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who said that we should do more in Uganda. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, also mentioned the ICC issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, spoke with considerable knowledge of the area.
I reiterate the importance of the work that the UK is doing, alongside the international community, in bringing this individual—or monster, as some call Kony—to justice. We are working with the UN, the AU, the EU and the ICC constantly to that aim. We provide aid to reduce the threat of the LRA. In this financial year alone, we have contributed £384,000 to MONUSCO’s demobilisation, disarmament, repatriation and reintegration programme. Through DfID we have committed £100 million, as I mentioned, to promote development of northern Uganda as it recovers from two decades of horrific war with the LRA. This five-year programme is half way through and showing some impressive results, such as a lowering of poverty levels in the region. Through this programme we have worked with the Government of Uganda’s peace, recovery and development plan for the north, which has allowed the vast majority of people who have been displaced by the LRA’s activities to return home.
We will continue to work in the region through a wide range of activities to ensure that civilians are protected and can go about their lives without the threat of the LRA. I want to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to working with our regional partners and the wider international community to bring an end to the LRA’s reign of terror and to bring Joseph Kony and his leaders to justice. I thank noble Lords for their attention, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the matter, and all your Lordships for speaking so eloquently.
Autism Act 2009
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implementation of the Autism Act 2009 and associated autism strategy.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords showing an interest in this debate this afternoon, and particularly to the Minister, who I know takes the Autism Act 2009 very seriously. I have brought it forward at this time because the Act needs to be kept under review. There are certain aspects that I want to air today particularly as far as the implementation of the strategy is concerned. I hope that the Minister will be able to take away some of the concerns that I have about it.
It is important to re-emphasise that this Act, introduced by my dear friend the right honourable Cheryl Gillan MP in another place, is the first, and I believe only, condition-specific legislation on our statute book. As a result, we have a particular regard for the reason why it came about. It was because, as a spectrum, autism is a complex condition, which has only begun to be understood in recent years, and because even those who present as more able on that spectrum can deteriorate in areas of mental health, particularly when they progress from childhood to adolescence and then on to adulthood, if they do not receive the appropriate packages of support, much of which will need to be lifelong for many, even the most able. It was for that reason that Parliament singled out the condition of autism in order to put this legislation on the statute book. The Department of Health has responsibility not just for implementing it but for overseeing it, so that this legislation carries out Parliament’s wishes in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State to,
“prepare and publish … a strategy for meeting the needs of adults in England with autistic spectrum conditions”,
and to issue guidance to local authorities and health bodies to secure the implementation of that strategy. There is also a duty on local authorities and health bodies to act under that statutory guidance.
I would like to begin by raising issues that are in the current strategy, on which I hope my noble friend will be able to answer my questions or, if not, to write to me afterwards. The first is to do with partnership boards. Page 29 of the guidance raises the matter of partnership boards, but in the guidance these are not to be required in every circumstance; there is simply a requirement for partnership boards to be there and to be a body where people with autism and their families could participate. It is not statutory that they should. Will partnership boards be monitored in terms of their being set up, and what is the Government’s position now on partnership boards including those with autism and their families? We know that this is one of those conditions where carers and those who can self-advocate in particular are in a key position to add to what is needed in their own services.
I would also like to raise with my noble friend the question of IQ, on which I have put down Written Questions. Page 15 of the guidance states:
“Assessment of eligibility for care services cannot be denied on the grounds of the person’s IQ”.
This is a very old problem which particularly affects those who present with Asperger’s or the more high-functioning Kanner’s autism. I apologise; I should have declared my interest as vice-president of the National Autistic Society. Having been in another place for 18 years, I have dealt with a lot of casework—not just my own but also that of other Members of Parliament. IQ has been the reason social services and other statutory bodies have denied people on the spectrum the right to an assessment and thus to appropriate services; I must tell my noble friend that I still receive casework of this nature today. The practice is clearly now illegal. In fact, I believe it was illegal under existing legislation affecting social services and their requirement to assess people. I ask my noble friend to take an interest in this, particularly for people who have previously been assessed but did not necessarily have IQs under 70 which would have determined them as learning disabled. It is still a problem in some areas. This legislation should have put a halt to that: my interpretation of the strategy is that it is quite clearly illegal.
I also raise with my noble friend the matter of diagnostic leads in NHS bodies, featured in the guidance. Page 15 states that there will be a clear pathway to diagnosis in every area by 2013. Page 16 goes on to say that:
“Each area should put in place a clear pathway for diagnosis of autism, from initial referral through to assessment of needs”.
Page 15 also states that,
“the end goal is that all NHS practitioners will be able to identify potential signs of autism, so they can refer for clinical diagnosis if necessary”.
I know that we are waiting for NICE guidelines to be published on this. I do not know whether the Minister can give us some indication of the timeline as far as the NICE guidelines are concerned. However, in view of the omission in the guidance of foundation trusts and the implication of the Health and Social Care Bill regarding the bodies which will replace PCTs, I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me how the requirements of the autism strategy are going to be met. Are we in danger—and I hope I am wrong in my interpretation of this—of having postcode lotteries in terms of the requirement of the strategy? For changes in health service organisation, those requirements under pages 15 and 16 may well not be achieved as far as the health bodies are concerned. How are these diagnostic leads and their work to be benchmarked? In other words, how are we to assess how capable they are of doing that work? How are we to assess the geographic spread, bearing in mind that there are many cases of autism among adults that are quite complex?
I am not saying that it is easy to diagnose. Diagnostics across the autistic spectrum, including for children, require people with experience of working regularly with those people. However, by the time people enter adulthood—and sometimes people present quite late in life—there can be really complex needs. A mental health condition commonly overlies an autism diagnosis. I point out to my noble friend for the record—I know that he will know this—that autism is not of itself a mental health condition. However, we know—this applies as much to the more able end of the spectrum as to those with more complex Kanner’s autism—that many learning to get by in life as adults often present very strange behavioural patterns. These are not necessarily psychotic but all too often people who are inexperienced in diagnosing find it difficult to disaggregate rather strange autistic behaviour—I choose my words carefully—from what might sometimes be misinterpreted as a psychotic basis of need following a clinical psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes, of course, both conditions apply and sometimes it gets more complicated than that. What I am really saying to my noble friend is that I am concerned about these diagnostic pathways, who will be doing them, how we will benchmark their qualifications and the quality of the pathways, and how they will be provided given that foundation trusts are not listed in the strategy and that changes are to be made to the structure of the health service through the Health and Social Care Bill.
The other matter I want to raise concerns the professional training of local authority staff. The end goal is to have staff with clear expertise in autism within each area. I am very nervous of tick boxes. I do not want to see a situation where people who have been on training courses tick boxes but we are unable to define what expertise they have or their interface with the autistic community. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will find a way of evaluating this training to ensure that it is not just a tick-box exercise.
I am looking at the Whip, as I am sure that she will call me to order fairly soon. However, I want to raise a final matter.
I asked my noble friend Lord Freud whether his department had conducted consultation on the Autism Act before introducing the Welfare Reform Act. The Autism Act is a unique piece of legislation. The Department of Health should check whether new legislation that is brought forward by other government departments affects the provisions of the Autism Act. I am concerned about changes being introduced in housing legislation that affect the under-35s and how the strategy for moving towards independent living will work. I do not know whether my noble friend can tell me what discussions his department has had with the DWP but I am seriously concerned that judicial review will be instigated following what I regard as severe defects in other legislation that clearly has not taken the Autism Act into account. I hope that, as the Minister in charge, my noble friend will make it his responsibility to ensure that this does not happen on an ongoing basis.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—indeed, I am proud to call her my noble friend—for securing this debate today. Those concerned about autism and how we support people with autism and their families have no better champion in this House than the noble Baroness.
All too often in my experience, the public perception of the need to make provision to support people with autism is that it is a matter for the education services alone; it is about helping autistic children. But, of course, while providing educational opportunities for autistic children is vital, necessary and right and proper, I fear that it sometimes masks our appreciation that autistic children grow up into autistic adults, and the support is needed for adult life as well. All too often, I fear that our approach focuses on early years alone, and that is often seen as our priority. It is right that it should be a priority, but it should not be the priority to the exclusion of all else.
When I spent a day at the National Autistic Society’s day centre in Croydon a couple of months ago, I saw for myself how the team there is making a real difference to the quality of life of autistic adults but, like many others, I am concerned about the step before: the support given during the transition from childhood to adulthood. It is often taken for granted that people should be able to move in and out of education throughout their lives. We have to ensure that people with autism have the opportunity to be able to continue to access education throughout their lives and that it is a given right, not a gift which society may or may not bestow from time to time.
The need to improve the transition to adulthood for people with autism is mentioned in the autism strategy, but as far as I can see it contains no concrete proposals to deliver these improvements. I know that Ambitious about Autism has asked the Government to recognise that a good transition to adulthood delivers long-term cost savings to the state, as well as increased life chances for people with autism and their families. Good links between health, social care and education services are essential to a good transition. The current lack of reference to education in the autism strategy is, I think, worrying us all. I would like to see the review of the strategy next year lead to the inclusion of education services.
In its Finished at School research paper, Ambitious about Autism found that just one in four young people with autism goes on to any form of education or training beyond school. It also found that where young people with autism are supported to continue their education, they are more likely to live independently and access employment in later life. This reduces pressure on adult health and social care services. Until local commissioners and those driving the strategy nationally invest in making further education and training accessible to young people with autism, I fear we will continue to see them go down the default path into adult health and social care services. Will the Government consider what concrete measures to improve the transition will be included in the review next year?
In previous debates, I have spoken of the worries that the National Autistic Society has had about the proper guidance, better training and more robust data which services for adults with autism need if those services are not to fail them. A key National Autistic Society concern, which I and others share, is that specialist autism teams such as the Liverpool Asperger Team and the Bristol Autism Spectrum Service will, despite being recommended by NICE, not be commissioned in each area.
The Minister might recall that in a debate on 31 March last year I raised the issue of the National Audit Office investigation into public spending on autism. It found that if such teams are established there is a potential to save money. It estimated that if local services identified and supported just 4 per cent of adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome, the outlay would become cost neutral over time. In addition, it found that if it did the same for just 8 per cent it could save the Government £67 million a year. The Liverpool Asperger Team, which is the longest-standing specialist Asperger’s service in the country, currently reports identification rates of 14 per cent. Four per cent therefore seems a very achievable figure for newly established autism teams, and a cost-neutral level of service is an entirely realistic prospect. How will the NHS Commissioning Board ensure that clinical commissioning groups are given guidance on commissioning services, particularly specialist autism teams, for adults with autism? What steps are being taken to improve data protection and training for professionals in the NHS, and is autism being included in these discussions?
I have a couple more questions. The draft NICE guideline states,
“that the Care Quality Commission will monitor the extent to which Primary Care Trusts … responsible for mental health and social care and Health Authorities have implemented”,
these NICE guidelines. Given this role, will the CQC therefore be involved in the 2013 review? Recently, it was confirmed by the Department of Health that NICE will produce two quality standards for autism, one for children and one for adults. Is there a timeframe for when we can expect these standards to be published? Finally, how can stakeholders be involved in the development of these standards?
This debate has given us an opportunity to put these questions and I fully appreciate that the Minister might wish to reflect a bit further and write. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made clear, this requires ongoing monitoring. If the Act is to be effective, we have to continue to monitor and ask these sorts of questions. I have no doubt that the Minister in his usual good way will make sure that we have an adequate and full response.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this subject. I also thank the Minister for taking this on. One feels that something as difficult as being the lead department on this issue should fall on the shoulders of someone who has not been quite so heavily worked over the past few weeks—but I am afraid that that is the way these things fall.
Every time I have spoken about autism, I use a quote about it being a three-dimensional spectrum; that is, it crosses in all ways. When you know about autism, you generally know about one autistic person and then you meet another autistic person. This is true of most hidden disabilities, but is probably more true of autism than any other.
Lord Addington
My Lords, to continue with the speech that I was making, a quote I often use about autism is that it is a three-dimensional spectrum. I am now going to fulfil a promise I made in September last year, when a councillor, Claire Young, gave me that quotation in a meeting run by the National Autistic Society at the Liberal Democrat conference. I know the words; I do not really understand, certainly not as well as others in this debate, exactly what they mean. I have a perception, because I have some experience of those who have worked with autism and of speaking to those who have it, but I will never know as well as they do exactly what autism means: the idea that it is difficult to assess, deal with and help.
Having got a legal responsibility to follow a coherent strategy led by one department, it is important that the others all join in with it. I have a briefing that suggests that although people at Jobcentre Plus have read the relevant leaflet, young people with autism are reporting back that they still have problems accessing the service. This is pretty typical of anybody who deals with a disability of any description: “I have read the leaflet, I know what is in it, and I know what is going to happen”. They are not trained well enough to be flexible and to understand that there is a spectrum of needs, and you must go from one level to another. This is not unusual to autism; it is just that autism may present a set of problems that are very difficult to access, possibly because the person with high-functioning autism may have difficulty explaining their situation, as been put to me by many people. If this is true, you must make sure that the person who is providing the service is properly trained. A leaflet is not good enough.
I have dealt with this before. In the Welfare Reform Bill, we finally got from my noble friend Lord Freud something that I had been after for about 12 years, that is, that the person who makes an assessment must be trained in the disability that they are assessing. This correlates to the Act that we are talking about today. It is part of the continuum. Let us not forget that the Autism Act would not have been necessary if all the other pieces of legislation that merely referred to disability had provided these solutions. When we looked at the online copy of the guidance, 10 Ministers in the previous Government, representing at least half-a-dozen departments, had all signed up to it. That was an admission, shall we say, from the Treasury Bench— I think that that is a good and fair way of putting it, and I do not think it was disagreed with by anybody—that you must co-ordinate.
Autism presents unusual and unique problems. It is not the only set of original and unique problems. That is why I said that I did not envy the Minister his task. He and his department may well be lumbered with breaking the ground for more efficient support for all disability sectors, because this is clearly the way that it should have happened in the first place.
I have also been encouraged to talk about the SEN Green Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has mentioned education. Another truism of mine is that if you are a disabled person, choose your parents well and you will get the best out of the system. As I have said before, I still do not think there is a better combination than a lawyer and a journalist. They are the people who will point out that you are breaking the law and then let the world know about it. Too often it requires that degree of pressing and attacking to get people to move. If this legislation works, they will no longer be necessary. You will not be dumped at the end of one process, waiting to be picked up again by another. That continuation is vital. Not only is it important to receive some form of support at school, but also to be handed over to the college or university sector. As I have bored the House before with my findings on the discrepancy between the apprenticeship system and the university system in the way that some disabled groups, with exactly the same people potentially, are dealt with, I will not go into it again here. That type of disagreement and lack of continuity or progress is frequent, sometimes within the same department.
Will the Minister give us an idea of how the Government are monitoring this and of the type of problems they are addressing? This would be very helpful because we are going through a cultural shift and if there are no problems, it means they have not been looked for. They will be there: everybody here knows that the best way to find that one does not have a problem is not to look for it. If the Minister can tell us how the Government are identifying these problems and what they are doing to look for them, I will be much happier about this. It is not the Autism Act’s implementation; implementation across the board and the establishment of good practice for other groups are vital here. I wish my noble friend well in answering this, but it is not easy.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I too am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for raising this issue; for continuing to put pressure on us to monitor the autism strategy following the 2009 Act; and for deepening our understanding of how autism develops and is regarded within our society. I look forward to hearing details of the 2013 review of the implementation of the Act.
I am grateful for the 2010 statutory guidance to local authorities and health bodies, but I remain alarmed at the slow progress being made on the provision of diagnostic services, especially for adults. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what guidance there will be for the health and well-being boards and the clinical commissioning groups as the NHS reforms are taken forward.
I look forward too to the self-assessments of local authorities, which are going to be published by the Learning Disabilities Public Health Observatory in July this year. I am aware of the very different levels of progress being made by different local authorities in how they respond to need and in how they use their own finances in this area. I would be very grateful for comment from the Minister on how the self-assessment project is progressing, and on what assurances he can give us as to the future of the learning disability observatory in the light of NHS reforms. It has a crucial role in the monitoring of learning disabilities in general and of autism in particular.
Successive Governments have worked hard to raise our awareness of autism and I pay tribute to both this Government and their predecessors in raising the issues and in getting us to think about just how autism exists in our society. It remains a disability which is not well understood and can be ignored or even despised by many people. I look for encouragement for a wider expression of the reality of autism. The National Autistic Society does an excellent job in alerting us to the needs of people with autism. It remains true that many people have a very limited concept of what autism is about. I, too, was going to ask about the relationship between the Welfare Reform Act and the Autism Act and how they are seen as working together.
That is not least because I am alarmed by the extent to which people with autism are regarded as unwilling to work or as trouble-makers. The National Autistic Society figures suggest that some 15 per cent of adults with autism are in work. Most people with autism are unable to find work. It is crucial that they are not criticised or rejected as a result of that inability to find the work which many of them would very much like to be part of. Physical disability is often respected by the general public. Social disability is much less easy to understand. The work of the National Autistic Society, which helps us to a deeper understanding of the effects of autism, is welcomed by us all. But we now need much better diagnostic opportunities and understanding of causes.
In my ministry, I have had the privilege of a series of contacts with people with autism and their carers. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that once you meet one person who has autism and their carers, you find yourself being introduced to a number of people with autism but they can have very different symptoms and ways in which that autism is expressed. That is one of the difficulties of this whole spectrum of issues. I have spent a good deal of time with people with autism—it is by no means unusual for more than one person in a family to have autism—and have watched the careful supervision provided by their carers. Such carers are among the unsung heroes of our society and we need to do all that we can to support and encourage them.
In the context of this debate, I want to pay tribute to the contributions made to society by those who have autism. There are many skills—specifically mathematical skills, for example—which people with autism are able to share with others. Many have an openness and friendliness which means that they give to society more than they receive. But that is dependent on there being carers around them who are able to encourage and help them to express those skills and qualities which are so deep within them.
In our right concern to protect and support them, we need also to be grateful for what they give. I am very grateful for the work of the National Autistic Society and for the 2009 Act, particularly the self-assessments of local authorities and the way in which those self-assessments are dealt with and responded to. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I apologise for being slightly delayed in the voting Lobby earlier and for missing a few of the comments, but I picked up their general gist. I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for initiating this debate and, just as importantly, reminding us why the 2009 Act was developed. As she rightly pointed out, it recognised that adults with autism were a particularly socially isolated and excluded group, and it is important to keep reminding our society about that. The Act put two key duties on government: to produce, first, the strategy and, secondly, the statutory guidance which noble Lords have referred to. The Government are now committed to reviewing implementation of the strategy in 2013, and it is vital that this review is as comprehensive as possible. Like many noble Lords, I am also grateful to the National Autistic Society for assisting me with the provision of background information, and for the excellent work that it is doing. I pay it a special tribute.
That society has, of course, not been standing still. It has been looking at monitoring progress towards the full implementation of the strategy. It has particularly been monitoring local authorities about the specific tasks within that strategy: the autism lead; working pathways for diagnosis; established partnership boards, which noble Lords have referred to; including the needs of adults with autism in the joint strategic needs assessment; and developing a local commissioning plan. There is also awareness training, which is vital in all service providers because as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, pointed out there are still things going on which should not be and which are illegal. We also need to broaden that and have, as she said, awareness training in place for community care assessors.
The results of the national society’s own research are patchy, but it appears that many authorities are starting with the easy bits, as your Lordships would expect. A very high rate—74 per cent—have established an autism lead and 55 per cent have established an autism board. Yet when it comes to more complicated steps, such as producing a commissioning plan, collecting information about adults with autism and having basic training, only about one in three authorities has either taken action or is actively pursuing these goals. The society has advised me that it regularly hears from front-line professionals who say that a key challenge in implementing the strategy is gathering accurate data on the needs of their local population of adults with autism. The strategy sets out that the Department of Health would develop a protocol for information-sharing at local level to help improve local data. This is yet to be published. One of my first questions for the Minister is, therefore: what progress is being made in developing this protocol?
I also understand from the society that the health department is currently undertaking a zero-based review of its data returns. Again, front-line professionals have told the society that adding autism into these returns is essential to help them gather the information they need to plan for cost-effective services. The society is aware that the department has been discussing adding information on autism. What progress is being made to ensuring that data on autism will be collected as a result of the zero-based review?
One important area that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend both referred to is of ensuring access to diagnosis, which is the cornerstone of the autism strategy. This is also an issue which, to date, very few areas have been able to address successfully. This is one of the areas which I want to focus on. As we have heard, NICE is currently drafting a guideline on the most effective way to develop a local diagnosis pathway, as well as the most effective interventions for adults with autism, which would of course help. However, professionals are telling society—I also read about this at the weekend in an excellent article on autism in the Observer—that a key barrier for developing local pathways to diagnosis is trying to engage the local NHS in local implementation plans. In this respect, the blame is being partly laid on the NHS reorganisation.
I would like to repeat the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, to the Minister: as NHS reforms are taken forward, will guidance be developed for health and well-being boards and clinical commissioning groups about the Autism Act? As the noble Baroness has already pointed out, there are already failures in understanding the true nature and requirements of that Act, and we need to ensure that it is understood at all levels as a consequence of the reorganisation.
As we have heard, many aspects of the strategy’s objectives also realise the full potential of people—both children and adults—who are autistic. As many, including the National Audit Office, have identified, the implementation of this strategy will save money: it will save the public purse. I would like to once again stress the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, to the Minister: what progress is being made by the Department of Health in developing guidance with professionals on the business case for local teams? What action is the Department of Health taking to encourage the development of these teams locally? Will the barriers to developing these teams be considered as part of the 2013 review of the strategy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling this Question and pay tribute to the way in which she has championed the cause of those with autism in its various forms over many years. This debate has done full justice to the key issues facing us at the moment. It has also generated a great many questions and I shall do my best to answer as many as I can but I shall inevitably need to write to noble Lords on some of them.
The Autism Act was a landmark piece of legislation. As my noble friend said, it was the first ever disability-specific law. It led to the development of the adult autism strategy and statutory guidance for local authorities and the NHS. The strategy made it clear that to be a success, it would require long-term cultural change. We need to remember that this is not going to be an overnight process. It also requires action right across the public sector.
Since then, we have had some real successes; for example, the North East Autism Consortium regularly brings together local authority and NHS lead commissioners for autism to share their experiences and to drive forward their priorities, all the while involving people with autism in the process. Personal budgets have begun to make a real difference to people’s lives. They have a degree of flexibility that enables people to be creative about how they spend their money. People can make every penny count and get real value for money.
A central tenet of the autism strategy is that adults with autism should be able to access the same services as everyone else. If someone with autism is being assessed for social care, their autism should be taken into account, regardless of their IQ, and I will turn to that point again in a moment. If they are looking for work, Jobcentre Plus should find suitable positions that are sensitive to their needs. To reap the full potential of the Act, local authorities and the local NHS need to work together and co-operate on planning and training, on the identification, diagnosis and assessment of autism, and on the transition from childhood to adulthood. I will come on to some of those themes in a moment.
While the lead must come from local communities, more still can be done to help at the national level. We recently announced a new children and young people’s health outcomes strategy, which is aimed specifically at developing the life chances of young people. To support this, we have established a children and young people’s forum, under the leadership of Christine Lenehan, chief executive of the Council for Disabled Children and Ian Lewis, medical director at the Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust. Last April, we published new tools for local authorities and NHS bodies to support communities with the implementation and monitoring of the strategy and the statutory guidance.
The learning disability public health observatory has been finding out from local authorities just how they are delivering the strategy. The results will be published at the end of the month, enabling people to lobby locally and to challenge where necessary. So far, about nine out of 10 areas say that they have a commissioning plan for services for adults with autism either in place or in development. More than half the local authorities in England have established autism partnership boards to ensure that the views and wishes of people with autism and their carers inform the design, development and commissioning of services at a local level.
While central government can set the framework and work to remove barriers and increase awareness, the real work—the delivery of lasting change—is for professionals, providers, voluntary organisations, service users and carers working together in collaboration. The autism strategy has never advocated a top-down process. It is not about setting targets and milestones. It has always been about empowering local communities to come together and to get things done. It is also about integrating care across the NHS, social care and other local authority services, and putting people with autism at the centre of any plans to improve their own lives and, as much as possible, to put them in control. The new health and well-being boards will be crucial to integration. They will bring together all those with an interest in local health and social care. They will draw up the local needs assessment. Crucially, they will also write the local strategy to meet those needs and be responsible for fulfilling it.
A huge amount of work has taken place over the past couple of years. Consistent pathways for diagnosis are being delivered through the NICE clinical guidance for the diagnosis and management of autism. Newly diagnosed patients are being given appropriate advice and information. Lead professionals have been appointed in most local areas to develop diagnostic services. We now have NICE guidelines covering the diagnosis, referral and management of autism among children and young people. Similar guidelines for adults are out for consultation and are due this summer. The proposed adult autism quality standard has now been referred to NICE and an announcement on further referrals following this engagement exercise will be made shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, paid tribute to the work of the voluntary sector and, in particular, the National Autistic Society, and I would like to echo what he said. The society is now in its 50th year, and there is no doubt that its lobbying, research, advice, support and services do a huge amount to set the standard for autism services and to drive system reform. I would like to thank it and many other organisations that work to improve the lives of people with autism. Alongside them, we have to thank the parents, carers, teachers and friends of those with autism.
My noble friend Lady Browning asked me specifically about the question of someone’s IQ. The strategy and guidance make it clear that people with autism or Asperger’s syndrome can no longer be refused an assessment or access to support because their IQ is too high and they do not have a learning disability. She is aware of that.
We expect more low-level and preventive services to be developed in response to the autism strategy and statutory guidance as commissioning plans are developed locally and a better understanding of local needs is developed. Given the right support, many more people with autism, particularly those with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s syndrome, will be able to live more independently in the community. Some areas, such as Liverpool and Bristol, have developed multidisciplinary teams that help with diagnosis and post-diagnosis support and their expertise can greatly increase awareness of autism among other services. The NICE guidelines, which will be published this year, will look at the use of these teams in more detail.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Collins, spoke about the need to raise awareness and expertise at a local level among front-line professionals. The Department of Health has funded a series of online training resources and booklets to increase awareness and understanding of autism across all public services, costing half a million pounds in total. Working with the Royal Colleges of Nursing, GPs and Psychiatrists, the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the British Psychological Society, Skills for Health and Skills for Care, the NAS and others, a range of quality materials to enable front-line staff to better recognise and respond more effectively to the needs of adults with autism have been produced. We are planning further work with our partner organisations to ensure dissemination and uptake of this material. It is, however, important to emphasise that it is for local health and social care organisations to ensure that professionals involved in providing services have the necessary qualifications, expertise and training for the purposes that are required.
My noble friend referred to local governance structures. Those structures are in place, including the partnership boards. Local JSNAs and autism self-assessments should also provide information for local service users and representative groups to benchmark provision within their localities and identify where there are gaps. A key issue is to explore whether local health and care commissioners and providers are taking forward services in line with Implementing Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives, the statutory guidance which was published in December 2010, and to challenge locally where that is not happening.
The right reverend Prelate referred to self-assessment. He is right that we have asked the learning disabilities public health observatory to collect and collate data from the reports that are coming out of self-assessment. Those will be online by the end of this month. I am confident that this is a step in the right direction. Almost 90 per cent of local authorities have submitted a report, which is encouraging.
Clinical commissioning groups were referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Touhig, among others. The NHS Commissioning Board will be issuing guidance to the CCGs. That may be for a variety of purposes, including to support improvement of outcomes in the NHS outcomes framework, within which are indicators on long-term conditions and mental illness. However, I am careful not to refer to autism as a mental illness. Health and well-being boards and CCGs will be expected to ensure that they comply with all relevant legislation included in the Autism Act.
I am receiving signals that my time is almost up. I apologise to noble Lords as I have a great deal more material here that I would gladly have used. I just highlight two essential priorities for us. We need to benchmark the services and outcomes for people with autism. We have made a start with this through the self-assessment tool. We need better information to plan and commission services, robust local prevalence data on autism and up-to-date joint strategic needs assessments so that services can be commissioned appropriately. By being clear and transparent at every stage we can hold local authorities, the local NHS and others to account for the quality of the services that they are delivering. As we devolve power down, place far more focus on local leadership and personal control and work to drive up outcomes, it will not be only the statistics that start to look better but also the lives of people with autism.
Para-Phenylenediamine
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve awareness of the potential health hazards of para-Phenylenediamine (PPD) in hair dyes and cosmetics, and to improve research in this area.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of introducing this short debate on para-Phenylenediamine, which in future I will refer to as PPD, if I may. It is a debate that we have been waiting some time for, and I am sorry that some of the people who would have liked to take part will not be able to do so, in particular, my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton. We share many interests, including a football team. On this occasion, she wanted to speak in the debate because a friend of hers was adversely affected by hair dye and she wanted to explain the impact that it had.
I should start by declaring an interest because I am afraid that my blonde locks are not achieved entirely without the aid of a hairdresser. Looking round the Room, I think that many of us are in that position. I have been given a word of reassurance as I have looked into this issue, in that I am told that the darker, or more chestnut, the colour, the greater the danger is of a reaction. Those of us who have chosen to be blonde are perhaps getting away with a little. That is of interest and is important, particularly if we were to go on to discuss some of the other issues that are very relevant here, such as the increased use of henna tattoos. That is a problem which could have some very long-term consequences, especially as many younger people are embarking on them, and some are getting these tattoos not in this country, but in places where there are even fewer regulations than there are here.
It is very easy to be somewhat alarmist when talking about a subject like this and to put the fear of god into many people. I do not wish to be alarmist in the remarks that I make, because it is the case that many people use hair dyes, either themselves or through their hairdressers, without difficulty. But there are dangers that we should be aware of, and there are significant steps that could be taken to minimise those dangers and to make people aware of what they need to do.
I am not a scientist in any respect at all, but neither are most consumers. Therefore, the questions that we ask as consumers are just as relevant, especially when so many people are hiding their grey, including many men, and indeed many young people, as I have mentioned. Young people’s use of make-up—cosmetics generally and tattoos—is another subject about which we could have a very wide-ranging debate. I will just put down a marker that more and more people are using these products, and therefore it is important that we understand the issues.
My understanding is that most hair dyes—at least two-thirds, and some people say up to 98 per cent—involve the use of PPD. It is extremely useful in permanent hair dyes. The tints or tinted conditioners that are sometimes used do not usually pose the same risk, but most of us who want to change the colour of our hair want the effect to be lasting. Therefore we are probably using the varieties that use PPDs, because they apparently have a very strong protein-building capacity, which is what fixes the colour, and, as I say, we all want that to last.
However, there are alternatives. I have been given a great deal of information on them—perhaps I should declare a free sample that I have not quite used yet. More people are now looking at the alternatives and at the alternative organic products that there might be. Indeed, there is quite a marketing opportunity there, which is being used.
I have looked at the research on the incidence of problems, some of which shows that PPD is responsible for at least 8 per cent of all allergic reactions. Some colleagues may have seen the British Medical Journal, which shows that the frequency of positive reactions to PPD is increasing. The frequency of referrals to London clinic on them doubled over six years. There is general acceptance that there are probably more allergies now in general terms, which should concern all of us.
I looked at the short section on cosmetics and hair dyes in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s sixth report of the 2006-07 Session, which was some time ago. It refers to the problems that exist, the nature of those problems and the kind of reactions, including those that lead to people being in hospital. Some time ago, there was publicity about someone who had died, it was thought, from the impact of hair dye. The report also draws attention to what is happening on a European Union-wide basis. The existing regulations emanate from there, and we should keep an eye on that. The report states:
“The Commission now plans to extend its assessment ‘to minimise possible risks of allergic reactions’”.
That was some time ago, and I am not clear whether that has been followed up in any meaningful way. I think it is important, and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to consider this and even to put pressure on our EU partners to make sure that everything possible is being done to ensure that we can have proper research on and knowledge of the effects of PPDs, and to make sure that this is taken seriously enough.
I have talked to people from the industry. We possibly have a problem with the colour houses, which are the main drivers of this industry. I do not think that there is a simple solution, such as banning PPDs, although that might accelerate research into alternatives. I was told that a couple of years ago, the National Hairdressing Federation called a conference of all the main colour houses and those bodies which produce these products in the hope of moving things on to get better regulation, better advice and more awareness, but there was a real difficulty in terms of follow-up.
There are alternatives on the market. I am told that PDT is particularly helpful for those who want chestnut-coloured hair. I am sure that the Minister is aware that hairdressing is an unregulated area. It is very difficult to regulate and any of us could set ourselves up as hairdressers. Many of the colour houses and the chains of hairdressing salons take significant measures in terms of training their staff and have guidance on, for example, patch-testing. However, there is a thought that, although products change frequently, if you have been tested once, perhaps you are all right for the next few times. I am not sure that that is always the case and certainly the opposite is the case: if you are allergic to one type of hair dye, it is likely that you will be allergic to others.
It is considered best practice to have a test every three to six months, but I understand how difficult it is for those of us who are customers to keep going back to the hairdresser for tests and then returning later for our appointments. We should be promoting the use of mini-testing. There should be patch tests that are separate from the contents of home-dye kits and a patch test, which I understand exists for a few treatments, that a salon can send out for you to put on your arm to test hair dye properly a couple of days before your appointment. I think that there is scope. It is difficult to make headway without more recognition on the part of hairdressers and the colour houses, and there is real scope when so many cosmetic products are given to us in small doses. When we buy them we get a goody bag of new products to test, and the same should and could be available on hair dyes.
We have a problem with labelling. The advice is there, but it is often in small print and more could be done. We could obviously do more so that we understand labels where they exist. I have looked at a couple of things recently, and I did not understand “This product is noncomedogenic”—that was a new one on me. When things say that they are “hypoallergenic”, what does that mean? It means that they have been tested, which is fine, but what does it mean for individual consumers? There do not seem to be guidelines that we should always know what we are buying when we buy things.
This is just the opening of a debate to try to raise awareness but also to try to get everyone from EU research, the industry and advertisers involved. I hope that the Minister will look at all that the Government could be doing to ensure that they are maximising their efforts to warn people in a calm and sensible, but nevertheless meaningful way, so that more people do not get into difficulty through using these products.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to discuss this today. It is an important part of raising awareness of the issue. Indeed, she has put forward some interesting potential solutions. I fear that some of what I want to say will be a poor reflection of what the noble Baroness has said, because the questions that come to our minds are similar.
The campaign to ban PPD is an extreme response to a problem, and one that it is not realistic to consider. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the products are used very widely. If we go back 30 years it was quite unusual for people to dye their hair. Now I would say that the vast majority of women—certainly mature women—and an increasingly large number of men do so.
Allergies of all sorts are common. For example, we do not consider banning peanuts or shellfish, although nut and shellfish allergies are very common. The danger with all allergies is that something that might upset you slightly to begin with—in this case, it might give you a sore scalp—several usages on could provoke a serious allergic reaction because it is an accumulation of reaction and sensitivity. I agree with the noble Baroness that the key issue is information. Going back to the nuts and the shellfish, menus and lists of contents warn of those products clearly now. We are even verbally warned or questioned in restaurants by staff who say, “This might have nuts in it”. Public awareness is quite strong in that field. As always, when preparing for a debate, I asked around about PPD among friends and people I know. They were blissfully unaware of the issue. They realised that sometimes people can have a sore scalp, but they did not realise that it was a potentially serious allergic reaction. A great deal more can be done to raise awareness, so I want to pose some questions to the Minister.
Do the Government keep records of how many people are affected by this, especially those who have had a very serious reaction? What consideration have the Government given to responding to this, to educate and spread information and awareness, especially among hairdressers? A lot of people use home kits, but most people at some point go to the hairdresser. Even if they dye their hair at home, they usually have it cut at the hairdresser, who would be ideal for passing on this information. When hairdressers are trained in colleges and so on, this key information could be given to them.
Is there any scope for regulations on the instructions on the kits—the packets of dye themselves? The noble Baroness has pointed out that they are often very confusing; they are written in a language that ordinary, non-scientists do not understand. But the print is also very small and often written against a dark background, so they are terribly difficult to see. The instructions about putting it on your head for half an hour, or whatever, will be quite large but the health warning is often at the bottom in very small print. Can the Government do anything to ensure that the warnings are made very much larger? Work is going on to replace PPD. Are the Government aware of how quickly that might bear some fruit? Might we have products on the market that do the same job as permanent hair dye that do not contain PPD?
I come to the other issue of temporary tattoos, which is really the most dangerous aspect of this. Although it is illegal to use PPD in temporary tattoos, it is being used, probably out of ignorance to a certain extent, and certainly because it is not a greatly regulated area of activity. Ironically, people often go for temporary tattoos because they are worried about the dangers of having a permanent one. They might be opting for something even more dangerous without realising it. Is there a possibility for the Government to spread awareness of this and to give a little more publicity, so that people going for temporary tattoos will ask about the contents and are aware of the possibility of an allergic reaction? I once again thank the noble Baroness for introducing this subject for debate today.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, I rise briefly to intervene in the gap to say that many years ago I spent 12 years in the perfumery and cosmetic industry as I was the Latin-American director of Yardley, a company that regrettably and sadly no longer exists. It was a distinguished and big name in the perfumery industry but, some years after I left the company, it came to a sad and sorry end. We did not make hair products, which are the subject of this debate, but we made other things that were very popular and tended to be very carefully tested. We had our own laboratories and no product was allowed to go on the market without being very carefully tested to exhaustion. An example is the considerable manufacture of lipsticks. These need to have very sensitive treatment because of their liable effect on skin. Lipsticks are of course very popular. At one time people said, “What is going to happen when there is a recession?”. My answer to that was that the last thing a lady will ever do is give up lipstick, whatever the economic conditions in the country.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on bringing something very important to the attention of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for raising this debate and raising awareness of what is of course a very serious issue. Many of us have read stories in the newspapers. For example, Sali Hughes wrote in the Guardian that, after attending her hairdresser for 20 years and using hair dye, she suddenly developed an allergy that nearly brought on her death. Raising awareness generally of that possible threat is really important. There have certainly been media stories about it. I would like to repeat the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: what are the Government able to do to raise awareness, generally, of these risks? These risks are not only in relation to specific products, such as the ingredients that have been mentioned— I am going to continue to use the term PPDs—as people can also develop these reactions even after many years of use. If you do not take into account some of the irritations that you might develop, continual use could cause a much bigger reaction.
I know that a lot of my noble friends, and even the Minister, have been looking at me rather curiously during this debate, because I have been blond all my life, and it is true that I am becoming what in my family we call ash-blond. Okay, I am going to come out about it: I have been tempted to use certain products to keep off that inevitable day when ash-blond will become white. Nevertheless, this is a serious point. I did a bit of research myself, and it is true that an increasing number of men are using such products. What they are not doing is what most women do at some point, which is to go to a hairdresser and see a professional colourist, who does tests and checks. They do not even read the small print. Most men are pretty nonchalant about the use of such products. They certainly would not confess about it or talk about their use, even, on occasion, to their family members.
This is where my research comes in. My husband is Spanish. He is quite dark, but every time he grows a beard it comes out white. His beard is grey, but his head of hair is not. I caught him using a home product, not because he told me but because I noticed certain signs on towels in the bathroom, and thought, “What is this?”. We are not the BBC in here, are we, so I can say that it was a product called Just for Men. He had painted his beard with this product. I am absolutely certain that, while he read the instructions, which are in pretty big print, he did not read the warnings. I looked it up on the internet, and sure enough Just for Men, the product that will make sure that he remains dark in beard, contains PPDs. He is not aware of that and I am sure that, were ongoing use to produce some irritation, there would be no check on that.
I urge the Minister to tell us what more the Government can do, not only at a European level and in terms of the warnings required in EU directives, but also in providing some general guidance in supermarkets and shops: “Read the instructions”, or “Be aware that this might cause a problem”. That is something the Government can do in the short term: link together raising awareness and providing general warnings.
I have suddenly realised that my husband is going to be pretty annoyed with me: I have just outed him as someone who dyes his beard. I will suffer the consequences later.
Another point I wanted to make regards henna tattoos. I do not think that most people who apply these are aware of their contents. They think they are dealing with a natural product. We know that black henna, for example, contains PPD. I have seen the consequences of this myself. I see children being tattooed on the beaches in Spain. At hundreds of flea markets and other places there are children demanding that tattoo from their parents, saying that they will not be satisfied and so on. The Government can do more to advise parents of the possible consequences, and in particular to draw the distinction between the black henna products that give the black tattoo, compared with the normal, natural henna that does not contain PPDs.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, again for raising this debate. It really is important, because we know that if ignored the consequences can be pretty dire, albeit for a very small number of people. However, one death is one death too many.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I got carried away listening to the story. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on securing this debate, and I thank her especially for the interesting suggestions which she has made and upon which I will happily reflect. It is an important subject, which has attracted a great deal of media interest. I also thank at this stage my noble friend Lady Randerson, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for his intervention and support in this debate.
My department is responsible for legislation to ensure the safety of cosmetics. The safety of cosmetics, especially hair dyes, is an area that is constantly monitored at EU level, where the safety requirements are nowadays harmonised. Our industry tells us that nearly 100 million dye units are used each year in the United Kingdom, by both men and women—however, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that many of those men may not be taking advice, or may not be heeding or seeing the warnings that are so much more in evidence for women. Some of these dyes will contain substances that are regarded as potential extreme sensitizers. PPD, if we may call it that from now on, is one such substance and perhaps one of the most common substances used in permanent oxidative hair dyes, particularly those aimed, as we have heard, at the darker shades. PPD is used for the simple reason that it is extremely effective, and when used as directed it is considered safe for consumers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to the percentage of allergic reactions. The evidence that we have is that the incidence of allergic reactions from hair colorants is 0.3 to 4.3 in every million products sold. However, because of the potential risks, any person who has become sensitive to the substance—for example, those who have had a previous allergic reaction to products containing PPD or to “black henna” semi-permanent tattoos—should not use these hair dyes. PPD is regulated by the European cosmetic products directive, which is implemented into UK law as the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008. This restricts the use of PPD for use only in hair dyes to certain limits and sets the conditions under which it can be used safely. It must not be used in any other cosmetic product. The maximum “on head” concentration limit—that is, when mixed with an oxidising agent—is 2 per cent. This is the level considered safe by the European legislator in 2010, when limits were reduced as a precautionary measure to address consumer risk and to the level that industry submitted safety files.
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that PPD is one of the most researched of all hair dye substances. The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety and its predecessor bodies were asked to report on four submissions before 2006. The committee is currently looking at the fifth submission from the European cosmetics association, Cosmetics Europe, and was expected to report on this at its plenary meeting tomorrow. However, we understand that the scientific committee needs more time to reassess this substance and is likely to provide an opinion in June. Once printed, this information will be available to the general public on the Commission’s website. Since 2001, all hair dyes have been evaluated as part of the European Commission’s hair dyes strategy which is looking at, among other things, their carcinogenic potential.
We believe that it is vital to see and analyse the findings and conclusions of the SCCS before we consider what further research or whether further restrictions are needed on the use of PPD as an oxidative hair dye. That issue will be examined by the European Commission and member states once the SCCS has reported. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned, cosmetics companies are also undertaking research into developing new technologies for permanent hair colouring, but these research efforts have not, thus far, produced products that could replace PPD.
In respect of further awareness, we believe that media reporting has generally been helpful in highlighting sensitivity to hair dyes. However, reports have not always been factually accurate, as is often the way. The UK industry’s trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, produces very helpful fact sheets on PPD and other cosmetic issues on its website, www.thefactsabout.co.uk. This is aimed at consumers and explains the facts in a clear and concise way. The website gets more than 57,000 hits a year with the specific pages on hair colorant safety tips receiving more than 1,800 hits in the past year. The association is trying to make these issues clearer, but at the moment it is only for those who are searching online.
I have tried to answer some of the questions as I have gone along but I will speak now in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who asked about awareness. We do not have information on the number of people who suffer adverse reactions. The Commission is initiating a collection of data on the serious undesirable facts, on which we will report back when it is done. As regards apprentices, the hairdressing industry is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, an unregulated industry. There are no requirements for qualifications before colouring hair. Hairdressers will of course follow the manufacturer’s instructions since this is often a requirement of their insurance. Often, that will involve the customer being advised to have a patch test using the dye product 48 hours prior to treatment. As we as a Government are so keen on apprenticeships—as I have to admit were the previous Government—and as this is one of the most popular apprenticeships for girls, in particular, I shall look into this further to ensure that the qualifications they are getting show them the importance of these tests as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about unclear labelling. Legislation now covers requirements for clear warning labels on the packaging. The Government believe that clear labelling on packaging and clear instructions accompanying the product is critical for its safe use. It is important that all users, whether hairdressers or home users, follow the manufacturer’s instructions, especially when this requires a patch test before use of the product. This is because PPD is not the only known allergen in hair dyes and because it is not known to accumulate in the human body. Instead, the development of an allergic reaction stems from separate exposures to PPD. As a result, consumers could use the same product for many years and still develop an allergic reaction. We encourage the use of the patch test but will take away from this debate that maybe we are not looking at the issue hard enough at the moment.
Our view is that consumers should always have access to safety information. I declare my interest as chairman for seven years of the National Consumer Council—now Consumer Focus. We would argue that product-specific information is far more important than general messages about potential health hazards. Nevertheless, we are aware that the European Commission is exploring whether joint information campaigns with member states could add value for consumers—picking up the noble Lord’s point that somebody may be buying or using something in another member country of the European Union that may not have the sort of information that we do on our products. We will, of course, follow up on that. We will always participate, wherever possible, in any co-ordinated campaign that emerges to protect the British consumer.
Not many people spoke in the debate today, partially because the dates have changed three times. That made it very difficult for people to change around. However, several people, who could not be here today, spoke with great interest before the debate even happened. I thank the noble Baroness for putting this debate before us today and for the information that she has brought. We will take it away and see that it feeds into our future work.
South Sudan
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what provisions they are making to support the Government of South Sudan, with particular reference to the development of good governance and responding to the humanitarian crisis.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, I should inform the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to this debate. I will focus primarily on the humanitarian crisis aspect of the question because of the scale of suffering and because it is difficult to develop good governance for people in destitution and danger with a hostile neighbour potentially destabilising a fledging nation. President al-Bashir has stated his objective of turning the Republic of Sudan into a unified, Arabic, Islamic nation and is pursuing policies to achieve this, including targeted air bombardment of the African people of Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile and denial of access by aid organisations to victims of his offences.
In Abyei, after fighting erupted last May over 120,000 indigenous Ngok Dinka fled to South Sudan. Although some civilians have returned to locations near the town, many still remain in camps in Bahr-El-Ghazal. Last year, I visited one of the improvised camps with my organisation, Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, where we saw acute shortages of essential supplies causing great hardship to those refugees. In South Kordofan, over 300,000 people have been displaced by Khartoum’s targeted aerial bombardment of civilians and ruthless murder of individuals. Khartoum is denying access by aid organisations to people in dire need. Refugees arriving in camps in South Sudan, such as Yida, have walked for days without food or water and Khartoum has even bombed the camps inside South Sudan. When refugees arrive there, they are so terrified of bombs their first priority is to dig a shelter to try to provide protection.
Reports from Blue Nile describe offensives and atrocities perpetrated by the Government of Sudan similar to those in South Kordofan: aerial bombardment by Antonovs and helicopter gunships, denial of access for humanitarian aid, extrajudicial killings, detentions and torture of civilians and looting of civilian properties. Eighty thousand refugees have fled from Blue Nile into Upper Nile in South Sudan, where they reported that they had also been subject to aerial bombardment by Khartoum. The UN has warned that half of the camps for refugees in Blue Nile in South Sudan will be underwater during the imminent rainy season with dire consequences.
There are also numerous reports of intimidation and assaults on Southern Sudanese living in the Republic of Sudan, including a continuation of Khartoum’s well documented policy of enslavement. It is well known that hundreds of thousands of Southern Sudanese were abducted and enslaved in the north during the war, and many are still missing. Now, there are reports of further abductions, especially of boys, who are forced to serve in Khartoum’s armed forces. Tens of thousands of Southern Sudanese are now fleeing from the north to a devastated South Sudan, which is already inundated with refugees from Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. For example, 86,000 returnees arrived in Unity state, which is equivalent to 15 per cent of the host population. According to Bishop Moses Deng of the Anglican diocese of Wau in Bahr-El-Ghazal:
“The returnees from northern Sudan are repatriated to South Sudan carrying nothing with them except their sleeping mats and blankets on which they put their shrunken limbs and protect their empty bellies from cold or heat”.
I had the poignant privilege of attending the independence day celebrations last July and witnessed the people’s ecstatic celebration of freedom from a Government who had killed, enslaved and oppressed them for decades. However, the new Government of South Sudan, emerging from years of war, have to try to develop democracy in the context of devastation and destitution, a destroyed infrastructure, widespread illiteracy for a generation of children unable to attend school because of constant bombardment and such a shortage of healthcare that over 85 per cent of people have no immunisation and are vulnerable to diseases such as polio, TB, diphtheria and tetanus. One in seven mothers dies in pregnancy or childbirth and one in seven children dies before the age of five.
A catastrophic food shortage is also looming. A report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme, which was published on 13 February, warns that below average harvests in 2011, insecurity and conflict in many areas, increased demand from the growing number of IDP, refugee and returnee populations and high cereal prices may result in nearly 4.7 million people in South Sudan facing hunger this year if urgent action is not taken.
It is hard to build democracy on empty stomachs, and the challenges facing the new Government of South Sudan have been massively exacerbated by its neighbour the Republic of Sudan. There is widespread concern that the people of South Sudan are perceiving Her Majesty’s Government’s responses as inadequate. Al-Bashir’s policies are so systematically ruthless that they have been described as crimes against humanity and genocide. The catalogue of violations of human rights has been chronicled over the years with devastating authority by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Satellite Sentinel Project and UN human rights investigators. There have also been numerous reports of what is increasingly seen as the racist dimension of Khartoum’s assaults against its African citizens in Darfur, Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. Time allows only one typical example. A Nuba resident of Kadugli told Agence France-Presse that a member of the paramilitary Khartoum Popular Defence Forces said that they had been provided with plenty of weapons and ammunition, and a standing order:
“He said that they had clear instructions: just sweep away the rubbish. If you see a Nuba, just clean it up. He told me he saw two trucks of Nuba people with their hands tied and blindfolded, driving out to where diggers were making holes for graves on the edge of town”.
After Rwanda, the British Government famously said that they will never condone another genocide, but this is precisely what they are now perceived to be doing. The African peoples of Sudan and South Sudan, having seen Britain’s powerful intervention in Libya, are beginning to wonder whether the UK’s foreign policy is influenced by some racism. Far more people have been killed and displaced in Sudan and South Sudan than in Libya but, as they see it, the British Government merely continue to talk with Khartoum. For years, the British Government have talked while Khartoum has continued to kill. I have been making this point in your Lordships’ House for two decades and it grieves me beyond words that I have to do so again today.
There are sometimes implications in statements by Her Majesty’s Government of a kind of moral equivalence comparing Khartoum’s ruthless policy of the slaughter of its civilians with policies adopted by the Government of South Sudan, but the systematic and ruthless targeted aerial bombardment causing widespread death, injury, destruction and displacement of civilians is a policy exclusively used by Khartoum.
I shall conclude by asking the Minister five questions. First, now that the United Kingdom has assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council, will Her Majesty's Government support an initiative for an international independent committee of inquiry to be sent by the UN Security Council to Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile to investigate and report on human rights violations and abuses, and allegations of crimes against humanity? Secondly, will Her Majesty’s Government also consider targeted sanctions, including a UK trade embargo and diplomatic sanctions imposed on senior politicians in Khartoum’s ruling party, and downgrading diplomatic relations with the Government of Sudan from full ambassador level?
Thirdly, will Her Majesty’s Government promote the cessation of official arms transfers and initiate action against companies which sell military equipment to Khartoum to reduce Khartoum’s capacity to wage war on its own citizens? Fourthly, will Her Majesty’s Government work with the international community to do much more to ensure arrangements for urgent delivery of aid into South Kordofan and Blue Nile before the rainy season makes delivery of aid impossible? Finally, will Her Majesty’s Government help the Government of South Sudan to meet the urgent needs for food aid, healthcare and education so massively exacerbated by the vast numbers of refugees and returnees?
If the Minister can respond positively to some of these requests, this might reassure those who are deeply disturbed by the perceived failure of Her Majesty’s Government so far to respond more appropriately to the continuing atrocities, perceived as tantamount to genocide, perpetrated by Khartoum against its own people; and also demonstrate a robust commitment to assisting the new Republic of South Sudan to emerge from decades of war and humanitarian crises into the stable democracy and freedom for which its people have paid such a high price, for which they yearn and which they deserve.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate and on putting forward such a powerful argument. Those of us who follow these events are very grateful. African Union mediators have reported that South Sudan and Sudan have agreed a framework to give their citizens basic freedoms in both nations allowing, “freedom of residence, freedom of movement, freedom to undertake economic activity and freedom to acquire and dispose of property”.
If this agreement in principle holds, unlike earlier deals, it will remove the threat hanging over at least 700,000 southerners that from 8 April, they would be treated as foreigners unless they obtained residency or work permits. Apparently the Government of South Sudan are committing some $17 million to the repatriation, with the support of the International Organization for Migration by plane, barge, road and now rail. Can the Minister say whether this framework agreement is holding? What action are our Government taking to assist the Government of South Sudan in this repatriation process, particularly in ensuring that the freedom of residency agreement materialises?
The first train to travel under the safe return process has reached South Sudan carrying 2,300 returnees. They add to the 360,000 returnees registered last year by the IOM and the 2.5 million previously. There remain huge reintegration challenges, primarily through the slow allocation of land by the Government with inadequate title complicated by the lack of basic transport, education and health infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, and a lack of economic stimulus throughout.
Will the Minister confirm that every support is being given to encourage UK VSO personnel from the state sector who are now being posted to South Sudan as trainers and that no disincentives are arising? Can she confirm they will suffer no loss of pension rights while absent from their state employment in this country, whether they are health workers, teachers, police officers or any others engaged in the state sector?
There is growing revulsion over the actions of the Sudanese Armed Forces against the civilians, women and children, living in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and other areas contested by Sudan and South Sudan. Over 400,000 people have been displaced and 300,000 people are facing severe food shortages. The architect of the violence in Darfur, indicted war criminal and current Governor of South Kordofan Ahmed Haroun, is believed to be directing the assault on the Nuba people.
Although access remains very restricted, alarming reports are surfacing of the deliberate targeting of civilians, the use of chemical weapons and the presence of mass graves. A UNMISS staff member reported seeing the bodies of some 150 Nubians in the grounds of a Sudanese Armed Forces compound, all shot dead. An UNMISS contractor witnessed the SAF filling in mass graves near Tillo. Other staff gathered evidence of more fresh mass graves near the state capital Kadugli. Meanwhile, the Sudanese continue to block access to live-saving humanitarian aid. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to member states to make available military utility helicopters. UNMISS has to overcome the critical shortage that has arisen after Russia withdrew all its helicopters and crew from the mission earlier in the year. Fighting has since broken out around Pibor in Jonglei, bordering north Sudan, due to the slow deployment of UN troops without helicopters. Do the Government intend to respond positively to the appeal from Ban Ki-moon?
Leading international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Aegis, together with campaigners such as Dr Mukesh Kapila, the former head of the UN in Sudan, are spearheading a public campaign to end the violence towards civilians by the SAF. Do our Government agree that the failure to end indiscriminate bombing or, worse, the intentional targeting and murder of civilians requires swift and effective action by the international community? Will the UK lead the way?
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her consistent highlighting of the issues faced by the Government of South Sudan as they attempt to establish a civil society which is robust in peace building and the provision of basic services. I am also grateful to the Department for International Development for its work in seeking to ensure a peace dividend for South Sudan and for Sudan, too. I would be grateful for comment on what more can be done to ensure that finance and funding mechanisms are in place for the medium term to support peace building, humanitarian relief and long-term development work.
The churches and faith-based organisations are among those best placed to help in the provision of aid and mediation at a local level within South Sudan. The Anglican Episcopal Church of Sudan, under the leadership of Archbishop Deng, to whom the noble Baroness has already referred, has continued to work ecumenically and with aid organisations both north and south of the border. It seems to me that one of the great advantages of the fact that the Anglican Church has not split into a Sudanese and a South Sudanese church is that it can work across the border and provide support on both sides of it. The churches have often been able to maintain unfettered access to villages at times of crisis and violence and to respond both in mediation and with humanitarian aid. Can the Minister say what progress is being made on the need to stabilise the political situation in and around Abeyi and whether she believes that the international community can do more to support local mediation efforts, including those led by the church, such as recently in Jonglei state? Humanitarian aid remains crucial. The threatened doubling of the cereal deficit in 2012 means that a new emphasis is needed on food security from the international community in support of the World Food Programme. Again, there is a major issue working with local communities so that food is able to reach those in most need of it.
I would like to focus for a moment on education, in which the churches continue to have a historic involvement both north and south of the border. The diocese of Salisbury in this country, and indeed Lambeth Palace, have had a long-established concern to support the Episcopal Church of Sudan in its provision of education, both north and south of the present border. This is crucial to literacy levels and to equality in the education of girls as well as boys. However, 80 per cent of the police force in South Sudan, for example, is currently said to be illiterate, with major implications for the establishment of the rule of law and for justice. Will the Minister comment on how education can best be enhanced both north and south of the border and on what support can be given for the churches’ provision of schools and teacher training which, when provided by the churches, is always provided on the basis of need and without reference to religious or political affiliation? One considerable possibility would be the redesignation of church-supported schools as “community” rather than “private”.
South Sudan is a country of immense promise. At the moment it suffers from the war with Sudan and from Sudanese action against it. In this very early stage of its development, it finds it hard to develop its own structures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s strategy on how we can help the promise of South Sudan to be fulfilled in the future.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. I join in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Cox for her heroic humanitarian work over such a long, sustained time in Sudan. I will also follow her by talking entirely about South Kordofan. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, referred to Dr Mukesh Kapila CBE, a former senior British official and former United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Sudan. Earlier this month, he told parliamentarians from both Houses at a meeting which I attended that in South Kordofan the second genocide of the 21st century is now unfolding, with more than 1 million people affected as a regime systemically kills its own people. He also reminded us of the folly of seeking to appease the regime in Khartoum or of placing such credence in agreements about boundaries or citizenship as we have done in the past. He told us not to be fooled by the Government of Sudan and that, despite many promises on humanitarian access and civilian protection, al-Bashir’s regime has never adhered to one single agreement that it has signed.
During Oral Questions last Thursday, I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, to reconsider the Government’s policy of maintaining full diplomatic relations with Sudan and conducting business as usual with a regime ruled over by,
“mass murderers and fugitives from justice”.—[Official Report, 22/3/12; col. 1023.]
Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir and South Kordofan’s governor Ahmed Mohammed Haroun are both wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, a region which I have visited, where more than 300,000 people were killed and some two million people were displaced. Surely, as a matter of principle, where a head of state is indicted by the ICC, we should radically review our diplomatic relations. I hope the Minister can tell us what we are doing to assist the ICC in enforcing arrest warrants in cases such as those of al-Bashir and Haroun.
I would contrast the situation with that of Syria. I hope that, at the very minimum, Her Majesty’s Government will consider at least the downgrading of our diplomatic relations, the freezing of assets and the imposition of travel and other sanctions. Either this is the second genocide of the 21st century unfolding, or it is not. Either those responsible for the first genocide, who are now responsible for the second, are the men who have just been mentioned, or they are not. Either they are indicted by the ICC or they are not. Either it is business as usual, or it is not.
During his evidence, Dr Kapila described the situation in South Kordofan. He said,
“we heard an Antonov above us. Women and children started running and going into the nooks and caves of a mountain, a small hill rather … We saw a burned-out village. As we left the border there was burned place after burned place after burned place. There was hardly a person to be seen”.
He told us that this normally food-rich state faces starvation because the attacks have forced the people from their fields, and to ward off hunger they are now eating next season’s seeds. There are an estimated 300,000 people now internally displaced, and 20,000 to 30,000 refugees.
Where are we in all this? Although the United Kingdom has just assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, the British Government and Foreign Secretary have said little or nothing about these events. I first questioned Ministers about this unfolding tragedy and the complicity of United Nations peacekeepers, who sent fleeing victims to their deaths, on 21 June last year. The Government replied,
“Reports of such atrocities will have to be investigated and, if they prove to be true, those responsible will need to be brought to account”—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. WA 294.]
Needless to say, no-one has been. In July, I asked what action the United Nations was taking in South Kordofan under Resolution 1590, which requires particular attention to be given to the protection of vulnerable groups. Last September, I raised reports of aerial bombardment. In November, the Government told me,
“we continue … to seek urgent access to those most affected by the conflict”—[Official Report, 9/11/11; col. WA 66.]
Yet there has been no access and no referral of these depredations to the International Criminal Court. Those responsible—led by indicted war criminals—for crimes against humanity continue to enjoy full diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom. That simply cannot be right.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for securing this debate. She is very much our voice for the voiceless and, along with him, provides a much needed focus and prod to Governments of all persuasions in remembering these intractable disputes. In many ways the term “curse of resources” could not more accurately describe the nature of South Sudan. It is an economy which is 99 per cent dependent on oil revenues, added to which is the little complexity that, to gain the revenue, you need to export it all across the north to Port Sudan. That is an incredible problem, and throws up all sorts of difficulties for people to focus on. Therefore the need to find an alternative route out for that oil export, perhaps through Kenya, and to diversify the economy seem absolutely essential.
In the great briefing pack which the House of Lords Library made available for this debate, I was shocked to see one particular fact: that aerial observation had suggested that only 4.5 per cent of the entire possible agricultural land is being developed at present. That may well be for the security reasons which have been mentioned, but that is a staggering waste. In that part of the world, we are used to seeing many examples where there is simply no food and people therefore need to rely on external supplies, but here is an example where there is land and cultivation available. That ought to be looked at, and it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his place. He has immense expertise in this area and he might get an opportunity to speak on that later.
I close my remarks by focusing on what may seem a tiny thing in the context of all this. It is the Olympic Truce. If noble Lords would bear with me, there are many areas in which the north and the south do not agree. But they agree in that they are both signatories and, indeed, co-sponsors of the Olympic Truce, which calls for initiatives for peace and reconciliation from 27 July to 9 September this year. That is a small area, but it is one which my noble friend the Minister could look at, to see whether anything can be done. The opportunity for this is further heightened by the fact that South Sudan, despite being a co-sponsor of the Olympic Truce, has not been authorised by the International Olympic Committee to send a team. The team which comes to London 2012, in which there are seven athletes, will therefore be made up of northern and southern members. That provides a little window of opportunity. Okay, I know it is not the biggest thing in the world, but sometimes focusing on small opportunities can yield great returns.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
My Lords, like others I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate and for her constant concern about Sudan. If she will allow me to disagree with one tiny point that she and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made, I have a slight hesitation about downgrading diplomatic relations. It always seems that it is precisely when relations get bad that you need an ambassador on the spot, exerting the sort of pressure that needs to be exerted. I have no difficulty at all about taking a very tough line with Khartoum, but we may be able to do that rather better if we have an ambassador there to do it.
As others have said, the situation in South Sudan is dire. That was true before the referendum, as I know from visiting South Sudan. I declare an interest as chair of the medical aid charity Merlin, which operates in Darfur and South Sudan, and which also receives funds from DfID. The referendum provided a ray of hope, but that hope is dimming quickly with the conflict in the border areas, of which others have spoken, the failure of the north and the south to agree on the distribution of oil revenues, and the decision by the south to cut off oil to the north—thereby depriving itself of 98 per cent of its revenues. That decision is, alas, likely to hurt the south more, and earlier, than it will hurt the north.
The result of all those factors is that the prospect of a true humanitarian disaster and serious conflict between north and south, dragging in their neighbours too, is very real indeed. Perhaps I might also say that if that happens, we will find that the press will wake up again to Sudan and ask why we did nothing to stop it when the prospect was so great. So what can we do? As others have said, Britain has a real role through historical links, though an understanding of the issues and through a sizeable aid programme. That programme, focused on humanitarian aid, must continue and if necessary intensify for the south. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that will be the case.
I fear that the old approach built around the comprehensive peace agreement has now had its day and that we need a new approach with new actors. I believe also that the UK’s role, as well as itself helping South Sudan, is to encourage others to do so. For example, the African Union has a role, if not of leadership, at least of providing a neutral forum for negotiations between north and south. The Arab world has a role. The Gulf states have money to help and will not want to see a further disaster in the Arab world. They can exert pressure on the north and I hope that the British Government can encourage them to do so. The EU has a role.
China, in particular, has a real potential influence with both north and south Sudan. Sudan presents a challenge to Chinese diplomacy because it is not quite in the Chinese way of conducting foreign policy to get involved in resolving a dispute such as that between north and south. But China could have a hugely important influence if it did, and I hope very much that the British Government will encourage it to do so and will work with it to do that.
Britain must help with humanitarian aid and must keep up pressure on both the north and the south to avoid a further disaster. But that will work only if it works with and through others, using its influence in the EU, in the UN—particularly at a time when it has the presidency of the UN Security Council—with the Gulf states and, in particular, with China. If, as I say, there is a disaster, the criticism will be that we did not do enough to prevent that disaster when the prospects of that disaster were real.
Finally, I hope very much that Sudan will remain at the top of the Government’s agenda—of their foreign policy agenda and their development agenda—and that the Minister can confirm that that will be the case.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for getting this important subject on the Order Paper at a time when it has been quite difficult to get the issues of South Sudan, in particular, heard since independence. I am privileged to chair the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy. We did a report on South Sudan at around the time of independence and we have followed it since then. It is a report which we have followed up on a number of occasions.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I would say that the fact that the referendum took place, and that independence happened with both Presidents at the ceremony, is perhaps a sign that things can work. Certainly, our committee has looked at the situation and seen the dire consequences that will come if we carry on down the trajectory that we are on at the moment. It particularly concerns us that South Sudan should have taken the decision to cut off oil and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has just said, its route out through Sudan itself. I am afraid that there is no alternative and that there probably will not be even in the long term. The oil reserves are not large enough and I suspect that, after this, any investment in such a project would be equally difficult.
It is very depressing that we have this breakdown and that government revenues will be cut by a staggering 98 per cent because of that lack of agreement over the oil price. As far as I can see, that is almost equivalent to a mutually assured destruction between the two states of Sudan, although north Sudan relies a mere 30 per cent to 40 per cent on oil revenues, which needs to be sorted. I should point out that we saw very strongly in our own report that South Sudan is not necessarily that good at investing its own oil revenues when it has them. Some $11 billion of oil reserves were not accounted for but they were there and little development has actually taken place, so there are problems all around here.
I have three questions to ask the Minister. First, I understand that the South Sudan Government are now trying actively to join the Cotonou agreement, which I hope can happen quickly. There are all sorts of artificial barriers that could slow that process down but I hope that it can happen quickly and I should like to hear that reassurance from my noble friend. Secondly, there is a proposed EU CSDP mission to protect the security of Juba airport, which is really the only direct gateway into South Sudan. We all know that many European missions take a long time to source, decide on and then implement. Is that due to happen? Is the timescale satisfactory and does my noble friend see that the normal barriers that there are on such missions will be removed?
My last point comes back to one that echoes very much the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. China has a unique wish or motivation to sort this out. Both Sudans are an important source of oil to China and one that China greatly needs. Chinese expenditure on oil finances both those treasuries. I ask my noble friend whether the British Government, together perhaps with the European Union, are trying to persuade China to move outside what we might call its zone of comfort to ensure that it, through its unique role, can bring a solution where maybe more normal passages or channels do not work.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, the question of what happens to aid money in an impasse in a post-conflict state is intriguing, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. I hope that the Minister will bring us the answer. My own stock answer is that it is only through non-governmental organisations that you can ensure effective delivery. In truth, corruption will infect all financial transfers and private investment, which includes NGOs. We must face the fact that until the SPLM is disbanded, those who serve military interests will receive salaries well before teachers and doctors. The army will continue to rule until rebel commanders and foreign invaders are all but eliminated, and the disarmament process seems to be a long time away. Security is of paramount concern for the south and maintaining a standing army is not always irresponsible or corrupt; it is necessary.
Meanwhile, the south refuses to deal with the north. The oil has ceased to flow and, although it spells disaster for major infrastructure projects in the new nation, the upside is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, mentioned, it encourages diversity and gives greater attention to investment in agriculture in safe areas, such as Equatoria, in other minerals and, above all, in small businesses. Vice President Riek Machar has given an assurance that basic services will not suffer, even though development may be on hold. This may be wishful thinking, but aid will be urgently needed.
There is another army in South Sudan—tens of thousands of returnees from the north, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, many of whom have their own skills and capital, but who desperately need employment. The archbishop has continually made the point that they need jobs. I wonder whether we have answered his appeal. There is a lot of expectation of China at the moment because of its investment in both countries. China generally has a good reputation in Africa. I have seen examples of that, such as road building in Ethiopia. China is also credited with supporting the CPA—the peace agreement that led to the south’s independence. I hope that the Government will respond urgently to the EU Committee’s latest alarm call. Another excellent report by ActionAid, on China and conflict-affected states, includes a lot of recommendations that China should do this and China should do that, but it cannot explain the paradox that China’s doctrine of non-intervention does not fit well with its active role alongside Governments of conflict states, such as its arms supplies to Khartoum, for instance, and in other states, such as Nepal and Sri Lanka, it has stayed close to government. China cannot avoid direct involvement. A month ago South Sudan expelled the Chinese head of the country's biggest oil company, the Chinese and Malaysian-owned Petrodar, for making a large payment to Khartoum after oil flows had been stopped.
Then there is Kordofan, rightly the preoccupation of my noble friends. George Clooney's short video from South Kordofan—I hope everyone has seen it—showing the Nuba people hiding in caves from aerial bombardment which has killed innocent civilians and destroyed their homes, should be enough to convince anyone of the evil of President al-Bashir’s regime. It is a crime equal to those of Bosnia or Kosovo, and yet at this distance it seems that there is nothing we can do except complain.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate. Like others, I very much appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has tabled this subject for discussion this afternoon. I declare an interest as trustee of a charity called AID, Anglican International Development, working with the Episcopal Church of Sudan. As has been referred to by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, Archbishop Daniel Deng is a significant influence in South Sudan, and works very closely with the Government and government Ministers. I believe we ought to recognise that, and enable him to help in bringing about a peaceful solution if that is at all possible.
The position with regard to oil has been discussed in some detail this afternoon. However, the terms under which this agreement has broken down make a resolution unlikely in the short term because of the significant demands the north was making for the transportation of that oil: over $30 per barrel, which is excessive. We have a very difficult situation, which is making the dependence on aid even greater in South Sudan. This leads us to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Bates: we need to find ways to help South Sudan to diversify from oil and its dependence on aid. It is to that extent that we in AID are very keen to work with the church and the Government of South Sudan. The church is the only infrastructure in South Sudan reaching the population and local communities, whether it is to assist them in the development of better health standards through medical assistance, or through the development of food programmes, which is clearly a high priority for us.
My personal responsibility is to try to establish institutional links between universities, colleges and training centres here and in Sudan. This will enable provision of help through training and knowledge transfer to assist people to begin to feed themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has mentioned, when I was out there and met the Minister, he said that food security was the highest priority of the Government, but that currently they are only 5 per cent self-sufficient in food. South Sudan has some of the most fertile land in Africa. The Nile flows through the country and in many areas they can crop twice a year. They could be part of the bread basket of Africa. However, such is the disruption to infrastructure from the civil war that they are failing seriously to satisfy their own food needs, and will do so for some time to come.
It is critical that our Government do what they can to help; not just through the emergency and short-term provision of aid, but in the long term by developing links with the Government of South Sudan. This is an emerging democracy that is going to need significant help. We have a specific issue at the moment regarding a microfinance project which we are operating in Juba. We have failed, as yet, to receive a licence to operate the project. We have been given a letter and permission to trade, but the Bank of South Sudan does not have a licensing system in place. This is a very small example of the need to assist the Government in establishing institutions so that democracy can proceed. The UK Government can, and ought to, do a lot to help this emerging democracy.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate and for her absolutely tireless commitment and concern for the people of Sudan, South Sudan and many other places in our world, as others have said.
South Sudan is a country where every possible indicator, whether of health, education, social protection or income, illustrates the shocking extent of the disadvantage and vulnerability which the people of that country face. Noble Lords have identified the security challenges and the need for much more co-ordinated action. I suggest that there has to be effective government action to strengthen the security presence in potential flashpoints, peace processes have to get off the ground earlier, those responsible have to be brought to justice and there have to be programmes designed to address communities’ grievances. Also, the UN and its members, including the UK, as chair of the Security Council, need to act with much greater urgency in deploying the full strength of the UNMISS troops to South Sudan.
As post-independence Sudan experiences increasing conflict, we see major displacement, especially of women and children—children who are susceptible to abduction and abuse as they are separated from their families. With so many female-headed households in South Sudan, the insecurity disproportionately affects women and children and the activities of the militia groups that are everywhere keep them on the move and in danger of violence, including terrible sexual violence.
The conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile is having a terrible effect on the humanitarian situation. Tens of thousands of people have fled across the border to camps which NGOs have said are at absolute breaking point and where basic needs cannot be met, as MSF has said today. Conflict, population, displacement, poor rains in 2011, border closures, resulting commodity price increases and cattle raiding have all combined to leave the people of South Sudan in absolutely desperate need. We know that a major contributory factor is the negative effect of the shutdown of South Sudan oil production, which is threatening the country’s ability to address food insecurity and the humanitarian emergency. My understanding is that there is not yet any clarity on what the imminent austerity measures will be. However, we already know that the Government, as a result of losing this revenue, have announced that no new personnel will be appointed. That means no new teachers or health workers—exactly the professionals which that country so desperately needs.
Many of us in this Room will have followed the essential South Sudan Development Plan. However, that is now not feasible or deliverable, and the implications for development are very serious indeed. If an oil deal is not agreed, what steps will the UK and other donors take to prepare for the huge impact of the loss of 98 per cent of the Government’s revenue? Will the UK publicly and clearly call for transparency of oil revenues? That is a fundamental governance issue. Will the UK call for any deal that is made to be monitored and properly verified?
Mention has been made of the European Union. I can confirm that last week, President Salva Kiir was in Brussels and presented the request for membership of the Cotonou treaty—that will be agreed—to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I think we can fairly say that the political benefits and the benefits for security and trade and development opportunities will be substantial. Access to committed funds from the ninth EDF and the 10th EDF is also beneficial. That is good news. South Sudan will join the ACP countries. I am sure that each one of them will very much welcome Africa’s newest country.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for tabling today’s debate, and for her tireless work in this area. Others have paid tribute to that and we know how much we owe her. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions and work in this area.
The people of South Sudan have been through a huge amount. I, once again, congratulate them on their momentous achievement of independence last July, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred and which she attended. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Juba to welcome that achievement. The UK was proud to appoint the first foreign ambassador to South Sudan. We have committed around £90 million a year in aid to South Sudan for the next four years. The challenge for South Sudan is huge. The country has some of the worst poverty indicators in the world and a generation that has known only war now needs to build the institutions of a democratic society, which is an enormous challenge.
We know how vulnerable the region is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, has just indicated and why this is such a huge challenge. That is why the UK has made such a strong commitment to the people of South Sudan, focusing on five broad areas: accountable, capable and responsive government; security and access to justice; health and education; food security, jobs and wealth creation; and a response to the humanitarian crisis that many have mentioned. The total commitment at the moment is around £60 million to those five areas and I hope that that will reassure noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in particular, asked about that.
I shall highlight some of the examples of what UK funds are doing. We are helping South Sudan to fight corruption and our funds are supporting efforts to clean up the government payroll, improve budget execution and strengthen the anti-corruption commission and audit chamber. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, is pleased to hear that. We are working to improve healthcare and education, and we will support 240,000 children through primary school, help print and distribute 12 million textbooks, and enable 37,000 women to deliver their babies in the presence of a skilled birth attendant. We commend the church for what it has done to support the education of girls as well as boys. We fully recognise the importance of that. We are also helping to improve the customs service.
Our humanitarian programmes are addressing emergency needs for refugees, returnees and internally displaced people. Through its contribution to the peacekeeping budget, the UK is supporting the UN mission to South Sudan—UNMISS. The programmes that I have described are all intended to help South Sudan build the foundations for peace and development, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we recognise that it is difficult to organise good governance when facing a humanitarian crisis. Like the right reverend Prelate, and other noble Lords, we recognise that long-term commitment is vital.
Noble Lords have noted with grave concern the failure of Sudan and South Sudan to negotiate deals on a number of areas of difference, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others, have referred to the halt in oil production. The decision to halt oil production puts the Government of South Sudan in a precarious financial and economic position. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, was right in her figures. It will be extremely hard for it to cover essential expenditures using non-oil revenues, without entering into damaging debt obligations. Of course, long term one would wish to see the diversification of the economy, but we are a long, long way from that.
We could see the severe depreciation of the South Sudanese pound, spiralling inflation and an increase in poverty. If police and army salaries are not paid, the security situation could get worse. The UK has to assess implications for its own aid programme—the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is right. We will not falter in our commitment to the South Sudanese people but we will not fill the financial gap. We have started to refocus our programmes. We must be confident that they will still deliver basic services for the most vulnerable, even if the Government cannot pay salaries. The building of South Sudan’s institutions, and therefore the Government’s ability to govern properly, will be slowed in this situation, which will be a tragically wasted opportunity.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others will be pleased to note that the Government will continue to play a leading role in meeting humanitarian needs. We realise that these will be exacerbated by the economic crisis. A poor harvest, to which noble Lords have referred, and internal conflicts have added to the deep underlying food insecurity. More refugees from South Kordofan and Blue Nile, and more returnees from Sudan, will make things worse. In December, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development approved a two-year package of support for the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Common Humanitarian Fund in South Sudan. DfID recently announced a further package of support to the World Food Programme to help it meet the needs of the 315,000 people affected by the conflicts in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Abyei. Various noble Lords, starting, of course, with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked me about that, and I hope that that helps to address it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development has raised the issue of returnees with the Sudanese authorities on both of his recent visits to Sudan, in November and February. We have urged both Governments to allow more time for these issues to be resolved beyond the 8 April deadline.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others asked about the UK’s role in the UN to address some of these issues. The Foreign Secretary called for an investigation when the conflict began in South Kordofan. There have been reports of indiscriminate tactics that target civilians, to which noble Lords referred. These tactics are likely to be violations of international humanitarian law and we agree that they deserve credible and independent investigation. The Security Council expressed its concern about the situation in South Kordofan and Blue Nile for the first time this month, under UK chairmanship. We will continue to press for the Security Council to put its weight behind calls to end the conflict and ensure humanitarian access.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Chidgey, and others asked about diplomatic relations and targeted sanctions. President Bashir and Defence Minister Hussein are already subject, as noble Lords know, to arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court, and a Sudan-wide EU arms embargo already exists. The contact we do maintain with the Government of Sudan is consistently used to press for a cessation of hostilities and for humanitarian access. We continue to believe that the most effective pressure on the Government of Sudan is a united international position between the UN, the AU and the Arab League. It is this that we are working to create and maintain. Although I note what other noble Lords have said, I also note the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for diplomatic relations, and his argument that they can in fact be of use in this very difficult situation.
As I have mentioned, there is an EU arms embargo on the whole of Sudan and South Sudan, and a UN arms embargo on Darfur. In answer to questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we continue to work in the UN sanctions committee to press for full respect by all states of these embargoes.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others asked about the ICC in relation to enforcing arrest warrants on Bashir and Haroun, and talked about extending those warrants. We strongly support the ICC and its investigation into Darfur. Should any ICC indictee travel to a country that is a signatory to the Rome statute, we would expect them to be arrested. We continue to make our expectations very clear to others on this, and call on the Government of Sudan to co-operate with the ICC.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asked me a number of questions. The framework agreement, which was initialled by the two sides in Addis Ababa earlier this month, is to be signed by the two Presidents at their summit next week. We are pressing both Governments to stick to their commitments and implement the agreement in full. He also asked what was being done to assist the repatriation process. I have mentioned briefly that the UK has also contributed £2.36 million to assist the South Sudanese returning from Sudan. However, the onus is on the Government of South Sudan to provide documentation and other support to their citizens.
In terms of VSO, we encourage employers to facilitate those who wish to work through VSO, and the effect on pension rights will be a matter for employees and their employers. I was asked about Sudanese Ministers who hold British passports. We do not hold information on any such Ministers, and if there is any information that the noble Lord wishes to pass on we would be extremely interested to hear it.
We welcome what the church is doing in terms of mediation efforts. I have commented on how we are trying to build greater resilience in terms of food security. On Juba international airport, in principle we support the mission. We appreciate that this has not yet gone through scrutiny, but hope that it will be deployed in the next few months. The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Jay, mentioned China, which is obviously a critical player in this region. I note with interest that China apparently urged restraint in relations between the north and south and did not want to let the issue of humanitarian access escalate. That is an encouraging sign.
In terms of an Olympic Truce, the UK is strongly supportive of its implementation, if only it could be seen to have some effect in this area. I welcome the noble Lord’s optimism. With regard to South Sudan signing the Cotonou agreement, the EU is providing technical and financial assistance to meet the requirements of this, and has earmarked sufficient funding for South Sudan so that it will not be disadvantaged in that process.
Our goal is to see two secure and prosperous states, drawing on their mutual ties and strengths, with their differences behind them. With our troika partners and the international community, we continue to call on them to swiftly resolve their differences on oil, on citizenship and on borders. We have invested in the process mediated by Thabo Mbeki and the AU high-level implementation panel, and will continue to do so. Noble Lords are right about the need to involve all international partners.
It is right too that, with independence, South Sudan should forge new relationships with the international community, with regional bodies and, bilaterally, with its neighbours. However, full and lasting peace with the Republic of Sudan remains vital for the security and prosperity of South Sudan.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this evening. The Committee therefore stands adjourned.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Winchester
Death of a Member: Lord Newton of Braintree
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. On behalf of the House, I extend our deepest condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Piracy
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the assistance given by the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the Regional Anti-Piracy Prosecutions and Intelligence Co-ordination Centre in the Seychelles will include information gleaned from suspicious activity reports.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, no decision has been made on whether SOCA will share information from suspicious activity reports with the Regional Anti-Piracy Prosecutions and Intelligence Co-ordination Centre. We are still determining the centre’s requirements, which will include safeguards for the protection of personal data.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response—although, alas, there is not a huge amount to thank him for but just a little bit—but I should be grateful if he would ensure that we are told when a decision has been reached on this matter. Would he not agree, moreover, that now that the Government are getting a better grip on all aspects of the problems of Somalia, including that of piracy, it is high time that the Government insisted that anyone assembling a ransom should file a suspicious activity report about that? Would he also confirm that the Prime Minister has now asked for a proper study to be made of all aspects of the issue of assembling ransoms?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thought that my Answer was quite helpful. However, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that he will be told, and the House will be informed, when we have made a decision. As regards whether SARs should be used whenever a ransom has been paid, the paying of ransom, as the noble Lord will be aware, is not illegal as such, although we deplore the practice because we do not think it assists. I can also confirm that, as the noble Lord put it, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister does want further work to be looked at in this area to see whether it should be something for which a SAR should automatically be filed if that is the case.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, it has been known for some time that terrorist groups such as AQIM have used kidnap for ransom as a source of income. Why did the Government not mention this in the course of the extended correspondence with the EU Select Committee about piracy off the coast of Somalia?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we made it clear that we do not believe that the money going in ransoms to—if I can put it this way—the ordinary Somali pirates is generally going into terrorists’ hands. What is being gathered by AQIM is coming from other kidnapping operations and, as the noble Lord will be aware, there is a very good chance that that is going into terrorism operations, in which case it would be illegal to pay that ransom.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, is the national maritime intelligence centre now fully manned and operational at Northwood?
Lord Henley
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, that is the case, but if I am wrong, of course I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, given that the money-laundering regulations, which are part of the law now, make it perfectly clear that any payment made in connection with a criminal activity has to be reported to the government authorities and that consent has to be given before any payments are made, why has there been a de facto exemption in the case of payments negotiated by insurance companies or their representatives for ransoms in connection with piracy, which, whatever else it is, is clearly a criminal activity?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the simple fact is that, much as we deplore the payment of ransoms—Her Majesty's Government have made that clear for some time—they are not illegal as such. That is why, in answer to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I made it clear that the Prime Minister has asked for work to be conducted in this field.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a heavy burden has fallen on the criminal court in Mombasa, in Kenya? To what extent are the Seychelles and Mauritius taking that burden from Kenya?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think we are going slightly beyond the original Question, but the noble Earl raises an interesting point and I would prefer to write to him about that.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Is there a time limit for the further work that is being undertaken by the Government?
Lord Henley
My Lords, there is no time limit and it would be wrong to impose one at this stage. All I can make clear is that the Prime Minister has asked for further work to be done.
Olympic Games 2012: Disruption to Businesses
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Goschen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that disruption to businesses in London caused by the 2012 Olympic Games is minimised.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, London will be open for business this summer. Everyone involved in planning for the Games is focused on delivering a great Games while keeping London and the UK moving. Since November 2010, Transport for London has been working with businesses of all sizes in the capital to help them plan ahead for the impact that the Games might have on their staff travel, their deliveries and other aspects of their operations.
Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Given that businesses in central London—here I have an interest of sorts to declare—have been officially advised to plan for severe disruption to their operations because of traffic congestion as a result of the Olympic route network and the congested public transport system, can he assure the House that everything possible will be done to ensure that, while the Olympic Games are a great success, the normal commercial business of London is kept moving as far as possible?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we recognise the importance of this issue. We accept that there will be serious consequences if we get the planning wrong. There may be some severe disruption to a few businesses in certain locations, but the overall policy objective is business as usual. There will be impacts on businesses, most of which, overall, will be positive. However, there are potential adverse impacts. They can be mitigated by timely information and good planning. The website, Get Ahead of the Games, provides both the necessary information and the planning tools.
Lord Addington
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that having the greatest sporting festival in the world on our doorstep is something for which we should be prepared to tolerate a little delay? Can he further give us assurances and guidance about where we have looked for examples of how best to deal with any confusion?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. It is quite clear to me that those planning for the Olympics have carefully studied the experience of other nations when they have put their Games on, which is one reason why I think that we are on track to deliver an excellent set of Games.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is of course enormously important that transport in London is sustained sufficiently for normal businesses to be able to operate. However, the Minister will know of one form of business that will already be adversely affected—black cabs, which will not be able to go into these privileged lanes. So, that is one business that is facing a real challenge. Can the Minister assure us that government Ministers and others who have privileged transport will not trespass into these lanes, which we recognise are in response to the requirements of the Olympic authorities and already attract the unfortunate epithet of the Zil lanes, after the privileged form of transport in Moscow? I can think of nothing more offensive to the ordinary Londoner than to see that these lanes which are reserved for athletes to fulfil their Olympic obligations are being patronised by government Ministers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if I may say so, that was an ingenious question from the spokesman for the Opposition. However, noble Lords will recall that the bid plans were approved by the previous Administration. On a particular point about the Olympic route network and the Games lanes, the Games lanes will be put in place only where there are two lanes, and only for as long as necessary.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, could the Minister tell me what thought has been given to the effect on retail business of the extended closure of pedestrian crossings? Certain major roads in the centre of London will have a barrier completely down the middle, and the number of pedestrian crossings will be reduced by half. Will that not affect people in retail terms since they will be able to buy only from whatever business happens to be on their side of the road?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is important to remember that there will be opportunities as well as disadvantages for retail businesses. I would urge retail businesses to visit the Get Ahead of the Games website, where, by using the tools available, they will easily be able to see what the impact of travel disruption will be.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Perhaps the Minister could address the potential effects of a cyber surge in view of the huge interest there will be in the Olympic Games themselves, the potentially huge diversion of businesses and their employees to outside of London, based on the need to avoid any transport and other difficulties. There may well be a pretty large surge of demand for internet capabilities. Can the Minister tell us what provision or action the Government have made or taken to ensure continuity of service in the cyber and internet fields? It could cause huge disruption to business if that is not assured.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in preparing for this Question I had not specifically looked at cyber issues. However, I know that my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones spends all her time working on cyber issues.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
Does my noble friend regard it as a good or a bad omen that the first appearance of the phrase “the rush hour” in the English language appeared within two years of the first modern Olympic Games in 1896?
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, will the Minister expand a little on his response to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham? We read in the press of the arrival of hundreds if not thousands of members of the Olympic family—which I think probably means the International Olympic Committee and all the hangers-on. No doubt each participating member state will send a senior Minister and their entourage, and that is before we get to our own Ministers. Will all these people be able to use these special lanes in addition to the athletes—who are the ones we want to get there on time—or will they be confined just to the athletes? If the lanes are extended to all these other people who think that they have a role to play then, as my noble friend said, the public will get very angry indeed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that the provision of the Olympic route network was a key component of our bid to host the Olympics. If we had simply said to the International Olympic Committee, “Oh yes, we will have a great transport system”, we simply would not have secured the bid. We had to tell the International Olympic Committee specifically how we would provide the transport, including the Olympic route network.
Lord Elton
My Lords, can my noble friend readdress the question asked by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes? If 50 per cent of the crossing places in, for instance, Oxford Street are to be closed and barriers will make it impossible to cross the road other than in the remaining 50 per cent of places, many people who are not that fit will have to make very long journeys on foot to get across the road, even when it is not rush hour. That, together with fighting against the tide, will put some people out of the commercial race altogether.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand my noble friend’s point but, where restrictions are planned, they will be in place only for as long as necessary.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, the Minister keeps repeating that this or that plan has been approved and that this or that has got us the Games. Will he please tell us who will be able to use the lanes? It is quite simple and straightforward.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer is athletes, technical officials, media covering the Games, the Olympic and Paralympic family, and Games partners, who provide £1 billion funding for the Games and contribute to the operational running of the Games.
Lord Broers
My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that there will be excellent communications between the various modes of transportation so that those involved in surface rail will talk to those who work on the Underground, and vice versa? Last week there was a massive delay at Waterloo, yet the Underground had no notice of this and went on piling people into Waterloo. I hope that the two will talk to each other during the Games.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I know that generally noble Lords have been disappointed with some of the information systems during transport disruptions. I recently visited the Transport for London surface operations control centre in London and was very impressed by it. In addition, for the Games a transport co-ordination centre will ensure co-ordination and communication between all transport operators, authorities and Games organisers. It will focus on transport operations that could affect delivery of the Games and it will be funded by the Olympic Delivery Authority.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the noble Earl accept that, although privileged access to Downing Street is worse than privileged access to the Games, nevertheless privileged access to the Games, as well as to Downing Street, will be found repugnant by many British people?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord understands that these plans were approved by the previous Administration. This Government were not in a position to alter the bid made by that Administration.
Armed Forces: Redundancies
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Walker of Aldringham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of service men and women being made redundant from the Armed Forces are expected to be between the ages of 18 and 24.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as a result of the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review, it has been necessary to plan for redundancies in both the Civil Service and the Armed Forces to restore public finances and to better equip and shape the forces for the future. I can advise that some 12 per cent of those selected for redundancy in tranche one of the Armed Forces redundancy programme were aged 24 or below—that is, some 350 people. Selections for tranche two have yet to take place.
Lord Walker of Aldringham
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I venture to suggest that the number will end up somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000, but we shall wait to see in due course. These young people will leave the services having been trained at taxpayers’ expense for war—a profession that does not read across easily to other professions. We may well find that they will have great difficulty in getting employment thereafter and merely add to the 1 million unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds. Last year, the Government added £1 billion to the programme. The absurdity is that those made redundant are going to be replaced by the Territorial Army.
Lord Walker of Aldringham
My question is coming. They are going to be replaced by the Territorial Army, which is composed of part-timers whereas those being made redundant are full-timers, whose members will have two jobs, two wages and two paymasters. Will the Government reconsider this issue? It would be perfectly possible to continue to employ those who do not wish to leave the Army, either by giving them some of the £1 billion that the Government are investing in the young or by underrecruiting the unrecruited TA.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think that I recognise a certain anti-TA bias in that comment, which neither I nor the Government share. The total reduction in the size of the Armed Forces over the next several years will amount to 17,000 and it is estimated that the total necessary redundancies from currently serving personnel will be 11,000. The proportion of those servicemen under the age of 25 will be much closer to 2,000 to 3,000 than the figures the noble and gallant Lord has suggested.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, would the noble Lord assure me and the House that servicemen and women in this age group who may be redundant will be guided towards apprenticeships which we already have in place for service people leaving the services early? It is particularly important that such people are trained up and apprenticeships are very necessary to achieve this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Of course, many of those who came in as young leaders in the armed services are already being trained in the Army in the sort of skills that are highly valuable in civilian life. There is a resettlement scheme in place which will provide transitional training. In recent times, 93 per cent of those who left the Army under the resettlement scheme have found jobs within six months and 97 per cent within 12 months. I am sure that people with good records in the Army will have much that sort of experience.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, redundant personnel will have spent many years living and working in the Armed Forces. Are the Government going to give them training to enable them to find accommodation, food and other essentials? I also find it strange that, at the same time, there are advertisements on television for jobs in the Armed Forces. Can the Minister explain why?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think noble Lords will understand why continuing recruitment at a lower level needs to continue in order to maintain the correct balance of age groups and skills in the Armed Forces, even as they are reduced. There are opportunities for those selected for redundancy to apply for other skill training within the armed services, so it is not simply one out and another person in.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the current machinations about aircraft for aircraft carriers bring to mind the maxim, “Order, counter-order, disorder” and, rather more coarsely, the ouslam bird? Does he not agree that getting rid of the seed corn now will mean that the generation of the carriers will be rather more expensive and far more difficult than it need be?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we all recognise that we are not in an entirely happy situation as far as the carriers are concerned. That is part of the problems which this Government inherited with very large carriers already under way. The question of how far we maintain and renew the skills involved is under active consideration. Our American and French partners will, no doubt, be willing to assist in this. Indeed, discussions are already under way.
Lord Dannatt
My Lords, referring back to a previous question, would the Minister give a further assurance about the importance placed on recruiting 18 to 24 year-olds? The Armed Forces are essentially a group of organisations which rely on young people. Does he agree that it is important to continue to recruit these people, to advertise and to make sure that our training establishments are properly maintained? Does he further agree that there will come a moment when we may have to expand our Armed Forces again and that we do not wish to run down our machinery too much in advance of that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I entirely agree that we need to maintain a balance in the forces. Many people join the Armed Forces in the hope of staying in for 22 years, but others join hoping to stay in for three or six years. In visiting one or two TA units, I have been struck by the number of people in the TA who have spent time with the Regular Forces or, in some cases, who started in the TA, moved into the Regular Forces and then came out and back to the TA. There is not a simple package or career structure in place. It is very good for some young people to spend some time with the Armed Forces and then come back into civilian life.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, further to the Minister’s answer on recruitment, is there to be a freeze or will there continue to be recruitment to the Armed Forces in the future?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as I have already said, we are continuing to recruit, but at a lower level as we adjust numbers. I am told that levels of applications to join the Armed Forces at the present time are high.
Lord Rosser
Are these service personnel being made redundant to make savings and keep expenditure within budget, despite the Government being able to afford a reduction in the top rate of income tax, or are they being made redundant because they are not needed to meet current and projected military commitments— namely, that they are surplus to requirements?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I have not yet heard the Labour Party come out in favour of a substantial increase in defence spending in future years. If the Labour Party would like to commit itself to such a substantial increase, much of this would be avoided.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I missed the Minister’s answer to the previous question.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There is a range of reasons why some reductions, including in defence expenditure, are being made. As we withdraw our troops from Afghanistan in 2014, for the first time in a very long time we will not be, we hope, engaged in any active military operations; and, as we withdraw our troops from Germany, for the first time in over 200 years we will be within sight of our Armed Forces being mainly based in the United Kingdom. Some real and major adjustments to our Armed Forces will be under way in the next five to 10 years.
Scotland: Constitutional Future
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish their response to the consultation on Scotland’s constitutional future.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, on 20 March the Secretary of State wrote to party spokespeople setting out an initial summary of the findings of the consultation. This letter was deposited in the Library and I set out the initial findings during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill on 21 March. Officials are currently reviewing and analysing the consultation responses and a full summary will be published before the Third Reading of the Scotland Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, will the Minister confess that the Government have broken their promise to publish the response in advance of the Report stage of the Scotland Bill, which we are taking this afternoon? In order to make amends, will he discuss with his colleagues a way of getting every department of government, particularly the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence, to commission independent reports in advance of the referendum on the real costs of breaking up Britain?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree that we had a good debate about the referendum in Committee last Wednesday. I was able to give clear indications to the effect that, for example, the majority who responded to the consultation believed that powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that a great majority of those also supported the use of a Section 30 order. Our initial analysis shows clear support for a single question on independence, for the referendum to be held sooner rather than later, and for the involvement of the Electoral Commission. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord’s question, I hope that all departments will be very much engaged in setting out a positive case for the union.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, first, I thank my noble and learned friend for the undertaking to publish the full results of the consultation before Third Reading. That is very welcome and much appreciated. Secondly, given that the Government have decided not to proceed by amendment of the Scotland Bill to a referendum, will he give an undertaking that in the absence of reaching agreement on a single question organised by the Electoral Commission, the Government will bring forward their own legislation in the next Session of Parliament, as a Section 30 order requires the consent of the First Minister and his officials?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, a Section 30 order requires the consent of both Houses of this Parliament and of the Scottish Parliament. As I said last week, if agreement cannot be reached on a Section 30 order and if we are to try to ensure that this matter is kept out of the courts, which would be very helpful, the Government will need to consider what other options are open to them in order to provide a legal, fair and decisive referendum. Many people said that there would be no chance of getting a legislative consent Motion in respect of the Scotland Bill, but that is now within our grasp and is going to happen. I think we should focus our efforts on making sure, as I believe we can, that we get a Section 30 order for a fair, legal and decisive referendum.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to repeat to the House the assurance he gave in Committee that while the question of whether Scotland wishes to leave the United Kingdom is properly a matter for the Scottish people, any other question that would affect the relationship between the people of the United Kingdom—that is, extended devolution—cannot just be a decision for the Scottish people? It must also be a decision for which there is consultation with either the rest of the people of the United Kingdom or the United Kingdom Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, makes an important distinction between a question about a referendum on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and one that would necessarily involve other parts of the United Kingdom. That is why the Government believe it is inappropriate for any referendum to have two questions. He is right to say that if there is to be further devolution, there must be some means of engaging other parts of the United Kingdom. The main provisions of the Scotland Bill, which we are currently debating, were included in the manifestos of the three parties at the last general election.
The Earl of Clancarty
Have the Government given any thought to a consultation on England’s constitutional future, bearing in mind that with the increasingly powerful and dedicated representation that the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament afford to their citizens, this country is going to feel increasingly left out?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hope that in our arguments and debates about a referendum on Scotland’s future, we can make it clear that not only do we believe that Scotland is better off within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland.
The noble Earl will be aware that a commission has been set up to look at the implications of devolution for the procedures in the House of Commons, under the chairmanship of the Sir William Mackay. We await the outcome of that commission.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, coming back to the original Question, will the noble and learned Lord accept that with the Bill in your Lordships’ House at the moment, it is completely unacceptable for the full consultation not to be published until just before Third Reading? Will he accept that in view of that, and the fact that noble Lords may well wish to lay amendments on Third Reading, there should be greater latitude for amendments to be laid at that stage?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not necessarily think I can indicate the latitude that would be allowed at that stage, although I hear what the noble Lord says. I hope he will agree, that we gave considerable indications in Committee and, indeed, if the matter arises again today, on Report. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I indicated some of the key elements where the majority of opinion lies within the consultation. I think that was able to inform our debate on a referendum last week. I very much hope that by the time we get to Third Reading, people will have had an opportunity not just to analyse the numbers but also the quality of some of the responses, and they will feel that the preferences expressed by the Government in the consultation document command considerable support.
Business of the House
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 27 March to allow the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Procedure of the House
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:51 - Division on Lord Cormack’s Amendment - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 96 - Lord Cormack’s Amendment agreed.
The Chairman of Committees
That the 11th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 253) be agreed to.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the House Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I would first like to apologise for the fact that the debate has been brought forward by a day. The date was rearranged at the request of the usual channels, in order to avoid disrupting business tomorrow, when I know the House will be keen to make progress on the legal aid Bill. However, the Procedure Committee report has been available for almost two months now, and the Liaison Committee report was published last Wednesday, so I hope that noble Lords will have had ample opportunity to consider them.
I have waited until now to move the Motion on the Procedure Committee report because I felt that it would be useful for the House to be able to debate it alongside any report from the Liaison Committee. The proposals in both reports require extra resources and I am sure that noble Lords will wish to consider their implications in the round. In order to assist the House in considering these proposals, the House Committee agreed to publish its Third Report, which sets out the potential costs of the proposals contained within the Procedure Committee and Liaison Committee reports. The House is not being invited to come to a decision on the House Committee report; it is purely for information. However, I hope that noble Lords will find its contents useful during the course of today’s debates.
I should make it clear at the outset that, although the Procedure Committee and Liaison Committee reports are linked by the common issue of costs, we will debate them separately, as they cover very different areas of the work of the House. After I have introduced the Procedure Committee report, I expect the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to move her amendment. I would then expect that the majority of the debate on the Procedure Committee report would take place on that amendment. After the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness has been disposed of, the House can then take each of the other amendments in turn—without, I hope, further debate. Only once a final decision on the Procedure Committee report has been taken will we turn to the Liaison Committee report.
I now turn to the Procedure Committee report itself, to which four amendments were tabled. The report covers two issues: Grand Committees and Questions for Written Answer. I shall first address Grand Committees, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The committee’s recommendations on Grand Committees derive from recommendations made by the Leader’s Group on Working Practices, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. The Leader’s Group recommended, first, that,
“the sitting hours of the Grand Committee should in future be more predictable and longer”,
and, secondly,
“that a rule be established, and included in the Companion, that all Government Bills introduced in the Commons should be considered in Grand Committee, apart from major constitutional Bills and emergency legislation and other exceptionally controversial Bills”.
Finally, the group recommended that some new types of business, including Oral Statements, could be taken in Grand Committee.
The Procedure Committee considered these recommendations along with proposals by the Leader of the House, which varied from them in certain important respects. First, on longer sitting hours, the Leader’s Group recommended, in broad terms, that Grand Committees sit every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, from 10.30 am until 12.30 pm, and from 2.30 pm until 6.30 pm. The Leader of the House, as our report states in paragraph 3, proposed instead that Grand Committees on Monday to Wednesday should continue to start at their present times, but that Grand Committees on primary legislation on these days should sit until 10 pm, with a one-hour break for dinner. Sitting times on Thursdays would also be varied, with Grand Committees on primary legislation sitting from noon until 7 pm, with a one-hour break.
It is not for me to comment on the merits of longer Grand Committee hours. Longer hours will involve additional costs, and the House Committee has examined them and set out its commitment to deliver savings to offset any additional expenditure, so that the overall effect is cost-neutral. It is for the House as a whole, in light of the House Committee’s report, to decide whether the benefits of increased Grand Committee scrutiny of primary legislation justify any additional expenditure. Nor is it for me to comment on the relative merits of morning as against evening sittings. The Leader took the view that morning sittings would be unlikely to find favour with the House as a whole, and the committee, on balance, agreed. The committee also agreed with the Leader’s proposal that, on days when more than one Oral Statement is to be made or repeated, the option should be available to take one of the Statements in Grand Committee, during the dinner break.
I now turn to the committee’s recommendation on the committal of Bills to the Grand Committee. As I have already said, the Leader’s Group recommended that there be a rule, enshrined in the Companion, that government Bills sent from the Commons be committed to Grand Committee, subject to certain exceptions. The Leader argued that the proposed exceptions, constitutional or emergency Bills, or other “exceptionally controversial Bills”, were both too rigid and impossible to define. He proposed instead that there should be general presumption that government Bills introduced in the Commons should be committed to Grand Committee, except where the usual channels agree otherwise. My understanding is that this approach would allow the usual channels to consider a range of factors, such as the level of interest across the House in a particular Bill, in deciding whether it would be in the interests of Members that that Bill should be considered in Grand Committee or in a Committee of the Whole House. However, as now, the final decision would rest with the House as a formal committal Motion would need to be agreed in the usual way.
Finally, I wish to draw noble Lords’ attention to the final bullet point in paragraph 10, which states that the new arrangements, if agreed by the House, would be adopted on a trial basis, for the 2012-13 Session only. It would require a further decision of the House, following a review by the Procedure Committee, to extend them beyond spring 2013.
As the report makes clear, the committee was not unanimous in agreeing its recommendations on Grand Committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, both made clear their preference for the approach recommended by the Leader’s Group, and this is reflected in the noble Baroness’s amendment. This amendment will be called next, and I shall leave it to the noble Baroness and others to debate the merits of the two alternative approaches on offer. My position on this amendment is entirely neutral.
The second amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is more far-reaching in that it would return the entire issue of Grand Committees to the Procedure Committee. No doubt the noble Lord, when he speaks, will clarify what he hopes to achieve by means of his amendment and what he thinks the Procedure Committee should consider further. Again, my position on the amendment is entirely neutral.
I now turn to the second part of the report, which concerns Questions for Written Answer. The committee proposes a new weekly limit of 12 on the number of Written Questions that Members are entitled to table. The committee unanimously supported this recommendation. The background is covered briefly in the report. The number of Questions for Written Answer has risen inexorably in the past 10 years, from an average of 29 on each sitting day in 2003-04 to 60 per day in the current Session.
None of us doubts that the tabling of Questions for Written Answer is a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny of government. However, these Questions come at a cost. The report quotes the average cost to the Government of £159 per Written Question. We did not put a figure on the cost to this House—for instance, in staff time and printing—but a recent report by the House of Commons Procedure Committee suggested that the cost to the House of Commons was around £80 per Written Question, giving a total cost to the public purse of just under £240 per Written Question. Putting these figures into the context of the House of Lords, Written Questions cost the public around £14,300 in respect of each sitting day, rather than the £9,500 quoted in the report.
The committee also bore in mind the huge discrepancy between Members of the House in the rate at which they table Written Questions. The Clerk of the Parliaments provided analysis of all Written Questions tabled from October to December 2011, which showed that just 10 Members of your Lordships’ House tabled 45 per cent of all Questions for Written Answer. Just three noble Lords tabled 27 per cent of all Questions in that period.
Taking these factors into account, the committee agreed unanimously that a weekly limit of 12 Questions per Member was proportionate and reasonable, and would enable noble Lords to continue their essential work of scrutinising the Government, while reducing the scope for what some might regard as abuse of the Order Paper. I therefore oppose the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, intends to move. The committee has considered the matter in considerable detail on the basis of a very thorough analysis of the evidence supplied. We have made a recommendation. The House may agree to it or not, but I see no point in referring the matter back at this stage.
Finally, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would create a new rule that, in weeks when the House was not sitting, Members would be entitled to table up to six Questions for Written Answer. Of course I understand what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. However, I hope that the House will agree that this would be a significant change, which would have cost implications both for the House and for government departments. It could also have a major impact on the staff of the House, particularly the Table Office. I certainly do not reject the noble Lord’s amendment out of hand, but I suggest that we need to give more detailed consideration to the practicalities of his proposal. If he is willing not to move his amendment when his turn comes, I will undertake to put the proposal before the Procedure Committee when it next meets, which is likely to be early in the new Session.
I trust that I have said enough on the report and the amendments. As I have already indicated, my position on the issue of Grand Committees is neutral, given that, as the report states, the committee was not unanimous in reaching its recommendations. On Questions for Written Answer, the committee was unanimous, and I commend the recommendation set out in paragraph 15 of the report to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
As an amendment to the above Motion, at the end to insert “, but with the fourth bullet point in paragraph 10 left out and replaced with the following words:
“That all government Bills introduced in the House of Commons should be considered in Grand Committee, apart from major constitutional Bills and emergency legislation and other exceptionally controversial Bills”.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees for moving the Motion on the reports. All the proposals contained in the reports have their roots in the recommendations of the report of the Leader’s Group on Working Practices chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. We on these Benches support moves to improve and modernise the working practices of your Lordships’ House. While not everyone would necessarily agree with every recommendation from the Leader’s Group, we recognise that the group made a constructive and coherent attempt to bring forward improvements, building on the work originally put in place by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Similarly constructive attempts were made in the past on these Benches, in groups chaired by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Grocott. However, their recommendations related to a different, more iterative process in relation to Grand Committees.
All these constructive attempts shared another characteristic: they were all packages intended to bring forward balanced proposals for reform that would be of benefit to the House as a whole, not necessarily to the Executive or the Opposition. We on these Benches argue that this should have been—and still should be—the approach taken to the Goodlad proposals. However, the impression given is that of a piecemeal, cherry-picking approach that brings forward proposals that seek to advantage the Executive at the expense of our self-regulating House. That is what is in front of your Lordships today.
I know that there is some anxiety on all sides of the House about the order in which the recommendations were considered by the respective committees, and about the proposals brought before the House. There is some suspicion, for example, about the timing of the proposals to put more Bills into Grand Committee, especially at a time when our forthcoming Recess has been extended because of lack of business. On all Benches there is a constant demand—not new under this Government, I have to confess—for less, rather than more, legislation; and press briefings inform us that the next Session is likely to be relatively light apart from the vexed issue of Lords reform. Proposals stemming from the Goodlad group should be brought forward in a way that is strategic, systematic, coherent and consistent.
In moving my amendment, I shall deal with two issues before us today: Grand Committees and Questions for Written Answer. We on these Benches agree with the principle of considering more Bills in Grand Committee. Scrutiny in Grand Committee, especially of technical Bills, is enhanced in many ways. Certainly at present the Grand Committee has more capacity for the scrutiny of Bills and should be properly utilised. The proposals originally brought forward by the Leader of the House appear to take more power for the Executive but, although they are framed in terms of increasing the timing of sittings of Grand Committee, from discussions with the usual channels I heard and understood that the principal objective of the Leader of the House was not greater time but greater flexibility in the use of Grand Committee, and of course I welcome that. Indeed, I understand that the Leader has written to Cross-Bench Peers along those lines. Even so, I am aware that many on the Benches behind me have strong reservations about the proposals. We sought to work through the usual channels constructively to try to find clarifications of the proposals for the benefit of the whole House. I had hoped that such clarifications could be agreed, but I am sorry to report that agreement proved not to be possible.
We tried very constructively but agreement was eventually not forthcoming. Accordingly, I tabled the amendment standing in my name that seeks to reinsert the formula originally proposed by the Leader’s Group—a proposal that had support from all parties, and from Members of no party, across your Lordships’ House. My amendment to the report from the Procedure Committee will not have been a surprise to members of that committee, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said. On each and every occasion when the proposals were discussed, I put forward strong arguments in favour of retaining the criteria contained in the Goodlad proposals—namely, that emergency Bills, constitutional Bills and other exceptionally controversial Bills should not be dealt with in Grand Committee. This is in complete accord with the recommendations of the 1994 Rippon report, upon which I understand the recommendations were drafted.
The noble Lord the Leader may well say later that the wording of the proposal before us—
“That there should be a presumption that Government bills introduced in the House of Commons should be committed to a Grand Committee, except where the Usual Channels agree otherwise”—
is less prescriptive and allows greater flexibility. I disagree. Rather, such a presumption seeks to increase the power and influence of the Executive, altering the balance between the Executive and your Lordships’ House in favour of the Executive, Ministers and the Government. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment in order to ensure that the proper balance between the Executive and a self-regulating House of Lords is retained. That is the effect of my amendment and the balance that I believe this House needs and wants to strike.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the report should be referred back to the committee, a range of issues should be considered, including the timings of Grand Committees and the implication for resources. We have some sympathy with the desire of the Leader of the House for there to be more flexibility in the hours of work of the Grand Committee. That is why we tried as hard as we did to agree clarification, which would have aided the whole House.
I am glad that the proposals before us no longer reflect the Goodlad recommendation that Grand Committees should meet in the morning, because I agree with the noble Lord the Leader that such timings would inconvenience the whole House. Rather than the Grand Committee being able to sit until 10 pm, my strong preference, as I argued in meetings of the Procedure Committee and the House Committee, would be to end it by 8.30 pm with no supper break. Apart from being more convenient for Members of the House, it would enable the Administration to plan its resources and thus keep down costs. Of course, if more Bills were to be considered in Grand Committee where votes are not taken, more time than usual would be needed for Report, to enable votes on a greater number of issues. We found that in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I agree with much of what she said, but not all of it. I would not dissent from her on the issue of hours. I have no quarrel with my noble friend the Leader of the House on that, but the noble Baroness’s suggestion of an 8.30 pm finish has much to commend it without in any way reducing the hours that my noble friend would have. That is not the real issue that I want to address.
I am very proud to be a Member of this House. When I came from another place I looked upon this House as one where legislation was properly scrutinised, time was taken and “we do things differently here”. In the context of legislation we do things better here. This is something that we do not wish to lose. We are a self-regulating House. I never want us to be in danger of becoming a government-regulated House. That is why I put down this amendment. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in stating that, as a rule, all Bills should go to Grand Committee except for her three exceptions.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness for two reasons. One is that it is always difficult to define an exception. What is a highly controversial Bill to some Members of the House may be a matter of simple common sense to others. What is a constitutional Bill to some Members of the House may not be to others. I instance the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. That was, as far as I am concerned, a major constitutional Bill. There were those who argued during our deliberations that it was not. Who is to determine? At the moment it is entirely up to your Lordships’ House to decide whether a Bill goes to Grand Committee or not.
As this Session grinds to a halt we have had a good example in the Welfare Reform Bill. It was suggested that it would be better dealt with in Grand Committee and it went there. It had the consequence, to which the noble Baroness has referred, that Report took much longer because there was no opportunity for voting in Grand Committee. When we are contemplating a move of this nature, we have to bear it in mind that votes do not take place in Grand Committee. My noble friend interjects, “Yet”, and that is one of the points behind my amendment, and one of the reasons why I would like to see this matter looked at again by the Procedure Committee.
In another place a few years ago, the Executive decided that they wanted to take a greater grip of Parliament and to have every Bill programmed. Of course, having sat for almost equal lengths of time on the government and opposition sides of the House, I know that perspective changes according to where you sit. It was wonderful to behold some of the Rottweiler Ministers of 1979 to 1997 suddenly becoming gamekeepers turned poacher when they were in opposition. I make no complaint about that, but I look with fond nostalgia on the memory of the great, late Eric Forth, than whom there was no more draconian Minister and than whom there was no more belligerent opposition Member.
We look at things from different points of view, but Parliament should never be the creature of the Executive. It is difficult enough for Parliament to hold the Executive to account when the Executive are drawn from Parliament. I am not suggesting that we should alter our system. I do not want us to go to an American-style separation of powers, but I recognise that if we are going to get the balance right, the Executive must not trammel, crib, cabin and confine the legislature.
This is exactly what happened in another place shortly after the coming to power of the Blair Administration, when we moved inexorably—partly because Eric Forth and his friends were using the weapon of time somewhat indiscriminately—to the situation where every Bill became timetabled. How often in my brief period here have I heard Members lament the fact that in spite of a change of Government, the timetabling procedures remain? More and more responsibility falls upon your Lordships’ House because of that.
It would be very unfortunate if we allowed ourselves to lose the flexibility that true self-regulation provides. During those 18 years in opposition in the other place, I often came out of the Division Lobby feeling depressed—we could not win, the Government’s majority was so enormous—but my colleagues and I would suddenly see a glimmer of hope and the cry would go up, “Our hope is in the Lords”. Indeed it was, and not infrequently it was realised. The Labour Governments of Mr Blair and Mr Brown suffered a number of significant defeats in this place and sometimes as a consequence they thought again.
As we have seen recently in the long saga of the Health and Social Care Bill, legislation that is—I want to be kind—not exactly perfect can be significantly improved by expertise, time and the fact that Members here have no constituency responsibilities, and no need to answer to an electorate every five years. Things can be improved in here, and we are going to have plenty of opportunity, I suspect, in the forthcoming Session of Parliament to debate that very point. Anything that detracts from self-regulation is to the detriment of this House in particular and Parliament in general.
I say to my noble friend the Leader of the House that he should please beware of that word “presumption”. Just think how much trouble has been caused in recent months by the insertion of that word “presumption” in the context of planning. I do not like documents which presume and I do not like measures which presume. I have nothing against Bills going to Grand Committee but they must go on their individual merits because the House approves of the suggestion that that is where they should go. I urge my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he speaks, to recognise that fact.
That is why I am suggesting that the committee should have the chance to look again and to answer whether we are inadvertently handing over an important aspect of self-regulation. Consider, in the light of the debates that will take place on a possible Lords reform Bill, whether we need this sort of change. We certainly do not need it now because we know from all the leaks that we are going to have a legislation-light Queen’s Speech. If that is the case, why do we need to have this presumption now?
There is another issue—the elephant in the room that is the Bill that dare not speak its name. We all know that it is likely that the Deputy Prime Minister will have his way with us and will produce in the Queen’s Speech some measure of reform affecting your Lordships’ House. I blame not the Leader of the House nor anyone else but in the somewhat febrile atmosphere that has existed in this place for some months there is a teeny suspicion that one of the reasons we are doing this today is to clear the decks for House of Lords reform. That may not be the case. I know not.
In conclusion, I say to my noble friend, than whom there is no more consummate politician in the whole of Parliament, please do not bother with this because you can have your way on individual Bills. They can go to Grand Committee with the House’s approval and blessing and there they can be scrutinised. But do not have this presumption.
Another thing we should bear in mind is not to follow the other place down another steep, slippery slope where so many things are being considered simultaneously in Westminster Hall, in the Chamber and in Committee that it is difficult for an honourable Member adequately to discharge his or her duties. I rest my case.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord has just said. If there is to be a presumption then the presumption should be that legislation should be taken here. There is only one alternative that is worse than the committee’s suggestion and that is the recommendation of the noble Baroness, which institutes a rule.
Many will agree that one of the prevailing sins of the British Parliament is that we legislate a great deal too much. A great deal of excessive complication has begotten in our society a high level of bureaucracy in all parts of society—in the private sector as well as the public. This is a serious and malignant failing of our present political culture. What would be the effect if, having cleared much of the business from this Chamber into Grand Committee, there were weeks when there was nothing to be done here? Would that not be an encouragement for the other place to send even more torrents of ill considered law to this place? I am sorry if it is offensive to some who served in the other place but the whipping system that has developed there is now so ruthless, and the guillotine system operated with such consistency and a strong hand, that they deprive the other place of giving the thought to crucial legislation that it not only should but would be well equipped to do if the Members were let off the leash.
The proposal would surely create a vacuum for yet more legislation. The average output of Parliament has been 13,000 pages of legislation a year over the past few years. This year it might exceed even that. It is more than is produced by any comparable democracy in the western world by a long way. Therefore, on that ground if no other, I urge us to reject the committee’s proposal for this presumption and to reject absolutely the recommendation of the noble Baroness, which is in line with the Leader’s Group, that we have a rule that only three types of legislation can be retained in this place without agreement.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I have spent nearly 43 years in Parliament, 17 of them in the other place. When I am urged by Ministers to give more time for amendments to be debated, I confess to being just a little cynical and a little doubtful that that is what is really intended. In those 43 years, I have learnt that the principal weapon that Members of both Houses have in controlling an Executive who are all too eager to bring forward legislation is time. Time and again, we find that the amendments that get accepted come at the end of a Session, when the Government of the day run out of time and are forced to accept them. Therefore, when I see a proposal being supported by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the grounds that Members of this House need more time and greater ability to put forward more amendments and debate them endlessly, I confess that I hesitate to accept that that can be the entire motivation.
I will make three brief points about the timing of this proposition and its introduction. First, as has already been referred to, it is a little ironic suddenly to be told that we can have a week off after we have spent 25 days in this House debating one of the most controversial Bills that any of us can remember. However, I will not dwell on that for too long.
Secondly, there has been a change of timetable, bringing the debate on this Motion forward from tomorrow to today. Reference has already been made to this, and I understand that the proposal came not from my noble friend the Leader but through the usual channels. I was in the House until quite late on Thursday afternoon. By the time that statement was made, and certainly by the time it was understood, a large number of Members had left. It was only on Thursday afternoon that discussions among the handful who were still around made us realise that we would be debating this important Motion. I know that there was a download at the bottom of the message that the Whips sent out. However, I suspect that on a sunny weekend not every Member downloads those messages, or takes in what the whole argument is about. The timing was unfortunate from that point of view.
Thirdly and crucially, we all know that this proposal is coming forward for a trial period to coincide with the introduction of the most controversial and important constitutional measure of our time. I would call it the “Abolition of the House of Lords Bill”. However, whatever you call it, I cannot think of a worse time to introduce a trial of this kind without stirring up the suspicion that those who control the business of the House have that in mind. I am not making that accusation, although I do think that it was a little unwise, or a little unusual, of my noble friend the Leader of the House—for whom I have the greatest possible respect—to send a letter to Members of this House, signed jointly with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, urging them to go along with this proposal.
I asked my noble friend at a meeting that I had with him just after two o’clock this afternoon, which I shall come to, whether an identical—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow. However, it is very interesting that all Members of this House, apart from my own Benches, received a copy of this explanatory letter from the Leader of the House.
Lord Crickhowell
I am interested in that point, because I expressly asked the Leader of the House in his room, at about 2.05 pm, whether all Members had received the same letter. He told me that actually a rather different letter had been sent to, I think, the Cross Benches. I am merely quoting my noble friend, no more.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
I offered the noble Baroness a letter. I rewrote it several times last week. Sadly, she refused to accept it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation. Forgive me, but we had agreed that we would have an exchange of letters which we would find mutually acceptable, which could then be put in the Library of the House. That is quite a different letter from the one that other noble Lords received.
Lord Crickhowell
That is rather an interesting exchange. It has magnified what I had intended to say. However, it was also a little unusual. This is a House matter, and normally we leave the introduction of such measures for individual Members of this House. It is a little unusual—I am not saying it is unique—to have a letter of that kind. It is also slightly unusual to receive an urgent message to get in touch with the Leader’s Office. I was on the train up from Wales, and I was asked to go and meet him. As usual we had the most civilised and delicate discussion about these matters, in which we agreed to differ. I explained that I would be opposing this Motion because I think that the timing is catastrophically unfortunate. I do not think that it should be introduced as an experiment when we are going to have this major Bill before us, with the suspicion that will inevitably arise—and has arisen—that the decks are being cleared.
I also support almost everything else that my noble friend Lord Cormack said. He referred to the possibility of the kind of disciplines being introduced into this House that have been introduced in the Commons. Indeed, the letter from my noble friend the Leader says that this measure is being introduced in order to avoid,
“having to introduce Commons-style restrictions on members’ ability to table amendments”.
Is it a threat? I hope not.
I am totally opposed to doing this at this time. I am glad that the proposals that we should sit in the morning, which I spoke against long ago, have been withdrawn. I do not think that this set of proposals is any more acceptable. The wisest thing now would be for my noble friend the Leader, and those responsible, to listen to what has been said and to take the proposals away and reconsider them. If he will not agree to do that and my noble friend Lord Cormack presses his amendment to the Motion, I will vote for it, and I hope that it will be widely supported in the House.
Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, I rise to inform the House that I have not received a letter, either from the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, or from my own Convenor. I wish to speak to the report of the Procedure Committee, and I do so with considerable concern as to the changes it proposes to our proceedings.
The proposition is that most Bills coming from the Commons should be referred to a Grand Committee, rather than be taken on the Floor of this Chamber. We have heard that the exceptions to this proposition will allow Bills on major constitutional issues or those dealing with emergency legislation to be taken on the Floor of the House. I would not expect any Government to have the audacity to deny this Chamber the ability to debate and decide on such legislation. However, the report also tells us that there should be a “presumption”—that is the committee’s chosen word; it is not my word—that all other legislation, including controversial, but not “exceptionally” controversial, Bills be also committed to a Grand Committee. As far as I am concerned, most Bills are controversial in varying degrees, and it depends on our personal knowledge of, and hopes and fears for, the legislation proposed therein. I ask the Chairman of Committees or the Leader of the House—whoever is to reply to this debate—what type of Bill will be regarded as controversial, and what will be regarded as exceptionally controversial?
The Health and Social Care Bill was hard-fought legislation—most of my colleagues would agree with that—but under the terms before us today would that Bill have been regarded as controversial and committed directly to Grand Committee, where an interested and involved public would have had great difficulty in witnessing the debates? Or would that Bill have been regarded as exceptionally controversial, and dealt with in this Chamber? Who defines and clarifies that legislation is exceptionally controversial, as opposed to that which is controversial but not exceptionally so? I need to know. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us when he winds up. I imagine that I shall be told that the matter may be for the usual channels to define and clarify, or that it may be a matter for the Leader of the House, but I believe that there is some value in posing this question and getting an answer that will be recorded in Hansard so that it can be referred to.
There are times when this Chamber is so crowded that Members have no place to sit and we are standing around it, or shoulder to shoulder behind the Bar of the House. This applies particularly when amendments are being moved and when we wish to hear Ministers wind up on them. To start with, the current situation here is most unsatisfactory. I should therefore like to know what arrangements have been made in the Moses Room for accommodating Members who wish to contribute or listen to debate. That is not an area that lends itself to even a small proportion of the membership of this House, and certainly not to the numbers that would wish to attend during a controversial debate. I would like to hear how we will be accommodated there and, equally importantly—this is very important to me—how members of the public who wish to witness our proceedings will be accommodated.
Last Thursday in this House, the government Chief Whip told us,
“that it is the Government’s intention only to make proposals with regard to Grand Committee that will enable the House to have more opportunity to scrutinise legislation without having the late finishes or early starts”.—[Official Report, 22/3/12; col. 1027.]
That is a fine ambition indeed. However, there are those of us who see the presumption to put government Bills into Grand Committee as an act of stealth to clear the way for a constitutional Bill bringing about the demise of this House. There are those on the red-carpeted corridors out there who think that that is so; but I could not possibly comment. No doubt the Leader of the House will do so, and I look forward to what he has to say on that point.
I very much appreciate the work that goes on in the committees of this House, particularly the Procedure Committee. I note in its report that some of its Members dissented from the recommendations. I certainly cannot support the report and will therefore, when the time comes, support reference back.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, I would like to give some small advice, if I may, to my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is: beware of what you wish for. It is by the natural order of things that one day, unless the abolition of the House of Lords Bill goes through in the form in which we understand it will be put to this House, he may be the Leader of the Opposition. He would then very much regret some of the proposals which are now being foisted upon us.
I agree with all that my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Crickhowell and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, have said. A lot of this mischief has arisen not just because of the passion for legislation of all Governments these days. Many years ago, as a Back-Bencher, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill—which, surprisingly, did not get anywhere—called the Limitation of Legislation Bill, which proposed that, from the date of enactment, there should be no increase in the total number of words on the statute book. That is, before you put new words on you would have to find a few to take off as well. I think that we would have been better governed had that Bill been enacted.
However, that has all been worsened by another of the dreadful fads at the other end of this corridor, called “family-friendly hours”. Because we no longer have Committees going on down there into the small hours of the morning, we get more legislation timetabled in some fashion or another, which means that far more of it comes here having been inadequately discussed or not discussed at all. So their family-friendly hours become our distinctly unfriendly hours. They then lead to a very unfriendly proposal of the kind we are facing today.
The points have been well made. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up your Lordships’ time by repeating them. However, since the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—although it has not yet been moved—I wonder if I might do so too? There may not have been abuse—as some would call it—of the Written Question, but it has at times been pushed a bit far in its volume if not its quality. However, I must say to my noble friend the Leader of the House that I recently tabled a Written Question asking whether, when he had said that it was the Government’s policy that the number of seats in this House should be allocated to parties predominantly—in fact, he did not even say predominantly—by reference to the number of votes cast in the most recent general election, he meant that the Government were going to bring forward proposals for the introduction into this House of an appropriate number of Members of the British National Party, UKIP, the Greens and other minority parties. I received a reply from him which told me that the nomination of Members for this House was blah, blah, blah. It did not answer the Question. So I put down exactly the same Question again. There were two Questions from me. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put down a similar Question and she, like me, got exactly the same non-answer again. I scored an unnecessary Question because I did not get an answer. I regret to say that that is happening increasingly frequently these days, so one devises the same Question again or the same Question is even accepted again literally word for word by the Table Office.
I cannot guarantee to my noble friend that I might not go along to the Table Office and put the Question down for the third time to make my point. If we want to get fewer Written Questions, we might try much harder to get replies which relate to the Question, not to what the Minister might wish that the Question had been.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I have never felt so lonely for such a long time. I voted for this report in committee and I will vote for it again today. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has also indicated how incompetent I am that I cannot get a letter to all Members of the Cross-Bench group. We all—well, a large proportion of the House—supported the Leader’s Group, but when it comes to implementing its recommendations the debate demonstrates how difficult it is to get agreement across your Lordships' House. It may be that I am too innocent to be allowed out, but I have tried to address the issue before the House and not be dragged into other, wider issues. Perhaps that is a failure on my part.
Having considered the report of the Leader’s Group on these matters in recommendations 9, 20 and 22, it seemed to me that the committee had addressed the issues with great care and concern. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on one point: this House needs to preserve as much flexibility as possible for a self-regulating House. I regret to say that I cannot support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, because it states that all Bills should go to Grand Committee except in exceptional situations or when they are very controversial. If we think about this Session, there is not one Bill that could have been described as anything other than controversial. The amendment of the noble Baroness is altogether too restrictive for a self-regulatory House.
It is very important that this House takes forward the need to change in a way that enables us to manage the business as effectively as possible. I have formed a high regard for the usual channels and the way in which they try to deal with the business of this House. I believe that the usual channels can be relied on to reach sensible decisions which will command the confidence of the House. The recommendations are for a trial period. We have the opportunity to rehearse them in due course and we can learn from experience.
On Written Answers, the point was made about the expense that has been accrued by some noble Lords. Of course we want noble Lords to fulfil their responsibilities within the House, but that has to be balanced against the proper use of public finance, particularly at this time. I commend the recommendations relating to both Committees and Written Answers.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, if we start sending more things to Committees off the Floor of the House, we will soon discover that variant of Parkinson’s Law: talk expands to fill the time provided.
I would far prefer us to go back to what we used to do not that many years ago, which was to vote in Committee on the principle of amendments—even if they were defective, we looked at the principle. At Report, we tidied them up, which took much less time. That is why debates on Report are much more focused and we are not allowed to do the to and froing. Third Reading was purely confined to sorting out the typos, the essential little mistakes, not dealing with anything of principle. If we started to go back to that system, with voting in Committee, we would have far more abbreviated proceedings later on. All we are doing is talking it through in Committee and again at Report.
We have to use that as a brake on the deluge of legislation that is coming on us these days. If we give more time for talking, we will just get more to talk about.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall talk just briefly about my amendment on Written Answers during times when the House is not sitting. We have talked about Written Answers long and hard already today. Unfortunately, holding the Government to account does not stop when the House is not sitting. I am not an abuser of the system, and I am sorry that some people are, but I think that it would be a very good idea to be able to table more Questions during the recesses, and to be able to get Answers back rather more frequently than we do at the moment, which I think is once every five weeks in the Summer Recess. I am therefore very grateful to the Chairman of Committees for offering to take it back to the committee, and I hope that we can take it forward on that basis.
Lord Elton
My Lords, while we are all on this matter, which we very rarely are, may I take the opportunity to point out another reason why we are actually where we are? It is not simply the volume of legislation, or the number of pages going on the statute book. In fact, it is the number of Peers speaking, the length of time that they speak and the number of times that they repeat themselves on the same issue. There are notable offenders, and it is for members of their parties or groups to bring them to task. However, if we were all aware of the fact that once a point has been well made and accepted, there is no need to make it again, and that when 12 people want to make it, it is really only necessary to hear from two of them at the most, we would then save a very great deal of time.
Being a hereditary Peer, perhaps I might just cast noble Lords’ minds back to the time when there were over 1,100 Members of this House—far more than there are now. Far fewer of them attended than attend now, and the only people who came to speak were people who knew a great deal about their subjects and knew that they would be listened to. The result was that the speakers’ lists were about a third of the length that they are now, and that the speeches were about three times as good. If we could exercise a little self-restraint and not talk too often about things that have caught our fancy the previous week—or if, when we did so, we could keep it short and not do it too often—we would get a lot done much quicker than we do now.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I appreciate the good advice from my noble friend Lord Elton, but there are two issues to which I wish to refer. The first is the difficulty I have with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. There are some controversial, even exceptionally controversial, pieces of legislation which are very well dealt with in Grand Committee. The Welfare Reform Bill was a very clearly controversial—indeed, I think the noble Baroness will agree exceptionally controversial—piece of legislation, but it benefited from being dealt with in Grand Committee. There are therefore assumptions that are too wide-ranging.
Secondly, when it comes to the timing of Grand Committee, there is a case that Grand Committee might be able to go on until 10 o’clock on occasion, but it would be a mistake to make that a regular procedure because it would mean that we would be running two Chambers at the same time, and there are some difficulties with that. Therefore, I make a plea that we ensure that in what is remitted to Grand Committee, and on the timings of Grand Committee, there is a deal of flexibility perhaps on that basis of presumption, and certainly not on the basis of more rules.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to today’s debate, but three things make me want to contribute briefly. One was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for whom I have the utmost affection and respect, and with whom I share a commitment to change, reform and improvement in the way in which we deal with legislation in this House. We deal with legislation very well, but we can deal with it better, and the report of the Leader’s Group gave us some very clear ways in which we can take that forward. However, the pick-and-mix approach of taking one highly controversial issue which can have all sorts of unintended consequences, at a time when you do not have to be paranoid to think that someone is after you in terms of the next Session of Parliament, puts back the cause of those of us who are reformers. Certainly, the five years I had the honour to occupy the Woolsack taught me that to move things forward in this House you have to do a great deal of groundwork and create a great deal of consensus—and that has not happened on this occasion.
The second contribution was from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Although I believe that we have to take some action on Written Questions, like the noble Lord, I cannot understand how two Members of this House, from different perspectives, put down a Question about a government policy that was delineated in the coalition agreement as government policy and are told that we cannot have an answer to it because appointments to the House of Lords have, in the past, been a matter for the Prime Minister. I think that those were the words used. I do not understand how one cannot get a comment on government policy in that area.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I have an interest in the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It is not true that the Prime Minister responded to my Questions and those of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, with something irrelevant. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, “Blah, blah, blah”. The answer to me was that, whatever the Government committed themselves to in this matter, it would be the Prime Minister who decided—full stop. That is where we stood with Written Answers last week.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I would never presume to call myself a politician. I suppose that, if anything, I am an observer of politics who occasionally commentates on it. In the 16 years that I was the lobby correspondent for the Economist, from 1975 to 1991, the House of Commons did not have a guillotine as routine, and again and again I saw its effect as an exceptional measure. It was something that the Government of the day considered very carefully. I saw the good effect that it had on the process of negotiation and the scrutiny of legislation, and the extent to which it resulted in better outcomes of that legislation. However, I was shocked when Mr Tony Blair’s Government introduced the guillotine as a regular feature and I was disappointed when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister perpetuated it. I found myself asking: if we were to have an elected Senate here, how long would it be before the guillotine was introduced here and then who would scrutinise the Executive?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, as a member of the Leader’s Group, I have noticed that not a great deal of this debate has been devoted to the consideration given by that group to the matters under discussion today. That of course is partly because times have moved on and there are matters hanging over the future of this House that may have altered some people’s perceptions. However, it ought to be recognised that the Leader’s Group gave quite close consideration to these issues. It took a great deal of evidence and concluded that Grand Committee procedure leads to better scrutiny of primary legislation. One reason given was that there was,
“greater informality of the Grand Committee and the better communications between ministers and officials, leading to better quality responses”.
Having said that, the Leader’s Group also took the view that certain matters arouse such considerable interest beyond those who might normally be anticipated to have an interest in the subject matter of the debate that they would be inappropriately held in Grand Committee. We have actually seen the limitations of the space available in an earlier debate at the end of the last calendar year when we were discussing the European Union eurozone crisis. The Room was full to bursting and there was not enough time or space for everyone who wanted to participate.
Consequently, I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has some merit in it because it recognises—and explicitly recognises by quotation—the words and the reasoning of the Leader’s Group. I also acknowledge, however, that deciding what constitutes an exceptionally controversial Bill—as was pointed out to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd—is difficult to determine. I do not feel confident that presumptions can be made on that point; and I do not believe that the usual channels will necessarily agree on it. It seems that these should be matters for the decision of the House when the Bill is first debated.
Lord Elton
If one looks at the Companion, one finds that there is no proposal to change: there may be an addition to the Companion about the presumption, but there is still the need to get the approval of the House. It seems to me, therefore, that we are actually arguing about a very small difference.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
That may be so. The recommendations of the Leader’s Group referred to the Companion in this context, indicating that it was preferable to have a rule rather than a presumption. I beg to submit that the House would do well to consider that original recommendation.
The formidable speech made by my noble friend Lord Cormack will have arrested many people’s prior commitments and considerations. However, if his amendment is not carried, there is a considerable case for recognising that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is a better reflection of the Leader’s Group than the proposal that we should act on a presumption and agreement through the usual channels. I hope very much that that will be taken into account in reaching a decision.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this might be a useful opportunity to say a few words, but I begin by joining the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in paying tribute to Lord Newton of Braintree. Anybody who had seen him—as we all had—over the past six months could not but admire his tremendous courage and extraordinary pluckiness in being here in all his physicality and playing a real part in Bills. I worked with him very closely when he was Leader of the House of Commons and I was Government Chief Whip here. He was a joy to work with—a pleasant man in all respects. We as a House and as a party will miss him; he was a great Conservative and a great parliamentarian.
Turning back to this debate, during the course of this afternoon my eye has been drawn to the screens. I could not help but see that in the Moses Room, there is a debate on the Lord’s Resistance Army and I wonder if some noble Lords have not wandered into the wrong debate.
We are currently considering a report from the Procedure Committee and it is no coincidence that we are considering alongside it a report from the Liaison Committee. Both reports have the same origin; namely, the work of the Leader’s Group on Working Practices. Both address the same welcome phenomenon, which is that more Members are participating more actively in our proceedings. In short, the proposals are intended to accommodate increased demand from Members who wish to take an active part in our proceedings, and to reduce the number of late sittings that have been taking place after 10 o’clock at night. Average daily attendance has risen considerably by comparison with the last Parliament, as has the average number of votes cast per Division, the number of Questions for Written Answer tabled each day, and the number of short debates being tabled. From that point of view, my noble friend Lord Elton has hit the nail on the head.
These trends have had an impact on our scrutiny of legislation. This Session has seen more Bills take longer than eight days to consider in Committee than did so over the whole of the last Parliament. That is a quite a significant statistic. More Members are speaking for longer on more amendments. At the same time, we have sent fewer Bills to Grand Committee than was the norm across the last two Parliaments and, indeed, since 2001. In combination, these trends have put pressure on time in the Chamber, in particular on our rising times.
One response, although I hasten to add that it is not one that I am suggesting now, would be to go down the route that the House of Commons has chosen: fixed rising times in combination with taking the bulk of Committee stages off the Floor of the House along with the timetabling and selection of amendments. That is what my noble friend Lord Cormack has warned us against, and I agree with every word he said. I could not possibly support what he fears or what I have just mentioned, and I do so for the same reasons as my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken.
The proposals from the Procedure Committee actually take a very different approach, one that maintains and protects the freedoms of Members of this House to table amendments and have them spoken to by a Minister without selection or guillotine, a freedom which I hope we will never lose. By introducing additional flexibility in the sitting hours of the Grand Committee on Bills and creating a presumption that we should look to commit Bills arriving from the Commons to Grand Committee, save when there are good reasons not to do so, the proposals would help us make better use of our time. They would provide the necessary extra opportunities for Members to take part, and in doing so would ease the pressure on time in this Chamber, thus making it easier for the House to rise on time. If the House rejects these proposals, it would mean that we might have to become used to sitting regularly beyond our target rising time.
The Procedure Committee has also taken the view that a presumption would be useful. I support that view. The question why was framed by my noble friend Lord Cormack in his speech. He fears that we are handing something over to the Executive. That is quite a hard thing to do in a House where the Executive has no majority, but let me try and explain.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, you do not have to be a mathematician to work out that the 37 per cent of the House which makes up the coalition is not a majority.
I support the view on presumption because the experience of this Session shows that there are Bills that we could and should be sending to Grand Committee but do not, and that this detracts from the time we have available to spend on those Bills that do merit consideration on the Floor of the House and on other kinds of business. Let me give some examples. If the Academies Bill had gone to Grand Committee, perhaps we need not have sat at 11 o’clock in the morning to take the Health and Social Care Bill. If the Postal Services Bill had gone to Grand Committee, perhaps we need not have finished the proceedings on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill at two o’clock in the morning.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but as all noble Lords will recall, the Academies Bill was the first Bill to be introduced in this House, and there was simply no other business. The Health and Social Care Bill came forward towards the end of the parliamentary Session, and therefore it is inconceivable that had the Academies Bill been taken in Grand Committee, it would have made an iota of difference to the Health and Social Care Bill.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if it made no difference, presumably the noble Baroness would not have refused, as she did, to put it into Grand Committee in the first place.
We could make better use of this Chamber. Let me give another example. Last December, the Grand Committee had an urgent debate on the eurozone crisis attended by some 50 Members of the House. The Chamber was not available because the Protection of Freedoms Bill was in Committee of the whole House with about a dozen participants. Many noble Lords at the time raised the question whether we were using the time in the Chamber wisely. The presumption, which the Procedure Committee recommends—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but I have to set the record straight. The Protection of Freedoms Bill was an interesting Bill because it was the very first time that the House as a whole agreed that half of the Bill would be taken in Grand Committee and the most controversial aspects would be taken on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I think a very good agreement was brought to bear in that instance.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have no quarrel with the decision the noble Baroness made in that instance. The noble Baroness thinks I am getting at her—I will get at her in a moment, but I am not getting at her for that. I am simply pointing out that these were decisions—we took them using the usual channels and we took them together—to do things in a certain way. I am simply suggesting that in retrospect we might have done them rather differently and in a way that might have suited more Members of the House.
The presumption that the Procedure Committee recommends will also not open the floodgates to a Commons-style system, where the bulk of Committee stages are taken off the Floor of the House for two simple reasons; first, because the House will not let it. If this Report is agreed to, no Bill will go to Grand Committee without the express permission and agreement of this House. Therefore, the House will, quite rightly, retain control of which Bills go to Grand Committee, a point that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury raised.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right in his description of the effectiveness of Grand Committee for the Welfare Reform Bill, but that was not the nature of it being exceptionally controversial. The difficulty was that we had a number of substantially disabled colleagues who wished to take part who were unhappy, with good reason, about the physical layout of the Committee Room. What my noble friends proposed was that the segments of the Bill that affected disability issues should be taken on the Floor of the House while the rest went up into Grand Committee. That would have been a solution, had the usual channels on both sides accepted it, which would have satisfied the entire House and improved scrutiny and attendance.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I wrote to many of the participants and all those to whom I wrote without exception said how well they thought that it had gone. Allowances were made by the House authorities to make the Committee Room more acceptable to those Members in wheelchairs. The point about the presumption is that it would give us the flexibility to make that sort of judgment again in future.
If the report is agreed to, the House would remain the arbiter of which Bills and what proportion of the Bills were sent to Grand Committee. In my view, the House is the best judge of which Bill should be sent where, and that decision should be made case by case.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I thank him for the good humour with which he has handled the debate, in which he has found himself without a huge amount of support. However, could he perhaps skate a little less rapidly over the point that the proposal in the Procedure Committee actually enhances the power of the Government? The two parts of the sentence in question—the presumption, and the fact that if there is no agreement between the usual channels, the matter will be taken in Grand Committee—give the Government a complete lock, apart from the nuclear option of coming to the House at the end of Second Reading and asking for a vote. That is a substantial increase in the power of the Executive, because the Government can always instruct their Chief Whip to refuse to agree to the matter being taken in the House. I would be grateful if he could address a little bit more that enhancement of the power of the Executive, which I hope was not his intention—and, if it was not, either of the two amendments that have been moved would be preferable.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not think that there is any intention to give the Executive more power, or that it is a by-product of what I am suggesting. What would give the Executive more power would have been to accept the original suggestion from the Goodlad committee that there should be a rule, with certain exceptions, that all Bills emanating from the House of Commons should go to Grand Committee. We very much see it as continuing on more or less a similar basis to the one we have, by gaining agreement in the usual channels. The difference is that, if a Bill were not to go to Grand Committee, there would obviously have to be a vote on the Floor of the House. With a really controversial Bill, I cannot imagine that the House would support that view if it did not wish to do so.
Lord Elton
Am I right in thinking that under the proposals, when at the end of the Second Reading, the Lord Speaker or Deputy Speaker stands up and moves that the Bill goes to Grand Committee or the Floor of the House, any noble Lord could then speak, and a Division would be held if there was no agreement? That would take the power that the noble Lord thinks is being put into the hands of the Executive right out again.
Lord Strathclyde
Yes, my Lords, my noble friend has got it entirely right. There would still be a Motion before the House and any noble Lord could put an amendment down to it or divide on it.
I see the potential extra hour and a half as an addition of welcome flexibility to the scheduling of Grand Committee and not a requirement to sit to the maximum each day. That was the point that my noble friend Lord Alderdice made. I have already made that clear to the Leader of the Opposition in a dialogue off the Floor. It would sometimes suit the participants to complete a Committee stage in a smaller number of longer sittings than to have to find time in their diaries for a larger number of days. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Alderdice has nothing to worry about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that people would get too tired, but we are already sitting until 10 o’clock on the Floor of the House, so there is no reason why they should not be able to do so in Grand Committee—and, as I pointed out, that would not necessarily happen all the time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, again, I speak with reference to the Welfare Reform Bill, where the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who was the Whip, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, were admirable in their courtesy, openness and responsiveness to the Committee Members; it was impeccably handled.
The point is that Report is easy, because you have traversed the ground already in Committee. You have the evidence, you have had the meetings, you have had the seminars, you have had the briefings, you are making one speech perhaps to move or in support of your amendment—possibly a minor one to wind up—and that is it. It is easy. The difficult, demanding, tiring and heavily detailed work is done in Committee, particularly on a Bill such as the Welfare Reform Bill, where you are continuously interrogating the Minister in order to get the detailed information so that you can come back to it in subsequent, reiterative amendments. It is hugely demanding, and going on as late as 7.30 pm has meant that some of our older Members and more disabled Members have been severely tired. I have very great concerns about lengthening sitting hours on the grounds that Committee stage is as easy and straightforward as Report; it is not.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, all we are doing here is extending the envelope by which the Grand Committee can sit. It will not necessarily have to sit as long as that every single day. What is more, a presumption towards committing Commons Bills to Grand Committee cannot release any capacity that does not exist already. We already have the capacity to have a Grand Committee sitting on legislation four days a week, and the Companion already enables any government Bill to be committed to Grand Committee, as recommended by the first working group on this subject by Lord Rippon of Hexham as far back as 1994, and even he gave no exceptions.
Meanwhile, the proposed extension in the sitting hours of Grand Committees would affect how the time spent on each Committee stage is divided up across sittings and among Bills. It would not reduce the number of hours spent on each Committee stage and so make room for more legislation.
Last of all, I turn to what my noble friend Lord Cormack called the elephant in the room over the last three days. I have been struck by—indeed, I have been astonished at—the number of Members who have spoken to me in the corridor or have sent me a text message to say that they think that this process is all part of a sneaky government ploy to push through a Lords reform Bill without anybody noticing, and to minimise collateral damage to the rest of the programme —to do it by stealth, said the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. Well, I have been waiting a long time to find a good wheeze to get such a Bill through the House of Lords without anybody noticing. I assure noble Lords, this is not it. This is not a great ploy or a great scheme; if it were, obviously we have been horribly found out.
If the House agrees this report, next Session the House will decide, case by case, which Bills are considered in Committee here on the Floor and in the Moses Room. The House itself will decide at what pace it progresses and which amendments are made to which Bills. I have every confidence that, if a Lords reform Bill makes it into the Queen’s Speech, the House will take every decision it wishes next Session.
Lord Strathclyde
Let me just finish my point. This report will have no impact on the passage of such a Bill if it came forward. I would give way to my noble friend, but I have obviously pre-empted her question. I hope I gave her the confirmation that she required.
The proposals in this report were born out of the working practices group and the Procedure Committee. They are designed to resolve the problem of there simply not being enough time to accommodate all of those who wish to speak to their amendments to Bills. Either more goes to Grand Committee or we sit beyond 10 pm.
I hope that I have said enough to explain the proposals from my perspective. They build on the work of the working practices group. They seek to accommodate a more active membership by making better use of the Grand Committee and better use of this Chamber. I hope that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will not find favour with the House. I understand why she has put it down, but equally I do not think that it will be effective or workable. I urge my noble friend Lord Cormack not to move his amendment for the simple reason that the Procedure Committee has already given the proposals careful and prolonged consideration. The committee has made the recommendations that are before the House today, and it is time for the House to make a decision on them. I commend the report to the House.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because, fortunately, none of the points made in the debate on the report require an answer from me. As I said in the first place, the committee was not unanimous on this subject and therefore my position is completely neutral. On the question of Questions for Written Answer, there was not a voice against the proposal in the Procedure Committee’s report.
I must apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I was misinformed that he was going to move the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves: he is not going to do so. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for agreeing that we could take his matter back to the committee. I now leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to decide what to do with her amendment, and after that we shall move on to those of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I have listened carefully to this excellent short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made a cogent case and has been strongly supported by noble Lords from all sides of the House. He is right that we must not put ourselves in danger of becoming a regulated House with timetabling. I also note that the noble Lord the Leader said that he hoped we would never lose our freedom not to be timetabled, and I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to keep him to that hope.
Parliament must be able to hold the Executive to account, and time must always be allowed for proper scrutiny of legislation. To do otherwise is to shift the balance of power in favour of the Executive. I note that the noble Lord said that, before a Bill is committed to Grand Committee, there might well be a vote in this Chamber to decide whether it should be so committed or debated here on the Floor of the House. I simply point out that the noble Lord and his Benches have a political majority in this House, and I imagine that on such an occasion there would be a whipped vote. I believe therefore that this would hand power to the Executive.
Presumption is clearly dangerous, as we have all agreed in the debate. I understand the concern expressed around the Chamber about the prescription of the Goodlad committee’s proposals—and, indeed, of my own amendment—and the difficulty of defining “controversial”. Defining “constitutional” is a lot more straightforward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made an important contribution—I wish her a happy birthday—and I concur with her comments and those of the noble Lord the Leader about our joint admiration for the bravery and principles of Lord Newton of Braintree, who I believe we are all proud to call our noble friend.
I also agree with the noble Baroness that to deal in isolation with the issue of the hours that the Grand Committee should sit and the Bills that should be referred to it sets back both the process and the progress of reform. On the basis that I believe the House will vote in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I am happy to withdraw my own amendment. I hope that his amendment will be passed and that when the matter is referred back to the Procedure Committee—of which I am proud to be a member—it will listen to representations from around the House, so that when a proposal is brought forward in future it truly will be reflective of the views of the House as a whole. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cormack
As an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees, at the end to insert “, with the exception of paragraphs 10 and 11 (Grand Committees), which shall be referred back to the committee for further consideration”.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I do not wish to take up any more of the House’s time, save to say that I suspect I know which Lobby my late noble friend Lord Newton would be in. He is so much missed, as has been said. Nothing that we do this afternoon takes away any power or influence from the Leader of the House. Every Government are entitled to get their business but not in the process, in any way, directly or indirectly, to trammel the unfettered, self-regulating House of Lords, of which we are all so proud. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will feel able to send a message to the committee, asking it to reflect on this debate and look at this issue again. In the mean time, we take nothing from the Leader but are careful to keep what we have. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Liaison Committee: Third Report
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Committees
That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 279) be agreed to.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the House Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, the Liaison Committee’s terms of reference require it to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work, to review the Select Committee work of the House and to consider requests for ad hoc committees. Its terms of reference also include a requirement to consider the availability of noble Lords to serve on committees, which I think we would all agree is not an issue at present. Indeed, one of the objectives of our recent deliberations has been to find new opportunities for a wider group of Members to participate in committee work.
The report of the Leader’s Group on Working Practices has given us a further opportunity to re-examine the committee work of the House. The recommendations in our present report are intended to refresh and rebalance the range of subjects that are scrutinised and, in so doing, to engage a wider range of Members in the work of the House.
Select Committee activity is—rightly—highly regarded both within the House of Lords and outside, and contributes greatly to the reputation of the House as a second Chamber. In our first report of this Session, we concluded that there were a number of general principles that we should apply in considering proposals for committee activity. We concluded that new committees should be appointed for a limited time only and that there was a case for ad hoc committees with narrower and more topical remits conducting shorter inquiries. The report was agreed by the House in June 2010 and we sought to apply those principles in our recent review.
Regular turnover of committee members gives a wider range of Members the opportunity to serve. Short, sharp inquiries should also make it easier for Members with significant commitments outside the House to participate. Therefore, we concluded and recommended to the House that new investigative Select Committees should be appointed for a fixed term of up to one Session to conduct a specific inquiry. It would remain open to committees appointed on this basis to bid for reappointment at the end of their term.
Fixed terms would allow the Liaison Committee to play a more active role in reviewing and adapting Select Committee activity in the future. The resources to support new Select Committee activity would be released at the end of each session, allowing the committee more room to accommodate bids for new Select Committees. I remind Members that they may submit proposals for new ad hoc committees at any time, and I encourage them to do so.
The report recommends the appointment of two new ad hoc committees. One, on small and medium-sized enterprises exporting goods and services, is based on a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and others. The other, on public services, stems in part from the proposal that was initially canvassed in the report of the Leader’s Group and subsequently elaborated in a note by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others. The potential range for a committee on public services is wide, and the Liaison Committee recommends the subject of public service provision in the light of demographic change. We also consider that, once appointed, the committee should consider carefully its call for evidence in order to focus its work in a practical way.
In recent Sessions the House typically appointed one ad hoc committee. Our recommendation that the House should appoint two ad hoc committees next Session means that we are recommending an additional unit of committee activity. We have sought and obtained the approval of the House Committee for the additional expenditure necessary, which is estimated at around £225,000. We also reviewed the existing committee structure, and benefited from oral as well as written submissions from the chairmen of four of the major investigative Select Committees of the House: the European Union Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee, and the Communications Committee.
In respect of the European Union Committee, which currently appoints seven sub-committees to complement the work of the main committee, we concluded that it should remain the focus of House of Lords committee scrutiny. We consider, however, that it would now be appropriate to divert some of the resources allocated to it to support new committee activity in other areas. We therefore recommend that from the start of the next Session the number of EU sub-committees should be reduced from seven to six, and that the European Union Committee should reapportion responsibilities between its remaining sub-committees as it sees fit.
In respect of the Science and Technology Committee, we concluded that from the start of the next Session it should be allocated the resources of a single Select Committee. We recommend that it should, however, retain the power to appoint sub-committees, and the power to co-opt additional members for particular inquiries, but that those powers should not be exercised in such a way as to increase the workload of the committee beyond that of a single committee unit.
The chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, tabled an amendment to leave out the paragraph of the report that recommends a reduction in the committee’s resources. I remind the House, however, that in the Liaison Committee’s first report of this Session, we said that,
“in the event of further demands for committee work requiring redeployment of committee resources we would in the first instance look towards retrenchment of the Science and Technology Committee”.
We received representations from the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee that that committee should be able to appoint its Finance Bill Sub-Committee at an earlier point in the year than at present, following the new approach to tax policy-making adopted by the Government. The chairman, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, assured us that both the committee and the sub-committee would continue to respect Commons financial privilege, and that no additional resource would be required. No change in the terms of reference will be needed to enable this to happen, and we recommend that it should.
Finally, we reviewed the work of the Communications Committee, which is not a sessional committee. We recommend that it should be reappointed on the same basis as at present at the start of next Session. We will review the question of its further reappointment towards the end of that Session.
Our proposed reduction in sub-committee activity by two units—one European Union sub-committee and one Science and Technology sub-committee—would free up resources for new committee activity. Consistent with the strong support of the Leader’s Group for pre-legislative scrutiny, we have reconfirmed our support for pre-legislative scrutiny and believe that some of the resources that would be released by the reduction in sub-committee activity should be reallocated to supporting an additional pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
We also recommend an important new area of Select Committee activity: post-legislative scrutiny. The Leader’s Group recommends a single post-legislative scrutiny committee to manage the process of reviewing up to four selected Acts of Parliament each year. The Leader of the House proposed instead—and we agreed—that it would make better use of the expertise of Members to establish an ad hoc committee on a particular Act or Acts.
In our report we recommended the appointment of an ad hoc post-legislative scrutiny committee to examine the Children and Adoption Act 2006 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and to report in a timely manner so as to allow for evaluation of the committee’s work before the end of the 2012-13 Session. If time allows, the resources allocated to the first post-legislative scrutiny committee could then be made available for a post-legislative scrutiny committee on another topic to be established within the 2012-13 Session.
Finally, we considered two further procedural changes to enable a wider group of Members to participate in committee work. The first, to which I have already alluded, was that the maximum size of sub-committees to the European Union Committee should be increased from 12 to 14 Members. The effect of this would be to provide 84 places for Members on the six remaining sub-committees. Secondly, we invited the Procedure Committee to consider the reduction from four to three years of the rotation rule relating to length of service on investigative sessional committees, in order more frequently to refresh the membership of these committees.
I pay tribute to the valuable work done by all House of Lords committees. The Liaison Committee’s recommendations are intended to revitalise existing committee activity and provide an overall expansion of this activity, thereby enabling a greater number of Members to participate in a wider range of inquiries. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Krebs
As an amendment to the above Motion, at the end to insert “, with the exception of paragraphs 18 and 47 (the Science and Technology Committee)”.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I declare my interests as the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee and as a career scientist. As the chairman of the Liaison Committee said, my amendment refers to paragraphs 18 and 47 of the committee’s report, which include the proposal to reduce the resources of the Science and Technology Committee to those of a single committee from the present level of a Select Committee and a sub-committee. Although the report is not specific, my reading is that it will, in effect, halve the number of inquiries that the committee is able to carry out. This does not seem to square with the Leader of the House’s letter to Cross-Benchers in which he refers to a small reduction in resource to the Science and Technology Select Committee.
My amendment is important because it gets to the heart of what the House does best—using its great depth and breadth of expertise to investigate and to hold the Government to account. This House is unique in the world in its depth of scientific expertise. The Goodlad report of April 2011, of which we heard earlier, acknowledged,
“the clear public interest in making best use of the expertise of the House’s Members”.
Science in its broadest sense—including social science, medicine, engineering and technology—permeates almost every aspect of government policy. This is notably true of the all-important agenda of rebalancing the economy by developing new industries based on advanced knowledge and technology.
The Science and Technology Committee not only has great depth of expertise but great breadth in its coverage. I will list just a few examples of areas that we have covered in recent years. They include policies related to education, innovation and economic growth, energy supply, treatment of infectious diseases, ageing—a topic of particular interest to many of us—internet security, preservation of our heritage, and disposal of waste. The reports of the Select Committee also have significant impact. To name just one recent example, our report on the future of nuclear energy resulted in a substantial change in the Government’s approach. If the lights stay on in 15 years’ time, we should thank the Science and Technology Committee for its work.
Our reports not only have the stamp of authority within government but are highly respected and admired in the wider world. I will quote Mark Henderson of the Times, who wrote of our report on genomic medicine, published two or three years ago, that it was,
“a quite remarkable summary of the state of the science and the steps the Government must take”.
He went on to say:
“It is hard to imagine even a body like the US Senate producing a report of quite this quality and authority ... There’s a reason why this report is so good: it was compiled by a committee of people with genuine experience and understanding of science”.
To avoid misunderstanding, I should add that the committee is not just a club for scientists. It has an eclectic mix of Members, which enriches its deliberations and sharpens its recommendations.
The Science and Technology Committee has a tradition of following up its reports, thus ensuring that its scrutiny is thorough and insistent. For example, our recent report on public procurement and innovation was very critical of the Government’s approach to driving innovation in UK industry with its £230 billion annual procurement budget. The Government largely accepted our recommendations and we said that we would return to this topic soon to inquire whether the recommendations had been carried through.
The ad hoc committees referred to by the noble Lord the chairman of the Liaison Committee will not have this capacity to follow through their inquiries and check that the Government have indeed acted on their recommendations. The Liaison Committee’s proposal to reduce the resources of the Science and Technology Committee will do great reputational damage to this House. The presidents of four national academies—the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Academy —wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister expressing their concern about the Liaison Committee’s proposal.
I appreciate, of course, that the Liaison Committee has a difficult job. It wishes to create new ad hoc committees to inquire into new areas, and to enable a wider range of noble Lords to participate in committee work. It is trying to do this at a time of scarce resources. However, in allocating these resources it is essential to be very thorough in assessing value for money. Indeed, the report of the Liaison Committee refers to value for money in paragraph 8. I looked very carefully through the report to understand how this assessment of value for money was made but I was unsuccessful in finding any relevant analysis. The Science and Technology Committee, at its present level of support, represents excellent value for money. It uses the unique expertise of the House, it covers a very wide range of policy areas, and its reports have authority, impact and respect within government and more widely. It conducts follow-up inquiries to ensure that its recommendations have been acted on.
I am not, however, simply defending the status quo. I made specific and constructive suggestions to the Liaison Committee to enable it to achieve its objective without damaging the work of the Science and Technology Committee. These suggestions, which included increasing our co-option of additional Members to embrace a wider variety of expertise from the House, and shortening the term of service of members of the committee, were not taken up in the report. I invite the noble Lord the Chairman, when he responds, to explain to the House how his committee carried out its assessment of value for money, and why it concluded that better value for money would be had from reducing the activity of a demonstrably successful, immensely valuable, high-reputation committee and creating new committees. I believe that any such analysis would support my amendment.
Before I close—and I wish to be brief—I suggest to the noble Lord the chairman of the Liaison Committee that he takes this proposal back to the committee for further consideration. If he agreed to do so, that would be the basis for my withdrawing the amendment. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said. I used to be a member of the committee and I have been co-opted to a number of recent inquiries, including the one to which he referred about the UK’s capacity for undertaking nuclear research. I want to draw the attention of the House to one particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: that is the wide influence that the Science and Technology Committee has, and the respect within which it is held, not only in this country but across the world.
Some years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, came to see me to ask whether I would be willing to chair an inquiry into a subject on which I had been rather jumping about as a member of the Select Committee, which I called in those days science and the public. He offered me that opportunity and of course I accepted. It became known as the science and society inquiry. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Winston, nor I had any idea at that stage how far that report would penetrate to reach not just thousands but millions of people across the world.
I will not go into the detail but we made the recommendation that the public understanding of science was a rather inadequate way to approach the relationship and that there should be wide engagement by scientists with the public, with ears as well as voices being important. I recently had an indication of how far the impact of that report had gone. The British Council organised a two-day seminar in this country, in London, to reflect the 10-year anniversary of the Science and Society report. Representatives of no fewer than 55 countries across the world attended. I was astonished. That report had become, if not the Bible, certainly the guidance for a large number of countries across the world on how relations between science and the public, science and society, should be developed.
To pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the committee has always included people like me who are not scientists. I deferred always to my scientist colleagues on any issue of scientific understanding; that was their specialty. However, a number of people have said to me: “You know, that Science and Society report could not have been written by a scientist”. Of course, I had had a certain amount of experience in government and elsewhere of dealing with scientists and of trying to ensure that they were explaining themselves properly to the public. Of all the reports which the Science and Technology Committee has produced, that has turned out to be one of the most influential. It was produced by Sub-Committee B, as it was called, not the main committee.
With great respect, the description by my noble friend the Leader of the House—I have the letter, too—of a small reduction in resources simply does not begin to reflect what would be the impact of the Liaison Committee’s proposals. If a committee is to undertake a serious inquiry, a minimum number of people have to be allocated to support that committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, it appears to be the intention that the committee should be reduced to one inquiry at any one time. That is a huge reduction in the work of one of the most highly regarded committees in this House and is simply not acceptable. I ask the committee to think again.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, will no doubt decide how he will handle the amendment in the light of what the Chairman of Committees says. I would find it very difficult not to support him. The committee is in danger of doing serious damage to one of the most valued and valuable parts of this House of Lords. I very much hope that it will reconsider the issue.
Lord Filkin
My Lords, I rise, as a member of the Goodlad committee, to give my warm support to the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and to at least put on the record some of the argumentation as to why the other issues need to be considered and supported by the House.
In this report from the Liaison Committee we consider some of the significant areas for improvement to the working practices of this House which, in many previous debates, have been strongly argued for by many Members from all parts of the House. I can be brief because they come to relatively few fundamental points.
First, most Members of the House believe that if we spent more time on pre-legislative scrutiny of more Bills, we would have better legislation. This recommendation both makes that possible and starts an increase in the resources going to pre-legislative scrutiny, which is to be commended.
Secondly, many of us have argued for years that we should carry out post-legislative scrutiny. We should look, in a sober, thoughtful and informed way, at the effects of the legislation that we pass. The Commons is doing some but we have done nothing. We have not yet brought our considerable expertise and knowledge of many of the aspects on which we legislate to looking at whether the legislation achieves its objectives—and if not, why not—so that we can better inform both that policy area and, more significantly, our own processes of scrutiny of legislation.
Thirdly, the Liaison Committee makes a recommendation for a process to bring in additional ad hoc committees. The Leader of the House will know that I would not have brought it in in exactly that way but, nevertheless, it is to be welcomed in terms of what it would allow the House to do. It would allow the House to identify a topic of significant domestic policy interest which is potentially cross-cutting, and so in no way duplicate the work of the Commons; and it would have a short remit of a year in which to bring forward an influential and reflective report. There are two good examples there and I shall spend 30 seconds speaking on one of them. Most of us know that the significant demographic changes in our society will have a fundamental effect on public services—the demand for them, their cost, and the impact of that—and yet no-one in either House has as yet looked at that issue. It cries out for a short, sharp, well-informed and expert committee of this House, drawing on experts from outside. It is a topic to which the House would bring great value.
One of the more contentious elements of the Goodlad report was the recommendation that this House should be better at reviewing its committees as they exist. In the past the House has sometimes tried to do this and, for obvious reasons, it is painful. There is great resistance to making any change to the existing architecture of committees. Why so? It is because people develop passion, commitment, and expertise. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, and everything that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, so eloquently said in his argumentation of the value that the EU Committee has brought to this House, is true. However, unfortunately that is not the point. The point is that unless the House can continue to increase its resources to allow new topics to be studied, there will always be a starvation of the issues that are not being debated because the existing agenda dominates the resources, and existing interests in the House are eloquent in its defence. I respect their doing so—I would do the same myself—but that squeezes out anything new to the disadvantage of the House.
If, the House considers that it can have only one net addition, the Liaison Committee would then have the invidious task of deciding that we did not do more pre-legislative scrutiny, that we did not start post-legislative scrutiny, and that we did not have a process whereby we selected a couple of topics of cross-cutting domestic policy to look at each year. That would be regrettable. I regret that the Science and Technology Committee and the EU Committee are to be reduced, but that is necessary in circumstances where we do not have limitless resources. They can both make their case in a year’s time as to why they should be increased.
However, the thrust of the report essentially is that we would be a better House if we accept these recommendations. It would involve substantially more of the expertise in the House which currently has no voice in our affairs because some noble Lords do not have a seat on a committee of the House and are longing to have that opportunity. For those reasons, I strongly support the Liaison Committee’s recommendations.
Lord Broers
My Lords, I speak as a past chairman and present member of the Select Committee for Science and Technology. I cannot accept the argument of the noble Lord. The Science and Technology Select Committee provides fundamental information across the board in our country, particularly as an economic entity, that is relevant to all legislation. It is therefore incredibly important.
The most effective way to rebuild our economy is to restore our industrial leadership in the manufacturing of innovative products. This will only happen if we regain competitiveness in research and development. This is the business of the Science and Technology Select Committee. We inquire into whether our educational system is producing the graduates needed by industry for its R&D activities, whether the Government are using their procurement effectively to stimulate innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, and we inquire into the state of specific industries such as nuclear power.
At present, the lack of R&D spend is the Achilles’ heel of our economy. To reach the level of spending in Germany we would have to spend £10 billion more than we are spending at the moment, and to rival the USA we would have to spend £13 billion more. The Government are doing well in some of their initiatives, such as the catapults, but this is really only seed money. We need to keep our eye upon our academic and industrial performance in both the private and public sectors, and this is what the Select Committee does.
The committee needs two sub-committees in order to cover the two broad fields of science and technology: the engineering and physical, and the biological and medical. For example, the committee needs different talents to inquire into genomic medicine and renewable energies, or to inquire into pandemic flu and nuclear power. Innovative products, and therefore gains in our health, transport, energy, communications and other systems, will also help us with our massive deficit. These potential gains are also the business of the Science and Technology Select Committee. This is not the time to cut in half the resources available to that committee.
Lord Roper
My Lords, I speak as the chairman of the European Union Committee, and I regret that I will be critical of the report presented by the Lord Chairman of Committees. I have not tabled an amendment, but in my view, and that of many of my colleagues on the committee and in the sub-committees, the report of the Liaison Committee is the unsatisfactory outcome of an unsatisfactory process as far as the European Union Committee is concerned.
First, the process. Earlier this year I learnt that the Liaison Committee was, entirely appropriately, reviewing the House’s committee structure in the light of the Goodlad report. I wrote to ask to appear before the committee, and that request was granted. However, I was surprised to be told, in the letter inviting me to appear, that before the Liaison Committee had heard the arguments from my committee for its continuance of the committee in its present structure, the Liaison Committee was already minded to cut the number of European Union sub-committees by two or by one. I have sent to Members the detailed argument that I then put forward, which also appears in appendix 2 to the report that we are considering.
The last time the Liaison Committee conducted a general review of Lords committee activity was in 2010. On that occasion, unlike this time, it asked for information from the various committees before it made any decision. In 2010, the Liaison Committee concluded that the European Union Committee was performing a relevant and useful function, and it recommended no change. In fact, it recommended that certain other committees should be considered first if reductions needed to be made. I am unclear about what has changed in the mean time, except that on this occasion the Liaison Committee seemed to have made up its mind, or to have gone a long way towards doing so, before it took any evidence.
So far as concerns the outcome, in the end the Liaison Committee recommended the reduction of only one European Union sub-committee, which is why I did not table an amendment to today’s Motion. Some of my colleagues on the committee—and noble Lords may well hear from them—may feel that I am being excessively reasonable, but I am conscious of the wider financial context in which these decisions had to be made. However, even a cut of one sub-committee will have an impact on our work. The European Union will continue to propose new laws that will affect UK citizens and companies, and consultation documents and White Papers will continue to come forward.
We have to deal with something like 1,000 documents a year from the European Union. This reduction will simply reduce the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise the proposals effectively. In particular, it will reduce its ability to conduct an in-depth examination of key proposals. These inquiries are what give the committee, and therefore the House, such a strong reputation with civil society groups in this country, with European Union institutions and with other parliaments across the European Union. The House will also be reducing its ability to hold the Government to account.
The House sees the reports that we publish; it does not see the 500 letters a year that we send to Ministers raising problems that arise from the documents that we consider. However, that is the method by which we ensure that we have an explanation from the Government and a justification of their position. Ministers have told me that they consider that what we do is the most effective scrutiny of any part of their department’s work. The House risks weakening our work in an area where our reputation is currently, and justifiably, exceptionally strong. That is why I regret the Liaison Committee’s decision, and I fear that in due course the House, too, will come to regret it.
I conclude with a note about the suggestion to increase the maximum membership of sub-committees from 12 to 14. In the full Select Committee’s view, sub-committees of 14 risk being too large. An excessive number of members could make it difficult to work effectively as a team. Therefore, we would rather co-opt an additional two members to a sub-committee for a particular inquiry, thereby involving a wider group of Members of the House to take part in different aspects of our work. We feel that otherwise the current size of 12 members per sub-committee is probably right.
Lord Jopling
We have just heard from the Cross Benches; I think it is our turn. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has just said. I was first elected at the other end of this building almost 48 years ago. One strand that has run through the entire time in which I have served in both Houses has been my enthusiasm for the Select Committee system, which all those years ago I believed, very strongly, was the way in which Parliament could better exert its influence over the Executive. I was a member of two of Dick Crossman’s Select Committees—the first ones to be set up—back in the 1960s. In the early 1980s, following the 1979 election, I, with my late lamented friend Norman St John-Stevas, later Lord St John of Fawsley, who sadly is no longer with us, set up the departmental committees. I conducted all the negotiations over them with the Opposition at the time. Since coming to your Lordships’ House, I have been a member of, I think, three European Union committees. I have been chairman of two of them and I continue to serve on Sub-Committee C.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on, if nothing else, the basis that to give way once might be thought a virtue but to give way seven times seems more like a form of masochism peculiar to the practices of this place. Therefore, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for a variety of reasons but I shall be brief.
For a number of years, the Lords Science and Technology Committee fulfilled a role in the absence of a similar committee in the other place. The other place now has such a committee, but a House that can stand down a committee of that type in a contemporary world is quite capable of standing it down again. A far more important point here is that in the other place I know of only one Member who has a recent and strong scientific background. He is able and good, and he will make a significant mark in that place. However, in this place—and without sparing the blushes of my colleagues—we have people such as the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh, Lord Broers, Lord Krebs and Lord May, and that is before we stretch to the marvellous range of medics who have a scientific background and can speak with relevance to what goes on in those committees. I think that the one Member of the other place whom I mentioned would not wish to be weighed in the balances against that collection of talent.
The role of these specialists, and the place which this committee gives them, is important in two fundamental ways. The first is that cross-examination of witnesses requires experts. We have seen committee reports—especially, lately, from the other place—where there has been an absence of experts to make the cross-examination as sharp as it should be. I can assure you that it is very sharp on this particular committee. The second role that these specialists play is to identify where, one way or another, the evidence is to be found. These internationally-rated scientists—perhaps unlike those of us who depend on them—have that significant skill. Although I should declare an interest as a past chairman of this committee, I am not a practising scientist. These experts have given their time and energy to this House, and their main mode of contribution is often through this Select Committee.
I turn to the issue of impact. Today there has been a government announcement of £66 million for research on dementia. Our report on science and ageing set that hare running when we pointed out the sums that were spent in this area as compared with other illnesses. The impact on society of weakness in this area is huge. I am therefore glad that the Government are following it through. We also managed to persuade the Wellcome Trust and the MRC to put up £30 million about four years ago.
Lastly, after the recent follow-up report that the committee issued on flu pandemics, I had a letter from several consultants thanking us for paying such attention to the subject and making their task more manageable. I think that we would do a great disservice to this House, and to the importance of science and technology, if we did not accept this amendment.
Lord Winston
My Lords, I will be brief. I would like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in a previous debate. It seems absolutely ridiculous to change the nature of these expert Select Committees at this time, when the whole question of the reform of the House of Lords will start to be discussed in the next few months. I beg the House to consider that issue, because the Science and Technology Committee is a highly respected committee. I could cite a list of sub-committees that have all made an international impact, from our treatment of antibiotic resistance, to the change in aircraft passenger environment, to the use of science in education in schools—where, for example, extensive, major changes have been made as a result of the House of Lords report. I am really surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. After all, he spent some time in the Home Office, which has to deal with a range of scientific issues, from animal research, to security and surveillance, to electronic monitoring, to weapons. We have to recognise—
Lord Winston
Perhaps I may finish my sentence. We have to recognise that science now pervades every aspect of what we do and is vitally important to this country as never before.
Lord Filkin
I would not wish to confuse my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I totally respect the importance of science and technology: it could not be more important. The thrust of the Liaison Committee’s report, which I was supporting, was the need for balance—by which I mean, if we cannot do everything, we need to have some space to harness the expertise of this House to those subjects that are almost completely ignored. This process allows us to do so.
Lord May of Oxford
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has just said, I have every sympathy with the problem that the Liaison Committee is seeking to address. The past few years have, after all, seen an extraordinary increase in the number of people joining us in this House, adding roughly one-third to the number of just a few years ago. It is of course proper to wish to handle things in such a way that more people can be engaged, and that is very difficult at a time when the resources cannot expand to accommodate it. I am not going to go over again the ground that has been covered, and there will be yet further examples of how extraordinary the Science and Technology Committee has been—but it is not alone in that. However, one of the distinctive and hugely useful features of the House of Lords is the expertise and first-hand knowledge that it possesses. The best of briefing is no substitute for that. We have expertise in law, engineering, science, medicine, economics, social science, the arts, business and much else, and we want to embrace it all.
I have sat on both ends of the Select Committee table—I was also interrogated by them in my five-year stint as Chief Scientific Adviser to the John Major and Tony Blair Governments. The committees were very different entities—they were not just the one Science and Technology Committee. The House of Commons is often excellent, but it rarely matches the expert, knowledgeable, thoughtful approach that is brought forward in this House. In my experience of the other place, particularly with regard to issues of genetic modification, opinion is too often substituted for knowledge and beliefs for thoughtful analysis.
It is against that background that I offer what I hope might be a solution—or at least the elements of a solution—to the conundrum before us, of whether we embrace more people in ways that play to their strength. Let us not forget that, until relatively recently, the Science and Technology Committee typically ran two sub-committees, one of which it has lost. The committee has always co-opted other people. I have looked at the past six years and, typically, a little more than one in five of those serving on the Science and Technology Committee or its sub-committees were co-opted from outside. It therefore has a way of going about enlarging its ambit. The result of losing one of those sub-committees is the loss of some of those opportunities. If we lose the second one, we will have lost—apart from the ability to do the work—roughly half of a sub-committee’s worth of co-opted people.
I am coming to my suggestion. Having come off the Science and Technology Committee, my interests in the last three or four years have shifted; I have become involved with the Bank of England and others in systemic risk in financial systems. It is quite substantial. I am not aware of anybody in the House who has this precise kind of competence, which has not conventionally been something of major focus in the Bank. Therefore, I asked the Economic Affairs Committees whether I could be a co-opted member if and when there were things of this kind. I was told that those committees did not co-opt people. In so far as I have discovered—and I may be wrong—the idea of co-opting a fifth to a quarter of the members, which is habitual for the Science and Technology Committee, is not habitual to the other Select Committees. If this is true—if the others are more like Economic Affairs than Science and Technology—simply by altering that, we could have a much wider embrace of people who were not at that time on committees. The resources mean that we are not going to have more bums on Select Committee seats; it is just a question of how we can embrace a much wider group of people. That is an important approach.
The other proposal in this Liaison Committee report is to use four ad hoc committees. Personally, I think the idea of one or two ad hoc committees is extremely good, for the reasons that we have already heard. I also understand that we have resources for one more fully funded Select Committee. I suggest that we do not go for four ad hoc committees, rather one or two at a time, and keep what is one of the demonstrable jewels in this place, which is the full strength of its input to science and technology in the broadest sense, and with an emphasis on the technology as well as the science.
Lord Bowness
My Lords, I wish to endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the chairman of the European Union Select Committee, and to agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling. I confirm that the views they have expressed are those widely held by the members of the main committee and its sub-committees. Having said that, I do not intend to indulge in special pleading for any particular part of the European Union Select Committee, and I am sure that if the recommendation is approved today, it will find a way so far as is possible to continue its work at the level and standards that have been achieved under its successive chairmen.
However, I have two observations to make. First, we are being asked to reduce the number of sub-committees against the background of the express desire of the Minister for Europe that parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation should be improved. That is a matter for Parliament and not for Government, but it is an objective which presumably we all share, whatever our views of the European Union. Are noble Lords in the House today quite certain that that exhortation to do more can be achieved with fewer resources, and has there been—as we frequently ask the European Commission—an appropriate impact assessment? Secondly, it was the Government that chose to increase the number of Members of your Lordships’ House, and quite reasonably the House now has to find ways of ensuring that as many of our number as possible are able to play a part in the committee work of the House.
As I read it, the Leader’s Group recommended an expansion of committee work with additional resources and not at the expense of existing committees. I would submit that it is not really possible to expand the House by the numbers it has and, despite the House Committee’s desire to hold or reduce costs over the current planning period, to improve scrutiny and increase the amount of committee work. The Leader’s Group recommended additional expenditure of just over 1 per cent of existing expenditure. Moreover, if I read the report correctly, the cost of the two extra committees would be some £450,000, which, if the Sunday Times is correct—I cannot be sure of that, of course—is what we will save as a result of not sitting an extra week at Easter.
I wish that we could have had a comprehensive debate about the working practices report, especially those parts concerned with resources, rather than the piecemeal approach of a recommendation here and a recommendation there. I hope that it is not too late for that to happen.
Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, the Liaison Committee has proposed to curtail the work of the Science and Technology Committee by effectively halving the time and resources that are devoted to it. I should like to declare in the strongest possible manner that to do so would be a misguided action. I would go so far as to say that in the perception of many people, it would be an act of vandalism. It appears from the report of the Liaison Committee that it sees the role of Select Committees primarily as that of contributing to the House’s scrutiny of the Government’s legislative and executive activities. It proposes to curtail the work of the Science and Technology Committee in order to make way for two new committees which might serve the purpose of engaging Members of the House more fully in committee work. Be that as it may, the fact is that the Science and Technology Committee plays a much larger role than has been attributed to it by the Liaison Committee.
Ever since they have been published on the web, and no doubt for much longer than that, the reports of the committee have disseminated scientific information and judicious opinion on scientific matters to a very wide readership. I have read the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to the Liaison Committee and it is my opinion, at least in that context, that he has been far too modest in proclaiming the importance of the Science and Technology Committee. However, today he has left us in no doubt at all about its importance. I am sure that the reports produced by the committee have contributed greatly to the reputation of the House of Lords as a forum for serious and informed debate. If the committee’s activities are curtailed, the House will suffer a commensurate loss of reputation. I do not think that I can express the matter more clearly than that.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I think it might be useful to hear from these Benches and from another side of the argument. One of the essences of science is the requirement to look at all the different arguments. The Liaison Committee has had to look at a number of difficult problems, and as a member of that committee, it is important for me to bring them to your Lordships’ attention.
The first point is that we do not have sufficient resources, financially or otherwise, to service all the areas that Members quite properly wish to address. That is a fact. On the island where I spend as much time as I can, when I look across the border I see that people have had their pensions and salaries reduced by about 10 per cent overall. We have escaped that on this side of the water, but we have not completely escaped the need to address the problem of austerity. We simply do not have the money to devote to all the things we would like to do.
The second point is that we have substantially increased the number of Members of your Lordships’ House. Those Members are bringing with them considerable expertise. In some areas they may even be bringing more up-to-date expertise than that of those who have been here for some time, so they should not be undervalued. In that context, we need to find a way to move forward. It is absolutely right that we should dwell on our reputation from the past, but it is equally important to continue to develop and to move forward, otherwise we will simply become stuck.
One crucial area of development is that of information and communications technology. We have a Communications Committee; it is neither a Select Committee nor a sessional committee, but in effect a kind of ad hoc committee on communications. It is quite clear that over the past year or two, that committee’s understanding of its remit has developed. It now looks not just at questions of the content of communication and broadcast, but at the technology of broadband and digital communication. Whenever, as a member of the committee, I asked whether there had been some kind of formal communication between it and the Science and Technology Committee about this, I was told that there had not. That was a failing on the part of both committees. If the Science and Technology Committee was not consulting with the Communications Committee, and if that committee was not making requests to consult with the Science and Technology Committee, both of them were failing to look to the future. I have to say that science and technology is also social science and social technology, and we have had only a very modest amount of research in those areas by the Science and Technology Committee. There was a recent rather good report on behaviour change, but the overall amount has been very modest.
It is not enough for us simply to say, “We want to keep what we have and we want more”, because we do not have the resources and we do have new people with their thoughts and ideas. It is therefore not enough simply to say, when it comes to the European Committee, “We have got seven sub-committees, but we want eight, with one on foreign affairs”. We do not have the money for that.
So, what do we do? The proposal is to continue with the Communications Committee, and a specific proposal that I myself put to the Liaison Committee was that we should ask it to consult with the Science and Technology Committee over the coming year so that areas of overlap can be accommodated in the work of the Communications Committee, and indeed that its name should be changed to exemplify the fact that there is a science and technology component to its work. It is not a matter of shutting down but of opening up and of further understanding. Here is an area of science and technology that is extremely relevant. When you go out on the streets, you can see that young people are more aware in their daily lives of the communications aspects of science and technology than of any other. Again, it is not a matter of closing down but of developing.
There is absolutely no reason why some of the ad hoc committees, which will be relatively short term, should not pick up on issues of science, technology and medicine. Nothing should restrict them just because they are ad hoc committees. Indeed, in pre- and post-legislative scrutiny, there is no reason why some things that they pick up should be in these areas.
I appeal to noble Lords to understand the dilemma of a Liaison Committee, acting on behalf of the House and with modest resources, that has to deal with a substantial increase in the number of Members, an ever increasing amount of material that we could reasonably, legitimately, profitably—and in a way that enhances the reputation of the House—consider, but that also has to address the reality of the boundaries and limits imposed on us. I trust that however we choose to vote, the conversation will continue so that we continue to do the best we can for the House while addressing all the pressures that are on the Liaison Committee and the other committees that have to take responsibility.
Lord Grenfell
I am most grateful to noble Lords. I begin by declaring an interest, in particular with reference to recommendation 46 about the reduction in the European Union sub-committee structure by one sub-committee. In 2003, when I had the honour of being chairman of the European Union Committee, I argued very strongly for an extra committee and we obtained one. It was not done lightly. It was done because the volume of draft legislation coming from the European Union was enormous and we did not feel that we were able to cover, in particular, draft directives and other documents in the area of social affairs and education. We therefore asked for the extra committee and we got it.
It seems strange that we are arguing for a reduction in the capacity of the European Union committee structure at a time when national parliaments are being asked—in fact, pressed—by the European Union to take a much more significant role and to be a much more substantial part of the structure of the European Union. This is, therefore, not a good time for us to think about reducing our capacity to meet that very considerable challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his excellent letter, in appendix 2 of the report and in his very good statement this afternoon, set out the scale of the burden now borne by the European Union Committee. I am rather disappointed that an amendment on that subject has not been tabled to the Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said again and again that it was a fact that there were not sufficient resources. One might ask why there are not sufficient resources. That seems to me the nub of the question: what are the causes of the financial constraint? One of them—there are several—and maybe one of the biggest, is the unnecessary inflation of the membership of the House. That is to a very large extent a direct cause of the financial problem.
When we consider the additional cost of a new unit of committee activity—who on earth invented that frightful description of our work?—we are told that the additional marginal cost will be in the region of £225,000. That frightens me. Will the abolition of one of our European Union sub-committees save £225,000? If it does, it will save the equivalent of what seven Members of the House of Lords receive in expenses during the course of a year. There is not much chance at the moment of the number of Peers and the membership of the House being reduced by seven. It is going up all the time by several factors of that. This shows how strangely we approach this question of resources. Having seven fewer Members claiming up to £30,000 a year in legitimate expenses and attendance allowance would pay for the European Union sub-committee and, happily, the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee. I was deeply moved and impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his fellow scientists said about that.
Could we not try to be realistic about this and see it in the proper context of resources? If we had a smaller House, we would have more resources. It stands to reason that if we reduce the number of Members of the House, we will reduce the amount that the Exchequer has to put out to pay to keep them here. Why do we always say that there are no resources yet do not address the question of why? The size of the House is a major contributor to that unfortunate situation.
The House has a worldwide reputation of being one of the most cost-effective second Chambers in the world. Within that, it has a reputation of being probably the best scrutiny Chamber in the world. From my own experience, I can certainly tell noble Lords that in the European Union we have consistently been considered—run close by the French Senate—the most effective Chamber scrutinising draft European legislation. Do we want to lose that capacity? No, we do not, so let us look at ways of keeping it. I beg noble Lords to strongly consider why we are short of resources, to address that issue and not to undermine the huge reputation of the House.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have read the report of the Liaison Committee with great care. I think that it was carefully argued. I fully appreciate why, in times of financial constraint, it made the proposals that it did. However, we as a country depend on increasing our income and overcoming our deficit. There can be no question, in my opinion, that the development of science, education and technology will play a vital role in helping us to recover from the deficit state in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately, we are slow to take account of, develop and extend the results of scientific discovery—a problem that we have faced over many years.
We live now in an era of evidence-based and translational medicine—meaning the ability to convert the results of basic science into developments in patient care and new methods of treatment of disease. It is crucial that the results of research in basic science, engineering and technology should do the same. Happily, the Government have put more money into scientific research. The Technology Strategy Board is making a major impact, and so, too, are a huge number of other important developments—but they need development and they need support.
I have been in the House for 23 years. For 15 of those years, I served as a member of your Lordships’ Committee on Science and Technology. I chaired an inquiry some years ago into research in the National Health Service. That was a privilege. The report of that sub-committee inquiry led to the Culyer report and then the Cooksey report, and ultimately to the introduction of the NHS research programme—and now the highly effective National Institute for Health Research.
I worked on a small inquiry of the sub-committee which, curiously, in a limited field, dealt with the medicinal uses of cannabis and led eventually to the development of a standardised product of cannabis leaf that is now being sold across the world—used for absorption through the mucus membrane of the mouth—and that brings in money from across the world because of its effect in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. I could quote a lot of other inquiries that have been crucial: not least, for instance, the committee I chaired into complementary and alternative medicine, to try to bring a rational basis to the study of this particular area, in which a large amount of money is spent by very many people in this country. That report was taken on board by the National Institutes of Health in the United States as the basis for a programme of research on which it embarked, and into which it put money, to try to get an evidence base for that field of complementary medicine. I could quote many other examples—and many other examples have been quoted today.
The reason I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Krebs is that the reports of the Science and Technology Committee in this House have not only had a major influence on government policy across the entire scientific field but have won the respect of Britain’s scientific community. Above all, they have won the respect of the international scientific community. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the report on science and society was widely commended in the United States media. I could quote a huge number of other reports from the committee that have had a similar effect.
It is absolutely crucial that the committee should continue to function in its present capacity. My noble friend Lord Krebs said, in his carefully argued and detailed letter in annexe 3 to the third report from the Liaison Committee, proposed,
“wider involvement of members in the committee activity of the House whilst preserving the advantages of a sessional committee”.
He proposed a number of methods for co-opting members to each of the sub-committees and made it clear that he could continue with the two sub-committees of the science committee with co-opted members, increasing the involvement of other Members of the House.
It would be a sad day if that committee, which has fulfilled such a vital role in Britain’s science community, and which has received such outstanding credit from across the world, were to lose one of its sub-committees at a time when Britain needs much more development in science, engineering and technology. For that reason, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Krebs.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, it will not come as a surprise to the House to hear that I fear that the Liaison Committee has got the importance of our European committees badly out of focus.
It is welcome that the European committees have been cut from eight—seven plus one—to one and six sub-committees. However, that still leaves 84 Members of your Lordships’ House on the sub-committees, a further 14 on the main committee, with the result that the time of 98 of your Lordships is taken by the European Select Committee. I have mentioned this before. There is a long series of Questions from the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson, answered by the Government, which show that the European Committee has virtually no influence on the legislation that comes to us from Brussels. As your Lordships know, that is quite a substantial proportion of our general legislation and easily the majority of—
Lord Sewel
There is the vexatious question of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Has the noble Lord looked at the Green Paper that the Fisheries Commissioner has published? Is he aware that it borrows—I dare not use the word “plagiarises”—significantly from the report of the committee of this House?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I understand that the decision of the European Commission to review the common fisheries policy is due more to the series on television by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall than to your Lordships’ Select Committee. And anyway, we await reform of the common fisheries policy, as we have for the past 30 years.
I do not want to turn this into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the European Union, but I want to explain to your Lordships why seven European committees is still far too many. I referred to the series of Questions from the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson, the answers to which show that the Select Committee has had virtually no influence on legislation coming to us from Brussels. That is not surprising. Your Lordships may be aware of the process of European legislation, which is proposed in secret by the Commission, negotiated in secret in COREPER and passed in secret in the Council. There is nothing that your Lordships’ House or the other place can do when it has gone through that process.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord when he is in full flight on one of his well chosen paths, but I wonder how on earth he thinks that a government reply to another Member of this House can demonstrate that the influence of the committee and its sub-committees is nil. Of course, the noble Lord wants that to be the answer; of course, he wants there to be a reduction in the sub-committees and the committee to ensure that we do not scrutinise the European Union properly, because he wants to strengthen the argument to leave the European Union. However, it would be quite nice if we could address the subject before the House, which is the matter of the Liaison Committee’s report, and could above all face the fact that the European Committee deals with a core function that is not dealt with by any other committee or by the House as a whole. If you reduce that core function, you reduce the effectiveness of how we scrutinise this work. I wish that the noble Lord would take account of that instead of arguing the contrary.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I was about to explain to your Lordships why that core function is pointless compared to the work that the other Select Committees do in this House—and we have heard of powerful examples from the Science and Technology Committee. All the other committees are taken very seriously in this country and worldwide, whereas the debates of the European Committee in your Lordships’ House are ill attended and do nothing to inform public opinion about how the European Union works—and its membership, as I have said again and again, is solidly Europhile. We have just had two interventions to prove that.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has told us that the committee scrutinises very effectively European legislation. It writes to Ministers. But your Lordships will be aware of the scrutiny reserve, an agreement whereby successive Governments have given an assurance, although it is not a legal assurance, to both Houses of Parliament that if a piece of legislation is under scrutiny the Government of the day will not sign up to it in Brussels unless that committee agrees. Written Answers from the Government show that that has been overridden hundreds of times in the past 10 years—I think it is 343 times in the past five years.
I mention all this only to show that we put all this effort into the European Union committees and get very little out of them. I am sorry to offend noble and Europhile Lords, and I hope that the House does not think that I am banging on again about Europe. But hearing the comments about the eminent scientists in this Room who have spoken only for the Science and Technology Committee, and looking at the other committees, which are full of expertise and widely respected in the country and internationally, I fear that we have the balance wrong. Two or three European committees, including the main one, would be quite enough. We should redirect those energies into committees that will serve the House and the country well.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I hear the debate that we have had this evening but I have to say that I support the recommendations from the Liaison Committee, which closely follow the proposals from the report of the Leader’s Group. I warmly welcome the recommendation that two new cross-cutting and ad hoc committees should be set up, although my preference would have been for an appointment of two and a half years to enable the committees themselves to deliberate on the subjects of the report and to enable the committees to follow up the conclusions of the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, suggested.
I also welcome the proposals on pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, which I believe to be extremely important. If there is to be new draft legislation on adoption, as suggested by the Prime Minister, I would be grateful for an assurance from the Chairman of Committees that it will not be introduced until the post-legislative scrutiny has been concluded.
The decisions regarding the European Committee and the Science and Technology Committee were not easy. In fact, they were extremely difficult. There were hard choices, and it is never a good time to bring about change. Of course, many noble Lords are concerned that, by reducing the number of European sub-committees from seven to six, we are diminishing the importance that this House rightly gives to proper scrutiny of EU documents and proposals, and diminishes our standing as a House of expertise. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I am confident that the excellent and much needed scrutiny will continue with six sub-committees and a slightly larger membership, if the committees wish to enlarge.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Would the noble Baroness not just sail over it? Would she care to comment on the override by the Government of hundreds of scrutiny reserves in the past few years?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I would not care to comment on that at the moment, but I am grateful for the invitation from the noble Lord. I was going to say how much the House as a whole rightly regards the work of the Science and Technology Committee. Clearly, the breadth of knowledge inside that committee, along with the understanding and the influence of the reports, is phenomenal, and I am sure that that will continue. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, resources are scarce. Throughout our deliberations in the committee, I have argued for additional resources to be made available for an additional committee, and I will continue to make that argument in the coming year, so that when we have deliberations at this time next year, I may well be able to argue in favour of more work for the Science and Technology Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a very good speech here and in Committee, and I have supported him in his arguments throughout. However, I support the report from the committee that is before us today, and I urge the whole House to adopt it. Should there be a vote, I wish to make it clear that the people on my Benches will have a free vote.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I know that I am going to disappoint noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is not my purpose, but I think it is the result of the report published by the Liaison Committee that I support. As the House knows, the report proposes that more of our resources should go to one-year inquiries set up by the House for a specific purpose and with a specific membership—what we call ad hoc committees. That is a change of direction from the way in which we have dealt with things before, and I believe that it is right that these proposals for ad hoc committees should come from Back-Benchers. If this report is agreed to, I look forward to a meeting of the Liaison Committee next December when we consider a really good range of proposals for new ad hoc committees proposed by Back-Benchers around the House.
The whole point of this report is that it provides more opportunities for a broader range of Members to take part in the committee work of this House, and for those committees to be timely and to engage us in debate. The committees are meant to inform the House on subjects that we consider important. That is not to take away anything that the Science and Technology Committee does and has done. After all, this report is a package of recommendations. If it is agreed to, new resources will be made available to the Committee Office.
The report is also clear that some trimming of existing committees is required if we are to set up the new committees as proposed, and we have limited the trimming to a single sub-committee of the European Union Committee. The reason was asked by my noble friend Lord Jopling and indeed by the noble Lords, Lord Roper, Lord Grenfell, and others. They asked why we pick on the EU Committee, and the answer is, not because we do not value its work but because it absorbs by far the largest proportion of the House’s Select Committee resources—eight committees in total—and so it is the obvious place to look when trying to release resources. This is also why, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the Liaison Committee was already minded to propose the change before hearing from the noble Lord. It was in no sense any disrespect to him as chairman or indeed to the quality of the work that he has done.
The second place was the Science and Technology Committee and its sub-committees. We felt that, in the future, the resources should be that of a single Select Committee. The reason why we suggest that is that it would put it on the same resource footing as the Constitution Committee, the Communications Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee, which itself appoints a sub-committee.
Of course, this House has a notable reputation in science and technology, but there are other fields of experience and interest in this House, and I suggest we should make use for them. However, I stress that there is no reason why Back-Benchers cannot propose technical and scientific subjects to the Liaison Committee as subjects for ad hoc committees. There is also no reason why, in future Sessions, we should not re-examine this decision. I am in favour of trying out pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and others. It may be that in a couple of Sessions’ time we find that it is not a good use of the House’s resources and that we should look again at the situation in the Science and Technology Committee.
Lord Strathclyde
Is the noble Lord intervening to raise something, or does he wish to wind up?
Lord Krebs
Yes. I thank the noble Lord for his comments so far, but I would appreciate it if he would address the question that I put on what mechanism was used in the report to assess the value for money from different options. It is all very well to say that we need to create resources for new activities, but how was that evaluation carried out? I request some transparency on that.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we started off from a slightly different position. We wanted to do more different things, such as pre-leg, post-leg and two new stand-alone ad hoc committees, and they had to be paid for by some trimming elsewhere. We took the view that there could be a reduction in the EU sub-committees, and I am afraid that the Science and Technology Committee was next in line. We suggested this in the report that we published right at the beginning of this Session nearly two years ago, when we said:
“So far as the Science and Technology Committee is concerned, we note that the Committee has recently worked through two units of activity … Given that the House of Commons committee on this subject is now permanently established, we consider these two units of activity should be regarded as an absolute maximum; and in the event of further demands for committee work arising which require redeployment of committee resources we would in the first instance look towards retrenchment of the Science and Technology Committee”.
So all this was forecast a long time ago. I think there is a mood in the House to try to look at other ways in which we can work on our committee structure.
The Science and Technology Committee will continue. It will no doubt continue to work through a sub-committee, and I hope that it will continue to do its work extremely effectively.
Lord Haskel
Will the noble Lord respond to the point made by several scientists when speaking about the Science and Technology Committee: that it also serves the public and that the Liaison Committee has looked at it purely from the point of view of serving the convenience of the House? Will he respond to the point that we are also here to serve the public, as well as serving our own interests?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is going to be a new committee on post-legislative scrutiny of adoption and family services; more pre-legislative scrutiny; and two new committees, one on SMEs and exports and the other on public services and demography. All of these are designed to serve the interests of the public using much more of the expertise that exists around the House. This decision was not taken easily or capriciously; its implications were well understood. As I have said, in the longer term there is no reason why we should not revisit it.
Lord Methuen
On what basis is the Committee Office funded and why, with this huge influx of new Members, could more resources not be given to it to enable these additional committees and the existing ones to be adequately funded?
Lord Strathclyde
The reason is that we are trying to work within our existing budgets. Throughout the public sector there are limits on increasing expenditure. The House of Commons is facing a substantial decrease in expenditure and it would look a bit odd if the House of Lords alone decided to spend even more public money.
Lord May of Oxford
Does the noble Lord believe that his second attempt to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, answered it? I did not understand it. Given that he asserted that there was going to be a cost-benefit analysis, I did not hear anything like that in his reply.
Lord Strathclyde
It is very difficult to provide a cost-benefit analysis until we have seen the work and the success of the new committees that have been proposed. We are proposing four new committees—they do not exist at the moment—which will be paid for in part by a small reduction—I still say that it is a small reduction—in the amount of money available to the Science and Technology Committee. The best time for a cost-benefit analysis will be at the end of the first or second Session when we have seen how these new committees have worked out.
The Chairman of Committees
I will be brief because I know that certain Members of the House want to get on to the next business with rather a great deal of impatience. I shall not take long. I will not be able to name everyone in the impressive list of noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the massed ranks of fellow scientists that he has managed to assemble today.
In what I thought was a very impressive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was right to say how difficult it was to review the committee structure because no one wanted change. Everyone wants to keep exactly the same thing going on—people are always resistant to change—but at the same time they want new committees. That is what we are trying to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House said—
Lord Winston
I wonder if the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw that remark about the “massed ranks”. It seems contemptuous of the serious point that we as scientists are trying to put to the House of Lords.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Would the noble Lord also refer to the massed ranks of europhiles who came to the defence of those committees?
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I certainly was not trying to be contemptuous of the noble Lord, Lord Winston—rather the opposite; I was impressed by the number of scientists who had spoken. I am sorry that the noble Lord misunderstood me, or maybe I did not express myself well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, it is a question of resources. We cannot continue to spend more and more money. In this report we have recommended one additional unit of committee activity—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, does not like that phrase but it describes rather well what we do—and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, mentioned how we had followed the recommendations of the Goodlad committee. We are going to have two pre-legislative scrutiny committees, one more than we have at the moment; one post-legislative scrutiny committee—I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about adoption, and obviously if something develops on that we can review the subject later on—and two brand new ad hoc committees on topical subjects. I think that that is what the House wanted. It would be even better if we could just go on with the old committees as well, but it would be irresponsible of our committee to continually recommend more and more.
On the point about the European Union Committee, we will still have six sub-committees and a main committee so there will be seven committees in action in that area. They will still be better resourced than most, if not all, such sub-committees in other EU national parliaments.
We were grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for coming to see us and explaining things. We had intended to be helpful in telling him roughly what we thought, and we had intended that he would therefore know what to expect and what to argue. We also did not want committees to plan work beyond the end of the Session that they would then have to alter. Indeed, the noble Lord persuaded us not to reduce the size of the EU Committee to five but to keep it at six. I had thought that it was the European Union Committee’s desire that the membership of the sub-committees should go up from 12 to 14; that is the impression that we on the committee were given. If that is not the case, though, it is only—
Lord Roper
My Lords, there was some sort of misunderstanding. When I came before the Liaison Committee, I suggested the increase in size as an alternative way to involve more Peers, rather than reducing the number of committees.
The Chairman of Committees
I would say only that membership can be up to 14. There is no need for the European Union Committee to appoint 14 on each of its sub-committees; it can continue at 12, as it wants to at the moment.
Noble Lords have made a number of other points but I do not think I can add much more. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the Science and Technology Committee, there is nothing to stop that committee conducting follow-up inquiries in future. Paragraph 47 of the report makes clear that the committee should retain the power to appoint a sub-committee and to co-opt additional Members for particular inquiries. Both those points are already made in the report.
I hope that the House will agree to the report. It will breathe fresh air into the committee structure and I commend it to the House.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government remain committed to policies and structures in the House; and that the Liaison Committee, above all, remains so committed and will support evidence-based policy rather than a slide towards the new, the “breath of fresh air” and the policy-based evidence?
The Chairman of Committees
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but I do not speak for the Government.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of the Liaison Committee for his summing up, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. A number of telling points have been made during today’s debate. I am a little disappointed that in the replies from the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee those points were not all fully addressed. However, I take heart from the noble Lord the Leader reiterating the point that he made in a letter that he sent to the Cross-Bench Convenor, and perhaps to others, that the reduction that he envisages in the support for the Science and Technology Committee is a small one, which is very different from my understanding when I read the report that essentially support for the committee was going to be halved. I see a glimmer of hope there and I hope that in further discussion I can understand how small “small” is. I assume that “small” is smaller than what I see as large. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) Order 2012
Lord De Mauley
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 19 January and 7, 9, 27 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 51st Report from the Merits Committee, 39th, 41st and 42nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Insolvency Act 1986 (Disqualification from Parliament) Order 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft order laid before the House on 3 May 2011 be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 9 and 28 February and 1 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 41st and 43rd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 20 and 21 March.
Localism Act 2011 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2012
Baroness Hanham
That the draft orders laid before the House on 9 February be approved.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Scotland Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 33, Schedule 4, Clauses 34 and 35, Schedule 5, Clauses 36 to 45.
Scotland Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:13 - Division on Amendment 1A - Ayes: 72 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 1A disagreed.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, your Lordships will remember that last Wednesday I indicated that agreement had been reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a number of changes to the Scotland Bill and supporting non-legislative measures. Following this agreement the Scottish Government tabled a legislative consent Motion recommending the Scottish Parliament support the Bill. The amendments in this group are part of the changes to the Scotland Bill as a consequence of the agreement that has been reached between the Government and the Scottish Government to ensure that the Bill continues to retain the support of the Scottish Parliament, previously affirmed in an overwhelming vote of support in March 2011.
These amendments will remove Clause 7, Clause 12 and the associated Schedule 2, Clause 13 and Clause 26 of the Bill. With regard to Clause 7, the Government’s intention in pursuing the limited reference procedure contained in that clause was to prevent unnecessary delays to Bills in the Scottish Parliament, where the majority of provisions are considered to be within the legislative competence of that Parliament. The Scottish Government had raised concerns that this clause could have potential for introducing unintended consequences and delay in enacting legislation in the Scottish Parliament.
Likewise, during Committee consideration, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, raised concerns about whether the provision was necessary, as he believed that the existing arrangements appeared to be adequate. As a result of our discussions with the Scottish Government, we have agreed that this clause should be removed. The Scottish Government accept that in future, as at present, only a full Act of the Scottish Parliament can be referred to the Supreme Court, even if only a single provision raises competence issues.
Amendment 14 removes Clause 26 from the Bill. This would have allowed UK Ministers to implement international obligations on a UK basis, where it would be more convenient to take action on such a basis. The Scottish Government believe that this clause could undermine the clarity about which Parliament and which Ministers have responsibility for a particular matter. Both Governments acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all of the United Kingdom's international obligations are fully implemented across the UK on a timely basis.
The UK Government are willing to remove this clause, on the understanding of course that Scottish Ministers will ensure that any international obligations that fall within their responsibility are implemented on time. In turn, we have made clear to Scottish Ministers that the Government would be prepared to use their existing powers of direction under Section 58(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, should we have concerns about the implementation of international obligations within the remit of Scottish Ministers.
Clause 12 and associated Schedule 2 relate to insolvency. It would have returned legislative competence back to the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to all aspects of the winding up of business associations. The United Kingdom Government continue to believe that, where appropriate, Scottish procedures for insolvency should be in step with the rest of the United Kingdom. Our discussions with the Scottish Government have provided us with assurances that these concerns can be addressed without amending the devolution settlement in this respect. We therefore seek to remove this clause on the understanding that the Scottish Government will consider the modernisation measures for the devolved areas of winding up in Scotland introduced into the reserved insolvency procedures in 2009 and 2010; and have provided assurances that future changes made by the UK Parliament or Ministers in this area will be considered timeously by the Scottish Government in their area of competence.
Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to remove Clause 13, dealing with the regulation of health professionals, from the Bill. While the Scottish Parliament has had power to introduce for Scotland separate legislation in respect of regulating a number of health profession—that is, those not listed by reference to specific statutes in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act—it has chosen not to do so. Rather, it has approved the use of the existing, reserved machinery, in the form of orders made under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999, to regulate new groups of healthcare professionals.
During our discussions with the Scottish Government they raised some concerns about this clause. The Scottish Government have provided us with clear assurances that they will work closely with the Government to ensure that consistent regulatory regimes apply to all health professions. Given these assurances, the Government are content to continue to develop policy in relation to regulating the health professions with the Scottish Government. The United Kingdom Government, through the Department of Health in England, will continue to engage closely with officials, not just in Scotland but also in the Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales, to develop future policy proposals concerning the regulation of healthcare professionals.
The Government have received assurances on all these matters that the same effect that was sought by provisions in the Bill can be secured by non-legislative means. On that basis we have agreed to seek to take out the provisions from the Bill. I beg to move the amendments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I wonder if this would be a good opportunity for the Minister in his reply to inform the House what will now happen in relation to the legislative consent Motion. It would be helpful if he could briefly give us a timetable about when it will be considered by the Scottish Parliament and the procedures thereafter. If there are any problems, how will this House be informed? Does he envisage that the legislative consent Motion will be passed through the Scottish Parliament without any difficulty; and are there any further procedures that may be necessary within this Parliament following the passage of the legislative consent Motion?
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, before I address the amendments that the noble and learned Lord has spoken to, I should place on record the fact that the handling of this Bill has been nothing short of scandalous. To start three hours late, almost on the dinner hour, is quite unforgiveable. Yet again, those of us who are participating in this Bill are under pressure to sit longer and at unusual times to accommodate the Government’s business. At a time when we are trying in this House to demonstrate the evident utility of remaining part of the United Kingdom, of Scotland playing a meaningful role in Parliament, and of this Parliament playing a meaningful role in the affairs of Scotland, it smacks of contempt for the position of Scotland. I do not for one moment suggest that the noble and learned Lord has any part in this. I know that he is frustrated by the progress that has been made, but frankly those who are responsible for this should be ashamed of themselves.
As for the amendments that the noble and learned Lord has spoken to, we are pleased that agreement has been reached between the Government and Scottish Ministers. This allows for the passing of the legislative consent Motion. We recognise, of course, that compromises have been made on both sides, though those made by the Scottish Ministers from the demands that they set have clearly been much more substantial. It will be interesting to read how Scottish Ministers deal with the Scotland Bill Committee and Report when they come to deal with the legislative consent Motion. This group of amendments implements much, though not all, of the agreement. Inevitably, there are issues that we support, such as the removal of the clause on the partial suspension of Bills of the Scottish Parliament or the reference to the Supreme Court, and those that we find much more difficult, such as the regulation of health professionals. However, in the spirit of compromise, we support these amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I could associate myself with his earlier remarks. I regret that I have not taken part in the proceedings on this Bill until now. I was not sure whether or not I should declare an interest as someone who spends most of the year in Scotland. Now that I have worked it out that I do not, I feel free to join in.
My specific question follows what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, said. Our Companion requires that there should be 14 days between Committee and Report. On this occasion, there has been one working day, which was a Thursday. I have never formed part of the usual channels—and never will—so can the Minister explain to your Lordships how this decision has taken place at this stage of this hugely important Bill to the Scottish people, who have not been consulted about it at all?
No one has told the Scottish people that this Bill is going to result in them paying more tax in future, and no one has asked them. All we are being told is that the manifestos said that the Calman commission results were going to be taken seriously, but no one knew at the time of the election that this was going to be the outcome. I am sure that the Minister is not personally responsible but I ask him to explain to us how and why this decision was taken, in view of the enormous importance of these matters to the Scottish people.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I heard the stringent comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am sure that they will be noted. Having had experience of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and your Lordships’ House, if there is a thread that links these three experiences it is that the usual channels have currents and depths that I have rarely, if ever, been able to fathom.
Lord Sewel
Of course we do not hold the Minister at all responsible for what happens in the usual channels, but it seems rather perverse that we have discussed this Bill late at night and on Thursdays, under pressure of time. I accepted that because of the nature of the parliamentary timetable, but then we were told that we are having an extra week’s recess. Those extra days would have enabled this Bill to be given the due and proper consideration that it deserves, and I hope that the Minister and my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will pass on those comments to the usual channels.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
This almost proves my point. I am sure that these points will be noted and I will indeed draw them to the attention of colleagues.
With regard to the further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the number of days between Committee and Report, it was agreed between the usual channels, and as a result of a delay for further sessions in Committee to take place after the end of the consultation on the referendum, there was a need to reduce. As I indicated, that was agreed. In response to his further point, all parties—or at least all non-Scottish National parties that fought elections in Scotland: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats—had these proposals in their manifestos and I do not think it is fair to say that they had not been aired at all prior to the general election, nor indeed since.
I welcome the general support that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, has given to these moves, in the spirit of seeking agreement. He asked about insolvency. Specifically, there will be engagement with the Scottish Government to ensure that the modernisation programme contained in the reforms of 2009-10 is delivered in Scotland for the benefit of those affected by corporate insolvencies.
More generally, the Accountant in Bankruptcy is an executive agency of the Scottish Government that holds policy responsibility for devolved insolvency matters in Scotland, and the Insolvency Service is aware of the need to stay in close contact with counterparts in the Accountant in Bankruptcy’s office, as indeed already happens, to help ensure that as far as possible developments in insolvency law in devolved areas do not create unnecessary difficulties for users of the legislation. So there are the specific provisions of the 2009-10 changes, which we have had assurances will be implemented, and there is a means by which we can maintain contact and dialogue in the longer term.
With regard to health professionals, like the noble and learned Lord, I was a member of the Calman commission and certainly took this matter seriously. He will appreciate that we have agreed to seek removal of this clause on the receipt of assurances that the Scottish Government will work with us to ensure consistency in the regulation of health professionals. I sometimes wonder if we had had some representations from the Scottish Government when we sat on the Calman commission whether we might have been able to reflect those in the report, but that was not the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the procedure from here on in. In his letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy, Mr Bruce Crawford, having gone through the terms of the agreement, indicated:
“I can therefore confirm that the Scottish Government is now prepared to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it consents to the Bill, amended in line with your proposals, and supported by the undertakings in your letter”.
Of course, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is my understanding that the Scotland Bill Committee of that Parliament will meet to discuss the amendments on Wednesday. We expect that the legislative consent Motion will be debated after the Easter Recess but before Third Reading in your Lordships’ House. Given the engagement that there has been, I very much look forward to the Scottish Parliament approving the Motion to support the Bill. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s inquiry.
The Earl of Caithness
Before my noble friend sits down, could he comment on his final point? If the legislative consent Motion is agreed by the Scottish Parliament before Third Reading and we pass an amendment at Third Reading, what is the situation then?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I suspect that the Scottish Parliament may have something to say about it if it is something that it does not agree with.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Legislative competence: amendment to the 1998 Act
In section 29 of the 1998 Act (legislative competence) after subsection (2)(d) insert—“(da) it would result in residents in England, Wales or Northern Ireland being treated differently to citizens from other EU member states.””
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I add my voice to those who are complaining about the way in which this Bill has been handled. In his reply, it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate where he proposes to get to this evening. It is suggested we can get to Clause 25—that is 15 groups of amendments and we normally finish at 10 o’clock. Although I mean to be brief, I do not think that that will be achievable. It is extraordinary that a Bill of this importance is being treated in this way. When I complain to the usual channels, they blame each other. Something has gone very wrong with the business managers in this House and they need to get their act together.
The great argument for devolution, which I opposed, was that Westminster was not able to deal with Scottish legislation. I have been around Westminster since 1983 and I have never seen a piece of legislation affecting Scotland handled as badly as this piece of legislation has.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Has the noble Lord heard the suggestion from the Government’s usual channels that if we do not make progress today and Wednesday we should consider sitting on Thursday to deal with it? Is that not an astonishing suggestion?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
It is an interesting suggestion and if I thought it was correct I might defer consideration of my amendment until then as I would be able to get a majority quite easily, even if I just voted for it myself.
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Sutherland and Lord Foulkes, have added their names to Amendment 1A. This is an historic occasion and there will be few occasions in this House when these four names together appear on one amendment. It emphasises the nature of this amendment and the nature of the injustice it seeks to deal with.
The amendment simply says that residents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way by the Scottish Parliament as other members of other European states. One would assume this matter was completely uncontroversial. The amendment is grouped with Amendment 59, which provides for the Scottish universities to be consulted and for a delaying implementation provision in order to deal with any administrative difficulties that might arise.
I was acutely conscious of this issue when I ran at the beginning of this year for rector at the University of St Andrews, I regret to say unsuccessfully. I was beaten by a better candidate who had more time to commit to a great university. I attended the University of St Andrews with Alex Salmond. He ran the SNP and I ran the Tories. We had 1,300 members; he had three. It has changed round since those days. One of the characteristics of the University of St Andrews was that lots of students came from the rest of the United Kingdom and that is still the case today. What outraged me was discovering that students sitting side by side in classes are expected, in the case of those who live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, to pay £36,000 in fees while those who live in Scotland or Poland or Germany or Italy or anywhere else in the European Union pay nothing at all.
That is an utterly divisive and wrong policy. It has been exacerbated by the increase in fees and by the fact that Scottish universities have four-year degrees. This amendment seeks to create the circumstances which would exist in Scotland if it were independent. If we had an independent Scotland, it would not be allowed under European law to discriminate in this way against those people who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I know that some people—not everyone, including me—have received directly a brief from the universities in Scotland which have expressed concern about this amendment. My noble friend Lord Vallance has made representations to me that if it were passed it would mean that there would be administrative chaos for the student intake arriving in September, which is why the amendment allows for some delay while this matter is sorted out.
The Scottish Government have been saying that if English and Welsh and Irish students—and that means people who are resident in England, Wales and Ireland; they might well be Scottish students whose families have moved to other parts of the United Kingdom—could go to universities in Scotland for free, there would be a flood across the border. This is the most disingenuous and dishonest argument. Ireland has no fees. People can go from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and they deal with it by having a quota for the number of students that they will accept. If it is suggested that quotas would be wrong, there is already a quota in operation. There is a quota set by the Scottish Government on the number of students who come from Scotland and from other European Union countries. To suggest that they could not have people resident in the rest of the United Kingdom coming on the same terms as those from Germany and elsewhere is, to say the least, misleading.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My noble friend is right about the incident that affected me because in the previous Budget the Chancellor gave £150 million to university technical colleges to develop the ones my educational trust is promoting. These train technicians and engineers. We have 19 in England and are looking at 22. But I discovered under the Barnett Formula that, out of the £150 million, £25 million was allocated to Scotland. I was rather glad about that because I have industrialists wanting to support UTCs in Aberdeen and in Glasgow. When I went up and met Mr Russell, who is the Education Minister in the SNP Government, he told me that that money had been spent on other things. I have no idea what it was spent on; it certainly was not spent on what it had been allocated for.
This is another case where Scottish students and indeed the Scottish economy are losing out as a result of this particular arrangement under the Barnett formula. The money has been snaffled to do something else with and it is a great loss to Scotland.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I am not arguing that the Barnett funds should not be transferred from one budget to another but I am arguing for free tuition being available, in the same way that it is available for German and French students, for students from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that is unreasonable. If the issue of funding will cause difficulty between the Governments, they have got lots of negotiations on and they should sort it out. If we believe in the United Kingdom—and I do with a passion—I can think of nothing worse than creating a situation where young people are burdened with substantial debt because they went to a Scottish university and they see everyone else in Europe going for free.
It could be argued that that arises from the Scottish Government’s policy of having free tuition fees. I do not argue against their ability to do that but they have to operate it in a fair and balanced way. This amendment would enable fair treatment for all students throughout the United Kingdom. It may not be perfectly worded. I would be very happy if my noble and learned friend said that he could not accept this amendment but that he would bring forward one of his own at a later stage of the Bill which would remedy the problem. I do not want to detain the House as I am anxious that if we divide, everyone will have disappeared. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I was pleased to put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. It is not something anyone on this side does lightly. However, as I have said before, even a Tory is not always wrong and on this occasion he is absolutely right—spot on. It is an issue of fairness. I shall be very brief.
It is an issue of fairness when students from Lithuania and Poland can go to Scottish universities for free, but students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland have to pay full fees. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, there is double jeopardy. The parents of the students from Poland and Lithuania do not contribute to the costs of Scottish universities, but the parents of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish students pay UK taxes. They have to pay full fees and the taxes that subsidise Scottish universities.
I know that there are concerns about funding. These have been expressed by the chancellor of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and in a letter to me from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, the chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland. However, that is not a matter for us; it is a matter for the Scottish Executive. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, they get billions of pounds from the block grant. It is a matter of priorities. Scotland has free care for the elderly, free prescriptions for everyone, including the very rich, and a whole range of other things that are provided. Surely this is something to which they can give consideration. Without pre-empting what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, will say, he has looked at the funding in much more detail and can make suggestions. If the Scottish Executive need help, I am sure he would be very willing to provide it—at no cost, I presume.
Finally, I say to my colleagues on the Labour Benches that we now have no Whip on this matter. Therefore, we have the opportunity to vote as we wish. I hope we will make the right decision in voting on this and support the amendment. I have spoken to Labour MSPs who have supported what the SNP Administration are doing. They said that they did not want to do it and regretted having to do it but had no option because of how it was put to them in terms of funding. We have an option: we can support the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and we can support fairness. I urge noble Lords so to do.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, the position before us requires a brief summary of how we got to where we are. I see a number of Members in the House who did not sit through all the longueurs of the Committee stage. To them I say, “Welcome to the Michael and George show. It’s amazing”. That said, why are we where we are? How did we get here and what is it? If you live in Dublin or Dundee, you pay no fees. If you live in Belfast or Berwick—I do my shopping in Berwick—you will pay fees at a Scottish university. We could go on with examples.
We all accept that these are unfortunate consequences of administrative procedures. We might also accept that they are unintended consequences of administrative procedures. However, I ask noble Lords to note that they are divisive consequences of administrative procedures, of which the only beneficiaries are those who would turn that divisiveness into the final division of separation. This suits their hand of cards.
The current situation over fees was not sought by the Scottish universities. I wish to stress that. There were some who hinted that the Scots were desperate to charge the Sassenachs et cetera large fees. This was not sought by the Scottish universities. Like the members of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament, this was imposed on them.
My reckoning is that this year approximately £28 million to £30 million will be withheld from the Scottish universities grant. That money has to be found by the universities if they are to continue functioning. It will be withheld on the assumption that they can charge students from RUK, as they call it—the rest of the United Kingdom—fees that will fill that gap. That is just the start. The estimate is that the figure will be for just the first year. Over another four years, by 2015, the reduction in funding for Scottish universities from the Scottish Government might be £120 million. This is surely not something with which we can rest content.
By negotiation and ingenuity, the Scottish universities have avoided having an inadequate level for rest-of-UK students imposed on them. This was a risk for them. They have the power to vary their fees, charging up to £9,000 a year. Clearly, several of them will do this. I say to them, “Well done”. At that stage, I would have done the same but why did we get to that stage? The horse has already bolted through the stable door with the first £30 million: the Scottish Government have withdrawn this funding. As realistic chief executives, they did not have much choice other than to enter into a negotiation with which I suspect none of them is particularly happy.
The universities have also done well in devising bursary arrangements, for which I pay tribute to them. I know about the situation in the University of Edinburgh, my former university, in detail. It has done well and has the best bursary scheme anywhere in the UK for students in need. Some of the universities down here could take a look at that; it might help with some of their problems of recruitment.
Scottish universities also have a legitimate fear that, if this amendment were to be passed in its current form, without the following amendment, it would cause chaos if it were imposed for 2012-13. There may have been a hint of that earlier but this amendment does not imply imposing these new procedures for next year. Of course there would be chaos. However, we can deal with that—I will come back to it in a moment. I would not support an amendment that caused such chaos to the intake of students preparing for entry in 2012. That is common ground between all those who have put their names to the amendment. These are short-term consequences and we can deal with them. I completely understand that the short-term consequence would be to cause chaos now but we can deal with it by setting the date back.
However, there are longer-term consequences and implications. This is what I can only call another example of “devo drift” by practice, rather than by legislation. It inserts a further series of divisions, in this case between the young people of the rest of the UK and those of Scotland. This “devo drift” will not, I hope, be subject to another negotiated deal with the Government in Scotland. Are there any pegs that should be put in place? For example, if the next step gave Scotland a capacity in relation to research councils, which is a reserved business at the moment, it would be absolutely horrendous for Scottish universities. I see nothing in current attitudes to suggest that it might not be the next stage along the way. The Scottish universities would then have to decide whether negotiation was a wise practice.
That is all very easy to criticise but how do we proceed? In its briefing note, of which I was eventually given a copy by indirect means, Universities Scotland suggests that everything had been done to raise the question of the European demand that European Union students should not be charged fees. Indeed, the briefing note claims that the Education Secretary in Scotland,
“has actively pursued this issue in Europe and UK support for this issue, including voices within the Lords, would be welcome”.
I support him on that issue. Now what will he do about it? There is a question there to be looked at and we need a bit of time.
More importantly, I suggest that there is a way forward, and we need a bit of time for that. There should be a call for a UK-wide discussion, with all regions—all the rest of the UK—and Westminster, with the relevant Secretaries of State sitting down together and setting a quarter of places for RUK students in Scotland, an equivalent quota for EU students in Scotland, and a quota for Scottish students who go to universities in the rest of the UK. Within that, there may be room for financial manoeuvre because the Scottish students who take places in English universities displace England-based students for whom the Government here would have to make some provision, albeit that they would be charged fees.
Baroness Brinton
Does the noble Lord accept that under Article 24, paragraph 1 of directive 2004, it is not possible to provide quotas for EU students, because of the issue of free movement?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I am prepared to take expert opinion on that. That does not rule out the possibility of the Administrations from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland sitting down with the Westminster Government and working out a quota system for within the UK. It is a broader question how the European Union behaves itself on this matter, and there may be alternative views.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is it not the position that in practice because the Scottish Government set a budget for the number of Scottish and EU students that they will fund—that is how they operate—all the noble Lord is saying is that there should be a budget for the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland-based students who attend?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
Certainly the Scottish universities funding council sets an overall budget which will pay for students who, as it turns out now, are resident both in Scotland and in the rest of the European Union. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
The force of what I have to say is that there needs to be discussion—I suspect it has been rather absent—between the funding councils and those who instruct them to see whether there is a way of removing this anomaly that none of us likes. How did we get here? By a slow process of change that has not had good consequences.
It would be unfair and unjust to discriminate only against the rest of the UK students, and if that is a principle that this House accepts, I hope that it will support the amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for spelling out how we got into what I can only call an unholy mess. Before we turn to the amendments, let me say that I fully support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, said at the start of this debate. In fact, I marvelled at his moderation. It is appalling that we are attempting—I hope we are not attempting—to deal with this on Report in the time that has been allotted at present. We have not only got the debate in the dinner hour, but we also have a Statement coming up which will take another 40 minutes out of the time. It is intolerable. It is the kind of thing that, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth hinted, we used to object to in the Commons. Scottish business of very serious import is being debated here—this is only one of many issues we are supposed to be discussing in the next few hours—and it should not be dealt with in this rushed way. I hope we will be told, when the Whip—or whoever deals with this on the Front Bench—proposes the break for the dinner hour, what is going to happen, and when we are going to sit to give this proper consideration.
I find myself in some difficulty because when I read Amendment 1A, in conjunction with the letter I received from the vice-chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, I sympathised with the universities possibly finding themselves being bereft of revenue they were expecting. That is why I warmly support Amendment 59, which the noble Lord has just spoken to, and to which four distinguished Members of this House have put their names.
By giving at least a year to all the authorities—the funding councils, the two Governments—they should be able to sort this out. The anomaly is intolerable, and we cannot allow this simply to drift on. Here is our legislative chance to put it right, and we should do that by accepting Amendment 59.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is no secret that I am most unhappy with the fact that we are continuing with this Bill when it has been so comprehensively overtaken by events. There is a sense that “We’ve started so we’ll finish”. Partly because it has had the gestation period of an elephant, we seem to be debating it at a time when the whole constitutional discussion in Scotland has moved on.
I regret to say that it seems that the business managers of the House share my view of the Bill. I can think of no other reason for the way that it has been treated, and indeed the way that those noble Members who have taken an intense interest in it have been treated, in the course of its process. When I first went to the other place I complained that Scottish legislation was usually done after everyone else had gone home to bed. It seems as though that procedure is now being copied in this House.
However, we can redeem the situation by getting one issue up and live in the debate. There are no two ways about it: what has happened with tuition fees for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland is so unfair as to shame all of us Scots who have benefited from a Scottish education. Perhaps it needs those of us who have a clear and distinct Scottish accent to say so.
I have not been lobbied by vice-chancellors. That could be because I was a Scottish Education Minister, and maybe they are feart. However, even if I had been I would still take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that it is important to seize an opportunity now to resolve this matter. There is a sound educational argument for ensuring that we continue to have the maximum number possible of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students in our universities. One of the secrets of a good Scottish education is the nature of the diversity of the experience. That is being denied.
I will make one other point briefly, because I am conscious of the time. Rich English students can continue to come to Scottish universities, either because their parents can afford to pay the fees or because they own an island or a hunting estate or a lovely Georgian house in Edinburgh and so can easily establish residency. Someone who, like me, is a bus driver’s daughter, frankly has no chance whatever.
I will make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord, whom I do not blame for one minute for the difficulties that have been encountered in passing this Bill—if ever there was a Minister who ended up with the short straw, it is the noble and learned Lord. I appeal to him to take this back, having listened to the representations made tonight and in other places, and seek a resolution to this manifest unfairness that—I repeat—shames Scotland.
Lord Vallance of Tummel
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, which as a higher education institution would be directly affected by the amendment if it were agreed. I will not take up much of your Lordships’ time, but I feel that I should draw attention to the chaotic practical consequences that the amendment would have on the Scottish universities and other higher education institutions, which have been levying modest fixed fees on students resident elsewhere in the UK, without controversy, since 2001, in part to manage the flow of students into Scotland.
The decision made here in London to introduce market-based, variable fees up to £9,000 per annum in English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities, changed the game radically. It demanded a response if there were not to be a veritable tsunami of applications from students south of the border for far less expensive places at Scottish universities, with clear consequences for potential students resident in Scotland, and for funding by the Scottish Government. That Government’s decision, on which I pass no judgment one way or the other, was to withdraw funding for students resident elsewhere in the UK, and to allow the Scottish universities to apply the same market-based, variable-fee regime for such students as they would have enjoyed, if that is the right word, had they stayed at home.
Some, including Universities Scotland—the representative body for all the higher education institutions—would say that that was entirely reasonable in a UK context. However, it is also anomalous, particularly as regards the rest of the European Union. However, anomalies of one kind or another are almost inevitable in areas where competence has been devolved to Scotland. Various practical problems stemming from the legitimate pursuit of widely different policies on either side of the border will have to be addressed. In the case of higher education, the EU requirement to give preferential treatment to students resident elsewhere in Europe, as against those from other foreign countries, simply compounds the anomaly.
The substantive issue is how best to deal with such anomalies. The amendment, although on the face of it eminently reasonable in seeking to give European Union benchmarks pride of place, would not only unnecessarily and indefinitely constrain the scope for manoeuvre here in the United Kingdom but would create a major and immediate practical problem for Scottish Universities, for the simple reason that the new fee regime has already been implemented, as we have already learnt.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Surely Amendment 59 deals with the problem that the noble Lord outlined.
Lord Vallance of Tummel
I am coming to that. For the next academic year and for the years beyond, places have already been offered to and readily accepted by students who are resident south of the border. Bursary and scholarship arrangements have been substantially modified to help them. Indeed, the financial basis and plans of Scottish universities for the years ahead are dependent on those arrangements, which, as of today, are quite legitimate under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998. I appreciate the willingness of my noble friend Lord Forsyth to delay implementation, but the question is for how long. A year is simply not long enough.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the Scottish Government had their way and Scotland became independent, they would have to do this anyway. Given that we are going to have a referendum on independence, does the noble Lord not accept that the uncertainty arises from the Scottish Government’s own policy?
Lord Vallance of Tummel
I share entirely my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s willingness and desire to keep the United Kingdom united. We should not discuss here the circumstances of a hypothesis in which we are no longer a United Kingdom.
To alter the provisions of the 1998 Act now would outlaw arrangements already in place and would throw into considerable disarray the Scottish universities’ administrative and financial arrangements not just for the next academic year but for succeeding years as well. I cannot imagine that this is an outcome that your Lordships would wish to endorse.
Rather than constraining ourselves through legislation that prays in aid European Union regulation, and in so doing simply shifts the locus of the problem within the UK, we should surely retain as much scope as we can to sort out United Kingdom issues in a UK context and to find practical measures between good neighbours for dealing with the problems thrown up by the inevitable anomalies that flow from devolution—as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said.
I will paraphrase the remarks of the Abbess of Crewe in Muriel Spark’s novel of the same name. A problem you solve; an anomaly you live with.
Lord Morgan
I intervene very briefly, not as a member of the Labour Party but as a former vice-chancellor. The present situation is deeply harmful to the very concept of a university. Universities are founded on the ethic of equality, whereby all students should be treated the same. We have legislation to deal with some of the more harmful aspects of discrimination—with regard to racial matters, for example—but the current situation is a fundamental breach of that principle. The situation is harmful in two respects. There is a divisive principle at work, whereby students doing the same work in the same institution are not treated the same.
Lord Vallance of Tummel
Such divisiveness already occurs as regards international students. The only foreign students who are treated differently are other European Union students.
Lord Morgan
That was not my experience as vice-chancellor, and I reject that argument. The situation is divisive and is more extreme than in Wales. I regret what has happened there, but at least Welsh-origin students have to pay something. In a sense, they all suffer because there is top-slicing of the grant for higher education. In that sense, the situation in Scotland is more extreme than in Wales.
The other concern is that the Scottish situation works against one of the fundamental principles of universities, which is that they should not be politically instrumental or be the agents of political discrimination. That is precisely what is happening and it is not only at total variance with the spirit of universities in this country—including the great universities of Scotland that are the famous cradles of the democratic intellect—but hostile to the spirit and ethic of universities everywhere. It will get worse. University policy and finance is deeply fluid. The situation is not static. The unfairness will grow. There will be a growing gulf in claims on students of Scottish origin and those from elsewhere in the UK. For the sake of universities and for the sake of Scottish universities—the great institutions—we should not found our university higher education policy on these extremely bad and unfair principles.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I declare an interest as a chancellor of one of the Scottish universities. I seem to be one of the very few people who has not received a briefing from Universities UK, Universities Scotland or anyone else.
There is no doubt that Scottish universities benefit enormously from having students from outwith Scotland. Whether they are from the rest of the UK, Europe or the rest of the world, they are very beneficial. There is also no doubt that it is uncomfortable to have students from, say, Northern Ireland, sitting next to students from the Republic of Ireland who pay different fees. It is not a happy situation. However, the reality is that the financing of universities in Scotland is a matter devolved to the Scottish Government. I cannot believe, even though I hope for the day when the situation is evened out, that it is right or practical for your Lordships’ House to legislate to change the financial structure of Scottish universities. I hope that the situation will be resolved over time, but I cannot believe that it would be right for us to legislate, and I would feel obliged to vote against the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
We are not legislating to alter in any way the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. All that we are doing is requiring it to treat people from the United Kingdom in the same way as those from Europe. The amendment does not refer to tuition fees or universities; it simply states that you cannot discriminate against students within the United Kingdom but must treat them in the same way as you treat all other EU students. The amendment does not in any way unravel the devolution settlement.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn
I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but the amendment would change the current way in which financial arrangements are made for Scottish universities.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I wish to ask a question in the context of the amendment. I seem to remember that when the Scotland Act was passed, discrimination issues were reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. That was certainly the case as far as the Equal Opportunities Commission was concerned and, in a sense, this is an extension of the commission’s argument. My question is as follows: why cannot provision for English students to be treated on the same basis as other European students be earmarked in the block grant? Most of us who follow history are aware that when a large number of Scots descended on Scotland after the Act of Union, discrimination was not unknown. That would have been condemned by Scottish parliamentarians at the time, and it is extremely difficult to justify an element of discrimination against students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government can come up with a solution.
There are two principles at stake. One is whether discrimination is wrong and the other is whether this should be treated solely as a devolution issue. It comes down to whether the principle of outlawing discrimination is one that comes under the United Kingdom Parliament and should be enforced throughout the United Kingdom, or whether it should be treated primarily as a devolution issue. It is very hard to justify the existence of discrimination against those who come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If discrimination is tolerated in one case, it will be tolerated in another case. As a Parliament, we should do everything within our power to prevent this anomaly continuing.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, perhaps because of my previous interest in Scottish higher education, I have been somewhat targeted by universities in Scotland. I must say, from the start, that I find myself in the difficult position of being in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who was my chancellor. I was targeted for making what have been called “unhelpful comments” in Committee. I quite like making unhelpful comments in Committee. Of all the representations that I have received, not one adequately addressed the EU anomaly. They were silent on that. They were, of course, concerned, institution by institution, with the need to protect their income but that is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Government, not for this Parliament. The Scottish Government could easily devise a funding formula that enabled English domiciled students to be supported at Scottish universities.
The other thing that I have found offensive—I use the word carefully, but I do use it—is the argument that if there is not this discrimination, Scottish universities will be swamped by English students. That has something akin to the ring of ethnic cleansing about it. I say that as someone who has, fortunately, had the great privilege of being educated in an English, a Welsh and a Scottish university. As my noble friend Lord Morgan said, anything that turns away from that great value just does not understand the nature of higher education as a universal good.
Let us come down to the grubbiness of it. When I was a Scottish Office Minister I was in charge of the first comprehensive spending review. As we developed the argument, I asked the simple question: what would happen if Scottish universities were funded out of the block grant on the basis of Scottish students? My officials turned to me and said: “Minister, we would at least have to close one Scottish medical school. The best card we have up our sleeve to defend the Barnett formula is that we educate English students out of the Scottish block”. Just think what the implications for higher education would be if that became the reality: much more than the problem of solving English students being properly financed to attend Scottish universities.
That is in the past. Issues like this can usually be reduced to very simple propositions. The simple proposition here is that what is intended is deeply and grossly unfair and nothing that I have read or heard persuades me otherwise.
Lord Stephen
None of this is simple. The Scottish Parliament came forward with some very practical and pragmatic solutions to try its very best to tackle this problem. Back in 2000, when we first looked at the problem, the big issue was how we treated Scots attending universities outside Scotland, because they, too, are prejudiced—in terms of some of the quite extreme language which has been used at times in this debate. For them, there is a system that is different from that for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland when they choose to study at a university outside Scotland. I referred to the legal advice that we received that day when I said in the Scottish Parliament:
“We wished to treat all Scots the same, but a significant problem was drawn to our attention. Members have asked for the legal advice and I will try to be helpful on that point … Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union prohibits discrimination on the ground of nationality against nationals of other EU states. The imposition of fees on students who are students of other member states as a condition of access would amount to discrimination if the fees were not imposed on nationals of the host member state … We had to consider whether we, in Scotland, as part of the UK member state, could provide that Scots—who for this purpose would be regarded as UK nationals—did not pay tuition fees in the rest of the UK. Given the risks of challenge by other EU nationals and based on the best advice available, we produced the proposals that are before us today”.
In other words, if we had funded Scottish students to attend universities in England, Wales or Northern Ireland without payment of tuition fees, to put them on a level playing field with other students in Scotland, the Scottish Government could have been held liable to fund the tuition fees of all EU nationals from outside the rest of the UK who attended universities in the rest of the UK. This is a complex and difficult problem created, in many ways, by the EU legislation. “Change your lawyers”, I hear from the Bench in front in me, but we were given that advice by some very senior lawyers, one of whom is present on the Opposition Bench today—a noble and learned lawyer. We came up with what were called the Quigley principles—how many people remember them? It was all about creating some sort of level playing field. I am not going to get into the rather offensive language of ethnic cleansing or use the word “swamping”. We simply wanted to stop a surge in demand—a disruption of the system that currently allows over 20,000 students from the rest of the UK to study in Scotland. That is a significant number of students, it has been a pretty stable number of students and it has only stayed stable because we have managed to maintain a level playing field. We were given legal advice that this was the only legal way to do it—that quotas would not be acceptable.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Did the noble Lord think of looking at what happens in Ireland? Ireland has free tuition fees; students cross the border from Northern Ireland to attend Irish universities and are treated in exactly the same way. What is the difficulty with replicating exactly that with Scotland?
Lord Stephen
I can only repeat that we were given very clear legal advice that that would not be possible. As I understand it, that was the best legal advice of the UK Civil Service. If that advice has changed, I am sure that Ministers in both London and Scotland would be interested to receive it.
Baroness Brinton
Perhaps I may assist my noble friend by reminding the Chamber that the EU advice is about a member state. Under the definition of a member state, Eire, Ireland, is one state; Northern Ireland is different. That is why the rules are different.
Lord Stephen
Based on the legal advice we were given, we had to come forward with a pragmatic solution. That was to increase the fees to students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not above what students were paying to attend their own universities. It was to maintain the principle of equality among those students, if you like to look upon it that way. That is a very different situation from that which has been described this evening.
It all started in 2000 and was introduced in 2001. When fees went up due to the decision of the then Government in 2006, we had to introduce a different system. My colleague at the time, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and I were First Minister and Deputy First Minister respectively. There was pretty much cross-party consensus that that was the right thing to do. English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students pay their fees personally, normally through the Student Loans Company or through local authority funding arrangements. However, an important point that has not been mentioned this evening is that payment for tuition in Scotland has, until now, been topped up by the Scottish Government to the tune of about £5,000 per annum for each and every English, Welsh and Northern Ireland student attending university in Scotland.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
The noble Lord assures us that there was interparty discussion within Scotland about these things. Was there any intergovernmental discussion and, if not, why not? I fear that that is what is lacking at the moment.
Lord Stephen
I agree with the noble Lord. The answer is that there was not enough intergovernmental discussion because the UK Government were entirely hostile to the notion that tuition fees should be removed for Scottish students. Their hostility was made known to us on more than one occasion. They were unhappy with what was proposed in Scotland.
Scottish students had their fees paid by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and then, separately, the £5,000 payment from the funding council was given for their tuition. In other words, until now, English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students were part of the cap as well as Scottish students. It is important to make that point.
We introduced that pragmatic solution to a potentially major problem, which could have scuppered the proposal to get rid of tuition fees in Scotland. I have to say that many of my colleagues in the Labour Party, my friends whom I worked with in coalition, subsequently said that it was one of their proudest boasts, their proudest achievements through the Scottish Parliament to get rid of tuition fees in Scotland. It was certainly one of mine. As I said, back in 2000, we were disappointed with the legal advice that we were given at the time and wished that it were different. If it can be changed, let us change it.
The bigger question, in my view, is the one mooted by more than one noble Lord this evening: if Scotland were to be independent, how would the Scottish Government tackle the legal situation? It would be difficult to understand how they could legally respond to the challenges I have described. Free tuition would then have to be offered to all EU students, including those from Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. We have not heard a response from the SNP on that issue.
The situation now is that English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students are being moved outside the cap. That is another important point. The funding from students will now be sufficient to remove the need for a contribution from the funding council. Why is that? Self-evidently, because fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been allowed to increase so much. There will now be the £9,000 per year limit, so English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students will be in the same position as international students, who have always been discriminated against—if that is the language we wish to use. They will be put in the same position as international students, but with a cap of £9,000 per year.
In my view, the preferred solution would be to remove tuition fees across the whole of the UK. That would work equally well in tackling the problem— removing it, to use a political phrase, at a stroke. The policy was never to fund all EU students. That is not what we wished to do; that was what the legal advice drove us to do.
Lord Sewel
The noble Lord has given us a detailed exposition of the funding difficulties. Perhaps he could carry that a little further in terms of what he thinks the effect on the Barnett formula would be if the Scottish Funding Council funded only Scottish-domiciled students.
Lord Stephen
As I understand it, there would be no effect on the Barnett formula, so the £85 million per year currently spent on the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students to attend universities in Scotland would become available to the Scottish Government as those funding arrangements changed. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, looks incredulous at that, but that is my understanding.
To finish, different policies for different parts of the UK so that different people, including students, can be treated differently sounds to me pretty much what decentralising power, devolution, is all about. It is surely the responsibility of those elected to the Scottish Parliament to introduce new ideas and new policies. What we found deeply uncomfortable was the notion that you could discriminate within a member state but not between member states. That seems nonsense, but I know of no other way to tackle it based on the legal advice and the pragmatic solution that we have chosen. Let us be honest, this is hardly a burning issue of major importance in the reaction of students and families across the UK, because we still have ready access through our pragmatic solutions for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students to universities in Scotland and we continue to have Scots attending universities outside Scotland.
Lord Flight
Does the noble Lord agree that among those English students who are at Scottish universities and who are having to borrow money and build up their loans, there is quite a degree of resentment that their Scottish friends do not have that burden? To argue that this has no impact is candidly wrong.
Lord Stephen
I would argue very strongly that the difference is based on the different policy approaches that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have introduced to the funding of students and tuition fees. I repeat: I do not see that an English, Welsh or Northern Ireland student studying in Scotland is in a different position from that same student studying in their home country. To that extent, they are treated broadly equally.
I would much prefer that we had no tuition fees in universities across the UK, but, in conclusion, I am very pleased that there continue to be no tuition fees for Scottish students in Scotland.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
There seems to be a new Scottish excuse running around. It seems to affect Rangers Football Club, the Scottish Football Association and the noble Lord, Lord Stephen: “That was the legal advice we got and it seemed all right at the time”. We as Scots have enjoyed a degree of financial support for a variety of reasons through the Barnett formula from the whole of the United Kingdom. It can be argued that from some of the nations of the United Kingdom there has been a degree of grudging of those payments, but the grudging might well have been set alongside the gratitude for having opportunities to benefit from Scottish institutions—in the case of this evening’s debate, not art galleries, such as the superb ones we now enjoy in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but the universities, which are just as important a part of our social and cultural heritage in the United Kingdom as a whole.
It must be recognised that we are talking here about something that is fundamental to the unity of the United Kingdom. There is access to institutions of higher education on the basis that it is available to all—although financially no longer free, which is an argument for another day. However, three sections of the United Kingdom are being discriminated against, yet the taxpayers within those parts of the United Kingdom are contributing to these institutions.
We have been told this evening of a tsunami of English students coming to Scottish universities—the word “tsunami” sometimes slips far too easily off the tongue; sometimes you forget that it has a “t” at the beginning—but that is probably unlikely. However, we might have a slightly different social composition of the youngsters who would be coming up to Scotland. This is because of the fact that they have to pay fees and that they have to pay what are almost the equivalent of London rental prices for student accommodation in a city such as Edinburgh, where there is tremendous pressure. In addition, as has been suggested, some parents are able to achieve Scottish domiciliary status by a bit of shrewd property investment, which, by the end of the four years their kids have been at the university, will more than repay them for the outlays that they made four years previously.
There is a degree of naivety here. We know that Scottish universities will have to face financial problems. Some of us might have known more about this had we been sent briefing notes, but, perhaps because of some of the speeches that we made in Committee, we were regarded as lost causes and it was decided that we were therefore not to benefit from them. We know that there are financial costs, but these are problems that, were there to be Scottish independence, which I do not want, would have to be confronted the first moment that the union jack came down and whatever it would be for Scotland—whether the lion rampant or the saltire—went up. Of course, this is why the silence from Salmond is so deafening, because he knows that this is the kind of issue that will have to be dealt with. What is more, our great Scottish institutions, which would suffer financially, are suffering already because of the manner in which the funding arrangements have been arrived at. We know that they are not getting the resources that they require.
If this were just a question of finance, resource and discrimination, we could have debates about that, but there is an irony here. Not every youngster who is Scottish and pursuing a degree-level course gets free education. If a youngster attends a further education college and is doing a level 5 or 6 technical qualification, which is to all intents and purposes equivalent to a degree, they have to pay their fees. Their fees are not paid from the largesse of the Scottish Government. There is no social justice to people having to pay to pursue vocational courses that, as some would argue, are even more valuable for the lifeblood of the Scottish economy than perhaps some other courses that are rather more interesting but not necessarily more economically relevant in the immediate short term.
I make that point because there is an inconsistency here—inconsistencies have been identified in a number of categories this evening. We may simply accept the argument that this is an example of gross discrimination, which is basically unfair and which is unsettling for the United Kingdom, and that it would be in everyone’s interests to look towards a renegotiation of the settlement. We are not arguing that universities be bankrupted overnight. We are not suggesting that they be swamped with students coming northward—students who, from what we can gather, would be coming not in buses but in their own sports cars and the like. All we are saying is that we have an opportunity this evening to confront an issue that threatens the unity of this kingdom. It requires us to look afresh and to use far more ingenuity rather than bureaucratic complaints or concerns about legal advice that may or may not have been appropriate at the time. We now have to recognise that within a different political context we need to have a degree of agility that involves negotiation and understanding on both sides. This amendment this evening would go no small way towards trying to achieve that.
Lord Empey
My Lords, in many respects it is a pity that the legislation to which this amendment applies this evening is not a UK-wide piece of legislation, because that, quite frankly, is the only way that we will fix this. We are suffering from the fact that we forwent some time ago a unitary state with a central Government. I have to declare that I was responsible for, among other things, further and higher education for three and a half years until 18 months ago and was therefore very much aware of these issues. The Scottish Government and Parliament, in their wisdom, decided to have free tuition fees. In Northern Ireland, we had the same rate as applied in England. However, the new Assembly has decided to depart from that parity arrangement and now students coming to Northern Ireland from England and other parts of the United Kingdom will pay the higher fee. I regret that; had I remained in post it would not have been my intention to have kept that arrangement, but nevertheless that is where it is. I understand that there are similar arrangements in Wales, whereby the Welsh, too, have frozen their fee or have a lower fee than would be applicable in England.
For me, the issue concerning devolution is this. We already see anomalies. Prescription charges are one, higher education is another and of course there are others, and there will be more. However, what sticks in the craw in this case is the fact that somebody from Bratislava can come in but somebody from Scunthorpe cannot—or at least they cannot get the same treatment. I have no difficulty with devolved regions being entitled to pursue their own policies when Whitehall and this Parliament give them the authority to spend their block grant as they see fit within the law. I speak as someone who for many years had that opportunity and spent money in different departments, and I am sure that many statues of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will be erected in towns and villages all over the place. The Barnett formula worked; we were permitted to spend the money and that was the whole point of devolution. However, the issue for me is the severe difficulty faced by 25 per cent of our students who have to leave Northern Ireland because there are no places for them. We have sent thousands of students to Scotland. In fact, at the peak the number of students involved was effectively sufficient to keep a university going. Therefore, this is something that we feel acutely.
In Northern Ireland I implemented the MaSN—maximum annual student number—cap as a way of controlling higher education expenditure. We set a limit on the number of students that our budget would allow us to support, and that MaSN cap would be altered from to time if we were able to find more money. We did that on several occasions to raise the number of students whom we could accommodate.
This Bill is not the vehicle to resolve this problem but it does perhaps provide us with an opportunity to send a signal. When he replies, I should like the Minister to say whether he is going to consult his ministerial colleagues in government to establish whether they will be able to deal with this discrimination in the United Kingdom. It is very hard to cope with the fact that somebody from Dublin goes to a university within the United Kingdom and is treated in one way but somebody from Belfast going to the same university is treated differently. That is the issue for me.
I fully support the right of a devolved Administration in Edinburgh to choose its higher education policy. I did it, so I cannot deny the opportunity to others. However, the question is how we deal with this conundrum. The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, mentioned the legal advice that he was given, and I understand the rationale behind that. We had difficulties with students coming across the border for further education. We had to ensure that they did not pay higher fees than our indigenous students, so we experienced almost a reversal of this situation. It is perfectly proper for devolved regions to choose their policies in areas such as the payment of prescription fees—if that is how they spend their money, that is fine—but the question for me is whether it is right and proper to treat an EU citizen from England differently from an EU citizen from Scotland. That is the basic question, but it will not be entirely resolved by this amendment because it is a UK-wide issue.
Foreign students are a totally different ball game. They are cultivated because they can pay their fees, and all universities run after them to get the money and keep their coffers topped up, but the fact is that foreign students are not UK taxpayers. That is the big difference. They make no contribution whatever to the building up or long-term maintenance of our institutions, whereas UK taxpayers will continue to do so. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, that I understand the difference of opinion that he has with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, and he is probably right in many respects because there is a difference, but people accept it because foreign students do not contribute to our taxes. The Government need to deal with this matter at a UK level. I should be very interested to know whether the Minister is going to discuss it with his colleagues, what discussions they have had already and what long-term solutions he envisages.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, as a predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as Minister for Education in Northern Ireland, I was very aware of the number of Northern Ireland students who went to Scotland for their education and, indeed, stayed in Scotland or in the UK generally as a result. I was left with the lasting impression that education is a UK-wide initiative. In a globalised world where the transfer of wealth and economic power is going from west to east, we have to keep the integrity of the UK education system, but I fear that we are losing it with the current situation in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and Scottish universities have made the point about the stability of the system. In particular, cross-border student flow is given at 24,000 students from England applying to Scottish universities, which could cause chaos for 2013. That is a legitimate argument, but the main issue here is the actions of the Scottish Funding Council, which in a letter in December last year said that £27.8 million was going to be taken off Scottish universities. In the next four years, the sum will be more than £100 million. That is not a capricious act on the part of the Scottish Funding Council; it is because the Scottish Government have stated that that is the case. That will decrease the teaching grants as well as the quality of student experience at Scottish universities.
We are facing a crisis at the present time and it is appropriate for us to debate this. If we were only debating Amendment 1A, then I would not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others. However, we have Amendment 59, which is giving us a year’s grace. Frankly, the Scottish Government are having their cake and eating it. This amendment should be saying to them: “You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want to provide quality education, then you have to be honest about it”. A dishonest conversation has taken place in Scotland and there is a narrow, introspective approach to education where there should be an inclusive, global approach. If we are making a plea for anything tonight, it is to be honest in our debate and ensure that we will look at the UK as a whole and keep the integrity of the UK education system, so that we have a more prosperous country with increased skills which can accept and face up to the challenges of globalisation in the years ahead. We should not run backwards, as, sadly, I think is happening in Scotland at the moment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, in opening my contribution to this debate, I am tempted to repeat what other Members have said and express my frustration and disappointment that, once again in dealing with this Bill, we have been deprived of a substantial amount of the time that was planned for debating it. In the interest of time, however, I do not intend to go into that in too much detail, other than to say that the frustration that all noble Lords feel about this, and have repeated almost every day of the Bill’s deliberations, is exacerbated by the fact that it now appears that it was all unnecessary because we have managed to add a week to the Recess.
We understood that this was because time was limited and we would lose the Bill if we did not do certain things before certain dates. Managing that against the challenge of trying to find time for the Government to make their position clear about the way forward on a referendum for Scotland, and allowing that to feed into our deliberations, caused me to go along with some of that inconvenience. Now we discover that it was all unnecessary because we can add a week to our Recess. Much of this could have been done on the other side of the Recess. I say that with deep regret. I excuse, once again, the noble and learned Lord from any responsibility for this because I suspect that it came as much of a surprise to him as it did to the rest of us that we could have an extra week’s Recess and that this week was not precious and necessary for the conclusion of the Government’s business. The reason for that is that the decision about the Recess dates is entirely within the gift of the Government and was not, and cannot be, discussed in the usual channels. I deeply regret that we are in this position because it appears it was all unnecessary.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. We had the advantage of debating at length a similar amendment on the second day in Committee. I intend, by reference to that debate, to shorten my remarks. I support devolution. I even support the asymmetric devolution we have in the United Kingdom; I am not a federalist in that sense. Devolution is an incomplete process and it is for the people of the regions of England to decide when they are ready for it. There is quite significant devolution across these islands, including substantial devolution to those who run this great city of London. Of course, one of the consequences of devolution is that there will be different policies and different consequences as a result of those policies across the United Kingdom. If that makes people feel uncomfortable, they should not support devolution. However, those of us who support it are prepared to live with that.
When we debated this last time we established that, with the possible exception of rights of audience for the legal profession, there is only one example of the practice of discrimination as a consequence of separate policies, and that is the issue which is concentrating our minds today. The practice of discrimination appears to apply only to the funding of higher education student fees. It is for that reason that this is such a significant issue and why it has attracted the interest of the House. The need for a resolution to it appears to have captured the imagination of noble Lords. In Committee we had the benefit of a contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, which he has augmented today. Also, the Minister set out in detail the history of how differential fees came about and how long they have been in existence.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
That is the point: it has got worse. It has got worse now after 11 years and the answer appears to be that we will impose a solution by amending the Scotland Bill because we have the Scotland Bill before us. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, shakes his head. I am sure that is not what he intends but that is what we are doing. From what I can gather having listened carefully to what noble Lords have contributed, those who were involved in decision-making and those who have been party to the process, we are doing this without any attempt to try to get what a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others, have called for, which is a discussion across the United Kingdom to see if we can resolve this issue. Everyone’s briefing appears to be that we have been put into this position because of the activities of others and these are the consequences.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, made an important point in his speech which I do not think is appreciated. We have been using the term fees but there are two issues here: one is fees and the other is the teaching grant. The fees have been of the order of £1,800 per head; the teaching grant has been £5,800. I understand the noble Lord’s problem in that he feels that his colleagues may have played a part, but when the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, and his Labour colleagues decided on this, the issue was the fees of £1,800. The £5,800 per place taken by rest of UK students has been paid every year up until now. It is only next year that that money is being taken away. That is the £28 million that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is discussing.
The Scottish Government have changed the position and the numbers are very much larger. They have used opportunistically the position where students are going to have to pay high fees in England to turn the rest of the UK students into a cash cow for the universities. That is where the change has occurred and why my noble friend Lord Steel says it has got much worse.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I appreciate that it has got much worse but the catalyst was a similar action by the coalition Government in that in England they transferred the burden from the public purse to the student. It was a similar action. This is not the place to debate whether student fees in a particular place are right. In the context of devolution, the debate is about whether it is appropriate for your Lordships’ House to impose on the Scottish Parliament an obligation, or a restriction, on a power that they have been exercising in a particular way for the best part of 10 years, when no attempt has been made to have a serious cross-UK discussion about the situation to see whether it can be resolved.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am not going to argue that ultimately this Parliament can decide anything it wishes in relation to any part of the United Kingdom. I certainly would not argue that because I respect devolution and was a great advocate for it. Could my noble friend deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, about discrimination. Discrimination is still a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament—it is a reserved area—and is it not overwhelmingly an issue of discrimination that has been raised today?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am happy to deal with that point, but I will deal with it directly by responding to my noble friend on this issue. My noble friend was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for four years, during all of which time the Executive of that Parliament had the differential fee. I am not aware of my noble friend at any stage during his time in that Parliament raising this issue as one of discrimination against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland or suggesting that something should be done—where the power lay, and where it was created.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I shall answer my noble friend’s question and I hope that he will answer mine. It never came up specifically as an issue. My noble friend needs to take account of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that we are talking about an issue entirely different in scale. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, said in relation to the National Gallery of Scotland—can you imagine that gallery saying, “Are you Scottish? You can come in free”. If the gallery had then asked an English person to pay £1, they might have said, “Okay, it’s only £1”. But imagine that they were asked for £10, £20 or £30—that is the kind of scale that we are talking about. It would be entirely wrong, and this is the same principle. It is discrimination.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
It is discrimination, but I do not think that a little discrimination is any better than a lot of discrimination. The fact of the matter is that there has been discrimination for 10 years, and we have established in this debate that no serious attempt has been made across the United Kingdom to deal with it.
I will deal directly with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk. There is an argument, and I am attracted by it, that we reserved to this Parliament the right to deal with issues of discrimination and that, as a matter of law, we can deal with it here. I am not learned enough in the law in this area to know whether that is so, but as a matter of law, in terms of devolution, we can deal with anything; we are the sovereign Parliament. We do not need to rely on the reserved area to claim our right to deal with it—we can deal with anything.
This is politics and we are doing this in the context of probably the greatest challenge that the union of the United Kingdom has faced in any of our lifetimes. Those of us who believe in this union are trying to manage a difficult political situation in which all of the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament have their DNA in this discrimination to some extent. I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, from that. We now decide in an entirely opportunistic way—encouraged, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, points out, by the nature and the scale of the discrimination—to deal with it by imposing these conditions.
And when do we do it? We do it at a time when a Government Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and say that they have just negotiated a legislative consent motion to deliver this Scotland Bill, which is the policy of all our parties after weeks if not months of negotiation. We are just at the point where we can do something that can ensure that all the negotiations and discussions are wasted. We are back to square one again, back into confrontation and back into giving those who lead the Scottish Government the script that they want: that the unelected House of Lords has told the people of Scotland what they can do. They will say, “They give us devolution with one hand and then take it away. They let us use it for 10 years and then, when we use it in a way that they don’t like, they take it away. That is exactly why we need to be independent of these people”. This is bad politics in my view.
There is a way forward. We should accept all of our responsibilities for the situation that has been created by the actions and the interactions of the Government at the UK level with the history that was left to the nationalists when they became the Scottish Government and the challenge that they faced in terms of university funding. We should sit down together and try to resolve the situation—not in the interests of whether we have the right to impose this but in the interests of the young people whom we want to live, work and be educated together for the benefit of the United Kingdom. That seems a much more sensible way of dealing with the situation, rather than trooping through the Lobbies tonight and making a point which will be to the detriment of the issue that most of us feel passionately about—the preservation of the union.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wonder if my noble friend could explain why I got a text saying, “Whip off”.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My noble friend is an experienced Member of this House and has been a Member of other parliaments. I understand this position, and I think that he should understand the position, too. The Opposition Benches are voting against this amendment. He is not obliged to vote.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, once again, as we did in Committee, we have had a passionate debate. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said in his closing comments, it has been a debate where clearly there is a strong emotional sense that what happens at the moment is not right. I want to salute my noble friend Lord Forsyth for the tenacity with which he has pursued this issue. I indicated in Committee that I certainly would reflect on the strong views expressed then. As I said, my officials and I have engaged with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and indeed with Universities Scotland. These are discussions to see if we could identify some way to resolve this problem rather than just accept an anomaly that we must live with, as my noble friend Lord Vallance said.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, I realise that it is normal to intervene towards the end of a Minister’s remarks, but I think on this occasion it is rather more helpful to intervene at the beginning. What I would like to know is: when are we going to have the dinner break?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I probably share the noble Lord’s feelings on this. For that reason, I think it is only right that I do proper justice to the many comments that have been made; but I will try to do so as concisely as possible so that we can proceed. I accept and I have heard again the strictures that have been made about the timing.
As was expressed very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, today we are debating an issue caused by the fact that higher education is devolved across the United Kingdom.
This UK Parliament is responsible for higher education in England, in Scotland the Scottish Government are responsible, in Wales the Welsh Assembly has responsibility and in Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Executive has responsibility. All four countries in the UK have chosen to fund higher education in different ways. Because of EU law, and my noble friends Lord Stephen and Lady Brinton have both explained the limitations of what is permitted under EU law, non-UK EU students in universities in the UK are entitled to the same financial support regarding tuition fees as local students. We recognise, and perhaps this is common ground, that our challenge is to ensure access to university education and to ensure the quality of that education.
A point that I should make at the beginning, and I will deal with this in a little more detail as I proceed, is that English students attending Scottish universities should be no worse off than English students attending English universities as a result of the present arrangements. The latest figures from UCAS at 21 February this year, compared with the same date a year earlier, show that as a proportion of the total number of applicants so far, prospective English students have not been put off from applying to Scottish universities. In both years, 5 per cent of the total population of applicants have applied to a Scottish university. That is a circumstance where the English students are aware that they would be no worse off if they choose to attend a university in Scotland than if they went to a university in another part of the UK.
I do not want to open this up into a wider debate on tuition fees but the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated that part of the Scottish Government’s response to the UK Government deciding that, to ensure the long-term sustainability of higher education, tuition fees were to be increased was that the Scottish Government had decided to fund undergraduate tuition fees for Scottish students and directly fund Scottish universities, which are therefore able to charge students from the rest of the UK up to £9,000 a year. This means that attending university in Scotland, as I have said, should be no more expensive per year for an English student than for an English student attending a university in England. Indeed, as university courses in Scotland are typically four years long, many Scottish universities have committed to charging students from the rest of the UK a maximum of £27,000 for a four-year course—the same as the maximum fee that students would pay for a three-year course in England.
The fee, however, is only one part of the equation of student finance. The universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews, which have not capped for a four-year course, have both committed to providing generous bursaries to students from the rest of the UK. Little has been said in today’s debates about that aspect of student finance. Edinburgh University is offering bursaries of up to £7,000 a year to the least well-off English students, which they can use either to reduce their fees or to help them with their living costs. St Andrews University will be topping up support for all English students who qualify for a maintenance grant so that they will receive no less than £7,500 a year in total government and bursary support.
That is why I do not recognise what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said about only the very rich paying up-front fees. It is not a question of up-front fees; for English students in England or Scotland, the loans that cover the fees do not start to be repaid until they are earning at least £21,000 a year.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
How many students are likely to benefit from these awards? The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has already made the point about the generosity of the Edinburgh settlement, but what we have not heard today is how many students will be eligible to apply and therefore benefit from such a generous scheme, which I freely acknowledge it is.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I cannot give the full figures at the moment but the position is that all Scottish universities have announced their proposed fees for the rest of the United Kingdom, and the average per annum is £6,841. Work undertaken by Universities Scotland and accepted by NUS Scotland shows that this drops to an estimated £6,270 fee after means-tested bursary support is accounted for. In England, the average per-annum fee is £8,470, dropping to £7,815 when fee waivers, bursaries and student support are taken into account. Over the totality, the average in Scotland is certainly less. Universities Scotland has indicated that the average fee paid by students in receipt of means-tested bursaries—an estimated 4,281 students based on current populations—would be £4,262. Many will pay significantly less than this, with around 25 per cent of all English students studying in Scotland expected to benefit. That is an indication of the average. When one takes bursaries and fee waivers into account for English students studying in Scotland, it would be less than would be the case for English students studying in England.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am grateful to the Minister for the breadth of his answer. But he did not actually answer the question I wanted: the number of students. It is 25 per cent of how many? I realise that it is a considerable improvement and a generous offer, but we still need to know what the numbers are. We know that three times as many students coming to Scotland will not be getting any of these generous endowments, but the other 75 per cent do not need them.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the figures for each university institution. One does not really know until the applications are in and turned into acceptances. However, I hope that I have indicated that the average will be less in Scotland, taking into account bursaries. It is also important to point out that the United Kingdom Government provide support to English students. Some may say that it is more generous than the support provided to Scottish students by the Scottish Government in terms of living support. In that situation, English students are entitled to a loan for the full cost of their tuition fees, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they study. This loan is not repayable until students have left university and are earning over £21,000, and even then, at only 9 per cent of earnings over £21,000.
To help with living costs, English students are also entitled to a maintenance loan of up to £5,500 and a grant of up to £3,250. All students are entitled to a loan of at least £3,575 regardless of their household income; and English students will receive a larger amount of maintenance grant compared to Scottish students with the same household income. So if one accepts my noble friend’s amendment in terms of fees, the concern would be that you can equalise fees, but would still have a considerable disparity in student finance and funding. That is because of the more generous arrangements that the United Kingdom Government have made for English students as compared with the arrangements the Scottish Government have made for Scottish students.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that students from England would be burdened by substantial debts because they came to a Scottish university. However, the truth is that they would have no greater debt—and arguably a lesser debt—coming to a Scottish university than they would if they went to one in England. That is a relevant point. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, acknowledged the fact that bursaries had been made available.
We have tried to look at the possible outcomes of my noble friend’s amendment and we have identified three. First, Scottish universities could begin charging tuition fees to European Union students. We believe that this would be a breach of European Union law and could place the United Kingdom, as a member state, in danger of infraction proceedings. Secondly, Scottish universities could charge Scottish students and therefore also EU students, tuition fees. Thirdly, Scottish universities could stop charging tuition fees to students from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend has indicated which one of the three he favours. I do not think that anyone has actually suggested that we breach European Union law, although the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that at the heart of that is where the problem lies. If one accepts a devolution settlement across the United Kingdom, it will produce different outcomes in different places.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that there is no way, under European treaties, that a country can be forced to pay a European Union fine?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not going to embark on a lengthy debate on the pros and cons of the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said—as did many noble Lords who have contributed to this debate—the problem is that if a student comes from Scunthorpe they are charged a fee; if they come from Bratislava they are not. I am certainly prepared to look at whether that European Union problem can be addressed, but I do not to wish to raise any expectation or hope that it can be. It is a piece of legislation that is very firmly in the European Union rules and directives. The Scottish Government have indicated they want to examine it and I am sure we would be prepared to examine it along with them, but I say that without offering a hope that it is likely to be changed.
My noble friend clearly indicated that his preference would be for Scottish universities not to charge students from any part of the United Kingdom. It is our view that that would not be financially sustainable. My noble friend suggested that it would be £24 million in the first year, but of course as one year succeeded another that would be a cumulative amount. The United Kingdom Government have come to the decision that in order to guarantee the long-term financial stability of universities, it is necessary to require students to make a greater contribution to the cost of their higher education. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Scottish Government to fund free higher education for students from all parts of the United Kingdom, and in the long term it would be damaging to Scottish universities and their ability to compete with other universities in the UK and worldwide, which potentially have much greater financial resources available to them.
Lord Empey
As I said earlier, the issue for me is not the minutiae of the individual operation of devolution in each region—even though we are on the Scotland Bill and the amendment specifically applies to Scotland—it is that there is a difference in treatment between a non-UK EU citizen and a UK EU citizen. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that he will speak to his ministerial colleagues and perhaps come back to us at a later stage? The issue of how many bursaries we are getting and so on is missing the point. We are not here to examine the entrails of higher education funding in the regions; we are trying to deal with the feeling in the House that we do not like this idea of UK students being treated in this way as opposed to EU students, when UK students are UK students. That is the issue.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hope that I represented what the noble Lord said, that that is the point, and that is why there is such concern. It is a point that my noble friend Lord Stephen made with regard to the strong misgivings that the Scottish Executive had back in 2000 in having to go down this course. It had to acknowledge that if we went down this course of free tuition fees for Scottish-domiciled students attending Scottish universities, the consequence would be that students from European Union countries attending Scottish universities would have to be treated on the same basis. In Committee, I said that I was then a Member of the Scottish Government and that although it was not something we particularly wanted to do, it was a consequence that we had to accept, however reluctantly, if we wished to bring in a policy of free tuition for Scottish-domiciled students.
I indicated that I am more than willing to look at whether there is a way of resolving this at a European Union level but I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord or the House into believing that there is a realistic prospect of that happening, certainly before Third Reading. It is something that is so deep within the relevant directive that it would be a significant mountain to climb—although I know my noble friend Lord Forsyth is quite good at climbing significant mountains.
Lord Empey
I was not expecting to resolve it at an EU level. I am asking whether we can try to resolve it at a UK level. It is in the UK that this differential has arisen.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood the point. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, also made the point about some sort of pan-UK discussion on this. I will ensure that that proposal is taken up by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We will certainly relay it to the department, which will undoubtedly be in contact on an official level on a number of issues with those who deal with higher education in the devolved Administrations. Again, however, I should flag up the scale of the challenge of making progress if there is even one Administration who want free tuition and say that they will not change that until the rocks “melt with the sun”—I think that that was the quote. It is a reasonable request that that pan-UK discussion should take place.
Lord Wills
My Lords, as an Englishman, I was not going to contribute to this debate. However, having listened to it all, and listened to the Minister’s response, I wonder if he could give the House an indication of whether he understands the damage that this situation is doing to the union. Does he understand that that is perhaps the most fundamental challenge at stake here?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I understand that there is a serious issue here. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated, if we end up telling the Scottish Parliament what to do—my noble friend Lord Forsyth says that that is not what his amendment says but I think that, de facto, that is what it would lead to—that would be a serious position for the union, and it would undermine the whole devolution settlement. That is why I find this a difficult issue.
I think that my noble friend has, as the noble Lord said, totally underestimated the number of students who would seek to apply to Scottish universities. It only stands to reason that if you can get free tuition at the St Andrews university but would have to pay £9,000 at Durham, you are more likely to apply to St Andrews. The notion of quotas has never been particularly welcomed.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I wonder whether the Minister remembers when this argument was last put forward. On that occasion we were, perhaps unusually, on opposite sides of the argument. I was recommending a form of care for the elderly, wrongly categorised as free, and one of the counterarguments was that there would be a—they did not use the word then—tsunami of pensioners crossing the border to Scotland. I think that it would have been more of a steady trickle which grew. It did not happen, although it was claimed that it would.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it is too easy to dismiss the possibility of it happening. It is probably much easier for a student to choose which university he or she would wish to attend than for a pensioner completely to up sticks and settle in a different part of the United Kingdom. I think, with respect, that the noble Lord is not comparing like with like. However, I do recall that when tuition fees were first significantly increased by the then United Kingdom Government, around 2003 or 2004, the then Scottish Government had to respond to it. There were very clear signs that if the Scottish Parliament did not respond to it—and my noble friend Lord Stephen has indicated that it happened again in 2006—there would be an increase.
I should like to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, that I strongly believe that part of the richness of university education—one of its great pluses—is that it includes people from all different backgrounds. Universities in Scotland would certainly take the view that it is important that there should continue to be students not just from other parts of the United Kingdom but from other parts of the European Union and from around the world. That adds to the richness of a university education. They seek to achieve a manageable flow of students from the rest of the United Kingdom which would ensure the long-term stability of universities in Scotland.
Lord Sewel
I thank the Minister for giving way. I put it to him that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has spoken for virtually the whole House in explaining the deep bitterness that people feel about the EU anomaly. In discussions with the First Minister, has the Minister or any of his colleagues pointed out to the First Minister that if he was successful in achieving his primary political policy objective, which is independence, then all these arguments would fall away? There would be the opportunity for English domiciled students to go to Scotland and there would be no way in which a Scottish Parliament would be able to impose a differential fee. Has the Minister pointed that out to the First Minister?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I have not pointed it out personally but, frankly, it is not the best argument for the case that the noble Lord has been prosecuting. He certainly does not wish to see an independent Scotland; neither does my noble friend Lord Forsyth or anyone who has spoken in this debate. The argument that this will all be the consequence of an independent Scotland is perhaps one argument for why we should resist an independent Scotland.
Lord Sewel
I just hoped that there was at least the glimmer and possibility of consistency.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not sure that I follow that. What about the consistency of Mr Salmond’s position? I have to answer for a number of things in your Lordships’ House but, fortunately, I do not have to answer for Mr Salmond.
I agree with the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has encapsulated what the problem is. There are differential solutions around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland charges £9,000—so simply to adopt this amendment would not solve the problem across the country. I do not believe that the Bill is the right place to address this. I have indicated that we are prepared to look at the European Union dimension and that we are more than willing to engage with the different Administrations. I just do not want to suggest to your Lordships’ House that this matter can be resolved easily; it would be wrong to suggest that. Even if one does not accept the word “tsunami”, the consequences, which could include a complete disruption of the Scottish higher education system, are sufficiently uncertain for it not to be a risk that we can take. Even allowing for one year’s grace, the problems would still arise in subsequent years. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken in a very interesting debate. Given the lateness of the hour, I am sure noble Lords do not want me to respond to all the points or to repeat any of the arguments. I am very impressed by the argument from the Labour Party’s Front Bench that if something has been going on for 10 years, you should keep it. That seems a very conservative point of view to me.
In all the arguments about the practicalities and difficulties, all of which can be addressed and overcome, the overriding issue here is one of fairness. Why did I table this amendment? I spent a week at St Andrews. I went there nearly 40 years ago and I have to say that the students now are much harder working and much more focused than they were in my day. They are absolutely outraged by what is happening to them. Those students have a much tougher time ahead of them than any of us in this House had when we left university. We owe it to them to address this problem.
I was not sure whether I would have to press this matter to a vote tonight. However, I have to say to my noble and learned friend that we debated this in Committee, when I urged him to raise it with the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Perhaps this was said in confidence and I should not repeat it, but one of his ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office called me today to say, “How can we help you with the Scotland Bill?”. I said, “You can help me by accepting my amendment, or at least giving some commitment. What is your position on student fees?”. He said, “We’re waiting to see what the strength of opinion is”. On that basis, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, may I tell the House that we shall not be having the Statement and suggest that Report should begin again not earlier than 10.25 pm?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I would like to protest at what is being proposed. It is quite ridiculous that on a Bill of this importance we should be asked to come back. We now have the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which will take us to nearly 10.30 pm. It cannot seriously be proposed that we should continue from 10.30 pm until we get to Amendment 26, as it says on the Order Paper, from 10.30 pm. I gave notice that I was going to object when this Motion was moved. I gave notice several hours ago that we wanted to hear from the Government about what they proposed to do with the rest of Report.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, something has clearly gone wrong in the transmission because I was not aware that my noble friend was going to make that comment. I know that all those taking part in debate on the Scotland Bill consider it important, as does the rest of the House that may be listening to it. It is a usual channels agreement that the Bill will be concluded by the end of Wednesday evening. We discussed this earlier and that commitment remains. There will be a discussion later among the usual channels about what progress should be made tonight. I am aware that we have just taken two hours on one amendment. That was an amendment very dear to the hearts of those who took part in it, but the overall time allocated to Report was agreed and the intention is to keep to the agreement that Report should be concluded at the end of the Wednesday sitting. As I say, we will shortly be discussing in the usual channels what the last amendment to be considered tonight shall be.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this Bill has been treated abominably at all stages. On one occasion all of us sat around all day—afternoon and evening—while the welfare Bill went on and on and on. We were led to believe by the government Chief Whip that the Scotland Bill would be taken that day. Then we were told summarily: “You can go, off you go”, as if it was of little concern that the Bill was being dealt with in such a way. It is outrageous. We were then told that we would have the day’s debate today. When did we start? Not until the evening, after a very substantial, albeit important, debate. I am not saying that the debates that took place earlier were not important—but so is the Scotland Bill. It is outrageous that we should be dealt with in such a way.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord is good at perorations. I will simply keep to the facts. I had intended that the Scotland Bill should start today, as first business. The Opposition decided that they wished to have the other debates before it. The House therefore had those debates. I agree that the Scotland Bill was very much disaccommodated by this. It might be convenient if the House were able to listen to me. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, likes interventions, but I wish to conclude what I am saying, which is that it was very difficult on the first day for those waiting for the Scotland Bill because of the time taken by the Welfare Reform Bill. I object to the implication—the clear indication, in fact—that I cared nothing for the Scotland Bill that day. I did care, and we found another date for the Scotland Bill. It is the view of the usual channels that we should continue with this. If the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wishes to say more he can, but it is a courtesy in this House to let one Member finish speaking before the next gets up.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The government Chief Whip says that I like interventions. It was I who was speaking and she who intervened. This is the way that we have been treated all the way through the Bill. Over the weekend, I found out that we were going to have an extra week of recess. In that week we could have carried out proper consideration of the Bill. As was pointed out earlier, we did not have the proper time between Committee and Report. We are being treated abominably and it is absolutely disgraceful. The government Chief Whip should realise that it is not the Opposition's responsibility to programme business in this House; it is the Government’s responsibility and it is her responsibility, and she should take the blame as well as the credit.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I suggest that the valuable time of the House would be better used by allowing me to have my dinner break debate and then using such time as is left at noble Lords’ discretion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I certainly do not want to impose on the patience of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I must say to my noble friend the Chief Whip that her treatment of Members of this House is becoming very difficult to defend. I watch noble Lords’ facial expressions. We were promised a full day on Report after Committee finished in the middle of last week. We had to struggle to table amendments. We were promised a full day today and a full day on Wednesday.
The next amendment, Amendment 2, is mine, which I am expected to speak to at 10.20 pm. If we are to get to Amendment 26, we will be here until the early hours of the morning. There is plenty of time on Wednesday to debate these matters, which are serious matters and deserve to be properly debated. It is true that we had a long debate on the previous set of amendments, but that was because many Members who had not been following our proceedings came in to speak because it affects their interests all over the United Kingdom. My noble friend is treating us very harshly indeed, and I do not believe that that is the best way to get the Government’s business on to the statute book.
Terezin Declaration: Holocaust Era Assets
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that fellow signatories to the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets fulfil the obligations of the Declaration in relation to the restitution of wrongfully seized property.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I start with a quote from Bazyler:
“Holocaust restitution is not about money. It is about victims. It is about individuals who have waited for over 60 years for something. Of course, it is not about perfect justice, but it is about waiting for some recognition to validate the misdeeds that have been perpetrated. . . Holocaust restitution is not only about the victims. It is also about those who victimized. It is about satisfying the need for a moral accounting regarding the horrific events of the second world war and some of the communist depradations thereafter”.
The trauma of human loss was so great that no discussion of material loss occurred for decades after the war. Only the Germans made reparations for about 50 years from 1945, to their credit. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communist regimes, not only did walls fall, but doors were opened to memories, to archives, to litigation and legislation, to honest property titles supported by law, to negotiation and to the facing up to the unresolved issues of the past. There is unfinished business, and sadly those most affected, the survivors, are now in their 90s, and for decades have been frustrated in their relatively modest aims. I feel a personal responsibility for them and for those for whom it is too late, and I declare an interest as a descendant of those from whom property was taken, although I am uncertain about title and the possibilities of claim because I have no way to ascertain ownership and sale.
There has been a series of conferences on restitution, culminating in the conference that resulted in the Terezin declaration, the 2009 Prague conference on holocaust era assets. Adopted by 47 countries, including the UK, the declaration called for participating states to meet the social and medical needs of the half a million survivors, of whom half are on the poverty line; it called for the restitution of wrongful property seizures, forced sales and sales under duress in the Nazi period; it called for the identification and restitution of cultural property seized by the Nazis; and it called for open access to archival material, the preservation of memorials and for measures to combat anti-Semitism.
In 2010, there was a follow-up conference, which produced guidelines relating to best practice in property restitution, the most intractable problem. Solution would remove the cloud that hangs over the title to many properties in eastern Europe. The guidelines apply to communal and personal property and state that the compensation process should be accessible, simple, expeditious, avoid residency and other onerous requirements, and be of low cost. States should open their archives to assist in the proof of title, which should not be too onerous, while respecting the occupancy rights of those who are current residents in good faith. Poland, which attended the Terezin conference, did not sign up to the guidelines.
The achievements in this field, even before Terezin, are considerable. There have been settlements of the issues relating to dormant bank accounts in Switzerland, and to unclaimed insurance benefits. There have been payments to former slave labourers, and there has been some restoration of communal religious property. The Czech Government have established the European Shoah Legacy Institute in Prague to supervise follow-up.
Some countries which had formerly neglected the topic have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, legislation for the return of or compensation for stolen property—they are Turkey, Latvia, Hungary, and Lithuania. The UK, to its great credit, enacted the Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution Act 2009, and the significant contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in taking this forward must be recognised. The checking of the provenance of artworks which might have changed hands in the Nazi period is now routine. The UK has also appointed the first envoy for post-Holocaust issues, the distinguished diplomat Sir Andrew Burns. In addition, the Wiener Library in London hosts, from 2011, the International Tracing Service, a digital record of 17.5 million people of the Holocaust. All those involved are deeply grateful to the UK for this move.
The Government of Israel were previously reluctant to get involved, and many of the survivors there felt that to accept any tainted money, as they saw it, was immoral. But they have now set up a database of half a million pieces of stolen property called Project Heart. The list was compiled from European archives, and the plan is to move to legal and public action to stimulate the co-operation of countries that have not done the right thing so far.
However, problems remain. Too many states only allow claims for property taken in too narrow a time band, require current citizenship, or place impossible evidentiary burdens on claimants, when of course they must know that those who were killed or fled did not preserve title deeds. The pursuit of legal action inside a foreign country is prohibitively difficult, and the European Court of Human Rights too slow.
The worst offender, however, is Poland. It remains the only major country in the former Soviet bloc and now in Europe that has no law providing for restitution or compensation for private property stolen during the Holocaust. Poland was home to 3.3 million Jews before the war, of whom 90 per cent were destroyed, leaving behind their homes. On 13 occasions there has been Polish draft legislation, the most recent abandoned this year. Restitution had been made a condition of Polish entry to the EU, but was dropped at the last minute due to the country’s economic conditions. However, Poland is now one of the few European countries to have avoided the recession, and had a 4.3 per cent growth in GDP last year. This year Poland also abrogated the mechanism to facilitate the return of communal property seized by Nazi and communist decrees, before the work was finished.
We call on the UK Government to persuade Poland to participate in the 2012 conference on this topic, to disregard communist nationalisation of property seized by the Nazis, to assist in the creation and operation of a restitution mechanism, and to support the USA in its approaches to Poland.
The model restitution programme is that of Austria, which in 1938 forced Jewish property sales and forced Jews out of the professions. In 2001 Austria established a General Settlement Fund to resolve all remaining issues. The Austrian Government set up a three-person claims committee to receive claims, using relaxed standards of proof—for example, the 1938 property records, witness statements and birth certificates. The Austrians put $210 million into the fund, with extra for insurance claims. Claimants no longer had to take legal action at their own cost. The committee dealt with 20,000 claims relating to 240,000 individuals before closing its work. This model should be promoted by the UK Government for all outstanding eastern European issues. Archives need to be opened and an office has to help the elderly claimants with their research. I trust that this will be the UK’s programme when it attends the conference this year.
Sharansky said that the Holocaust was not only genocide but the greatest theft in history. Justice is in sight if the UK will use its good offices to ensure the implementation of the Terezin declaration.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has so eloquently introduced this short debate on the restitution of property in claims arising from the Holocaust. The House will probably be aware that I have no direct interest in this matter, having neither Jewish faith nor heritage, but partly because of that position of disinterest I have involved myself over the years in a number of issues concerning anti-Semitism. Sadly, because of the diffuse nature of that discourse, one suspects that issues of that old evil tend to return, even in cases where, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, it is not simply Jewish property but other property that has been looted.
It could be argued that the wicked legacy of Nazism is not just the Holocaust, with the slaughter of 6 million Jews and other minorities who were not acceptable to the Hitler Government. It is of course never easy, and perhaps may not be tasteful, to put in the same frame crimes against people and crimes against property, but the Nazi era saw not jut mass slaughter but also mass confiscation. It is never possible to restore lives which have been lost or lives which have been spoiled for ever by the suffering that has been endured. However, it is possible to make some amends, however inadequate, for property which has been looted.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and as direct memories and survivors of the Holocaust have passed from the scene, we are beginning to take an interest, or renew and intensify our interest, in these property issues. We know now that there is looted property in many countries—whether documented or not and whether under the control of the official authorities or other communities—which could in principle still be restored to the families of those from whom it was taken, whether they are Jewish or gentile. It is our duty in the modern world, if we claim to be based on liberal and modern values, to discharge this commitment.
Of course, survivors may be poor and they and often their families of that generation are bound to be frail, but, frankly, there is not very much time for our courts and bureaucracies to make acts of restitution in accordance with, for example, the Council of Europe resolution which bears directly on this for all member states. The noble Baroness reminded the House that in 2009 Britain signed the Terezin declaration, which reflected this new interest, passion and sense of urgency in getting the matter dealt with. Britain has acted on it and so, too, have other states which are in one sense perhaps more intimately concerned with this matter. Austria, for example, has set a standard of good practice. Others, frankly, have been more dilatory. I joined the noble Baroness and others recently in making representations to the Polish ambassador. We had a constructive, but not wholly satisfactory, discussion. I believe that that country—which did, of course, attend the Terezin conference—needs to do more than simply rely on individuals pursuing their own cases through the courts, elderly as many of them are. In a country with, sadly, so many property claims—by no means all of them arising from Jewish backgrounds—they need to provide for the systematic availability of their archives and for an office to pursue collective claims and, if possible, bring them to a conclusion.
We, in turn, as co-signatories to the Terezin declaration, need to undertake our own obligations. This is a matter of closure; it is a matter by which we can at least slightly mitigate one of the most disastrous chapters in history.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate on a subject that summons up the pain and tragedy endured by so many millions in Europe for so many years in the last century. The Terezin declaration by 46 European countries was an important step in healing wounds that remained from those terrible years. I speak as someone whose father lost close family in the Holocaust in Austria and in what was then Czechoslovakia. Nothing can undo the evil that was done, but restitution does at least recognise that evil was done. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said, it is not so much the material recovery of property that matters as the recognition of—the bearing of witness to—the fact that such evil was done. Without it, it is difficult to see how there can be any closing of the books or any defining atonement.
Of course, the restitution of assets is not the only way for such recognition to take place. The German artist Gunter Demnig, for example, created the idea of Stolpersteine: small memorials positioned in places associated with victims of Nazism. There are now hundreds of them in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and other European countries commemorating not just Jewish victims but Romany, homosexual and Christian victims of the Nazis, and many others as well.
Notwithstanding that, the restitution of assets has a crucial part to play in this process—and not just for the victims of the Nazis. The people of central and eastern Europe suffered not only from their tyranny but also from that of the communists. This country has a special relationship with Poland, which lies at the centre of this debate tonight; 35,000 Polish service personnel fought gallantly alongside us in the Second World War. More recently, thousands of Polish men and women have come to work in our service and manufacturing industries, making a significant contribution to economic growth in this country. It is regrettable that Poland appears to be the only post-communist European nation without legislation on the restitution of assets stolen by the Nazis and expropriated by the communists.
I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House understands the suffering that Poland endured in the 20th century and how complex and difficult these issues are. Of course, we all recognise the economic problems with which Poland is struggling, along with every other country in Europe. However, when the Terezin declaration was made, all the signatories recognised such difficulties and other signatories have made progress with implementation despite experiencing problems similar to those in Poland. We must hope that Poland, too, can now finally make some real progress on this matter.
Her Majesty’s Government showed the importance that they attach to these issues when nearly two years ago they appointed Sir Andrew Burns as the first envoy for post-Holocaust issues. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the work that Sir Andrew has been doing since then. I would also be grateful if the Minister could set out what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to encourage the implementation of the Terezin declaration by all signatories before the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two in 2015. I understand that the Minister, as he has on previous occasions when this subject has come up in your Lordships’ House, may well choose to withhold substantive comment until after the review conference on the declaration that is to be held later this year, but perhaps he could undertake now to report back to your Lordships’ House on the outcome of that conference and set out what further steps Her Majesty’s Government may think will then be necessary to ensure that all the signatories to the Terezin declaration implement its provisions by 2015.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Palmer rises to speak, since this is a self-regulating House and we may sometimes adopt different procedures, I can say that a great deal of understanding has broken out over the procedure to be adopted on the Scotland Bill. The usual channels have had a brief meeting and we have discussed these matters with the relevant Back-Benchers of both the Opposition and the Conservative Party who have a great interest in the amendments that they have tabled to the Bill. There is an understanding between the usual channels and interested Back-Bench Peers that we will conclude the whole of the Report stage of the Scotland Bill on Wednesday, and there is an agreement that that can be done without the need to return to the Bill tonight. This may be of assistance to noble Lords and to the staff of the House. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Palmer.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I will not take that as an invitation to speak for longer than I had originally intended. I want to make the important point that the restitution of wrongfully seized property is in no way a recompense for imprisonment, loss of life or genocide. Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling this debate and for summarising all that has happened and what it is hoped will happen.
Poland is the only major European country that has no law for the restitution of private property stolen during the Holocaust. Poland was part of the Terezin conference, although it did not sign the declaration. Before the war, there were 3 million Jews in Poland and afterwards only 300,000 were left. My late mother was one of the lucky ones. She and her brother sought sanctuary in Britain, coming here between the two great wars. My mother married a Geordie and was saved by the welcome that she received in this country. However, her mother, my maternal grandmother, and my aunt were never heard of again after 1944. They were part of that tragedy.
The family had been bakers in the town of Szrensk, which is between Warsaw and Gdansk, and I imagine that assets of some sort would have been lost by my family. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I have no records whatever. To me, that is all ancient history. I along with many others have made my way in this country, which many people here sadly take for granted. I do not look for monetary restitution. In fact, when I look back at those wars, I think more of my late father’s British war service, attached to the Eighth Army, and of my uncle, who was killed while serving with the Middlesex Regiment. However, there are those who rightly believe that they need and are entitled to restitution. Many survivors and their offspring live in straitened circumstances.
There are approximately 90,000 surviving claimants to property in Poland. The majority are non-Jewish, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boswell and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. In some cases the confiscators were the Nazis, while in others they were the communists. Listening to other noble Lords, I thought that it might be useful to give one example. It is that of the Polish resistance fighter Jan Karski, who was on the run from the Gestapo. He was sheltered for months on a country estate owned by the Sawa family. Karski was eventually smuggled out of occupied Poland. Sadly, the Sawa family did not get out of the country and Karski later learnt that the entire family had been arrested by the Nazis, tortured and executed. The point of relevance to this debate is that the property of that non-Jewish family was added to the vast horde of loot stolen by the Nazis and never returned.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned, there are at least 13 occasions when Poland has drafted legislation and then stuck it back on the shelf. The European Parliament, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the US Senate and Congress have all called on Poland to resolve the claims. Now it must be our turn in the UK to urge the Polish Government to ease the onerous conditions imposed on potential claimants who have to go to law, to give them access to records, to allow them to set up a modest central fund to resolve claims for religious and communal property and, lastly, to participate in the 2012 conference on Holocaust-era assets.
Lord Gold
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward this dinner break debate, although I would have preferred it if we had not been running to Spanish dinner times. The Terezin conference was the last of a series of conferences convened to consider the issue of restitution following seizure by Nazi Germany of so much property in Europe. Forty-three countries drafted non-binding guidelines relating to best practice in property restitution. These guidelines provided the basis for international, intergovernment negotiations. Governments were required to act swiftly to enact laws to create new restitution rules and regulations to assist claimants to retrieve property or obtain compensation.
In the case of heirless property where the family members had been wiped out, states were requested to create solutions for restitution and compensation. They were charged with creating special funds to promote welfare for needy survivors, as well as to create memorials and commemorations of the Holocaust. The guidelines promoted the idea that resolving issues of restitution and title to property is no longer the sole interest of any one signatory country. All signatory nations are called upon to create procedures for restitution and to consult with each other—effectively to move things along and solve problems.
And so we come to Poland. As noble Lords have heard this evening, Poland is the only post-communist European country without restitution or compensation legislation. Poland has had a go—indeed, several goes—at drafting legislation, but it has come to nothing. Poland’s latest attempt at passing a law was earlier this year, when it was proposed that all restitution claims would go through the Polish courts, where claimants would have to prove land ownership in property registries burned down during the Second World War, or to procure testimony from witnesses who were no longer alive. What is more, claimants had to put up a guarantee of 3 per cent of the property value being claimed, which would be forfeited in the event that the claim was rejected. Not surprisingly, the proposed law received much criticism, and so far nothing has been done.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, last year’s excuse was an economic one. The economic climate was not conducive, we were told, to a restitutionary law being enacted. Bearing in mind, as we have heard, that Poland’s economic growth exceeded 4 per cent, the excuse no longer hangs together. Where do we go from here? As I said, the Terezin declaration calls for countries to work together to secure restitution or compensation. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, a lot of pressure has been put on Europe by the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the US Senate and Congress. Indeed, restitution was to have been a condition of Poland’s entry to the EU, but that went by the wayside. More must be done, and if all European countries and the USA were to join together and put pressure on Poland, I am sure that progress could be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on 5 December last year, said that the Government took,
“the issue of property restitution very seriously”,
and would,
“continue to remind Poland of its stated intention to reinstate a restitution Bill, currently stalled, when its economic situation allows”.—[Official Report, 5/12/11; col. 499.]
I venture to suggest that growth of 4.3 per cent—if only we had that here—allows for restitution. I would ask the Minister once again to remind Poland, this time a bit more loudly, of its duty. If he can encourage some of our friends on both sides of the Atlantic to join in this noble cause, perhaps at last we will make some progress.
On joining the EU, Poland signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which holds that:
“No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”.
No such law applied when the Nazis seized this property, and it is time for Poland to recognise this. Poland has a moral obligation, and we would like to see it deliver on that morality.
Viscount Hanworth
The enormity of the Holocaust places it in a category of its own, and a recognition of this is embodied in the Terezin agreement. The stated objectives of the Terezin accord have been pursued by the signatories with varying degrees of alacrity. The signatory that has faced the greatest practical task in identifying the victims and their inheritors and in making consequential actions is Poland. It was acknowledged by Nigel Ross, the principal British delegate to the conference, that although Poland had to a large extent dealt with the matter of communal restitution, it had made no real progress in the matter of personal restitution. It is undeniable that there have also been acts of bad faith. There are now very few survivors who have had a direct experience of the Holocaust, so the issue here is the restitution of properties to inheritors of Holocaust victims. Surely the reason why so little has been forthcoming from the Poles in that respect is that they fear that by making such restitutions they will encourage a much greater number of claims from other parties. There was a considerable displacement of Germans from Poland at the end of the war and they and their descendants must surely be encouraged to make claims, if other claims were allowed.
There are many more recent cases to contend with that have arisen from the post-war communist period. In a fragile post-communist era, the Poles have preferred to let sleeping dogs lie, instead of addressing the abuses of the previous era. One such abuse has left an erstwhile dictator in control of a vast estate that was expropriated under his regime. I am reasonably familiar with Poland, and, in particular, with the city of Lodz, which I have visited on three occasions and to which I will return in May. The city was a textile manufacturing town that was built mainly in the 40 years from 1840 to 1880. During that period, it accumulated a mixed population of Poles, Germans, Russians and Jews. I first visited Lodz in the 1980s; in the Polish winter, it was a dank and grizzled place. No one thought of showing me its former splendours. The stucco of its architectural adornments had, in main, become unstuck. The city was undifferentiated in its misery and decay.
On my last visit, two years ago, I was astonished to see the city renewed. It had become self-conscious in its beauty. The huge textile manufacturing complex of Israel Posnansky, referred to simply as Manufaktura, has been restored to its former glory as a huge shopping centre and leisure complex. Its four-storey workshops have become hotels, museums and art galleries. The population of the city is becoming increasingly heterogeneous, comprising Poles, Germans, Baltic people and Russians. One former element that is missing is a Jewish population. The city is still derelict in some quarters, indeed it is increasingly so. One such area, which is adjacent to Manufaktura, once housed a predominantly Jewish population. The buildings are in decay because the rights to the properties are undecided. Perhaps if the intentions were fulfilled, the Terezin declaration would serve to establish the rights of ownership of the descendants of those who vacated these properties under duress. However, the properties have surely lost their value. Calculated at present values and diminished by at least two rounds of death duties, they would amount to a paltry inheritance.
I should hesitate to make recommendations regarding other people’s inheritance, but I do have a suggestion to offer. A statute of limitations should be negotiated, with certain strong provisos. It should be agreed that the titles to the properties in question should revert to the municipality. The provisos are that this should happen only if the municipality would undertake the restoration of the properties, and a prominent acknowledgement should be made of their provenance and of the generosity of those who have relinquished their entitlements.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this evening’s debate. I have learnt much, and I have been touched by the personal stories that we have heard. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her long-standing dedication to the cause of encouraging all nations to recognise their obligations to pay reparations for objects looted during one of the darkest periods of the world’s history.
Restitution is indeed about victims and the need for moral accounting. No matter how many times one hears the horrific statistics relating to the Holocaust, it is deeply shocking, and I trust that that sense of horror and shock will continue. As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said, crimes against property cannot equate to crimes against humanity; but even inadequate amends for property that has been looted ensures, in part, that moral accounting. My noble friend Lord Wills spoke of the sense of healing and the bearing of witness that evil has been done.
During the Holocaust, property was stolen, homes were looted, valuables and paintings were pillaged, wedding rings were melted down and, as we know, even the gold teeth of Holocaust victims were removed and transformed into gold use. It has been estimated that by the end of the war the Germans had looted in the region of £550 million.
Like all noble Lords who have spoken, my party, when in government, fully supported Holocaust asset restitution, and we continue to see the issue of restitution as morally important as well as legally and culturally vital to honour. That is why, following the 1998 Washington conference on Holocaust-era assets and the endorsement of the Washington declaration on Nazi-confiscated art, the Labour Government established the Spoliation Advisory Panel. This small panel of experts makes an important contribution and reaches carefully considered conclusions to claims for restitution, and its work is rightly appreciated for being fair. The panel by no means always finds in favour of the claimants. Labour in government issued a consultation paper, Restitution of Objects Spoliated in the Nazi-Era, that concluded in favour of removing statutory restrictions on the return of assets. My Government facilitated legislation to enable the de-accession of cultural items from museums, and we signed the UK up to the Terezin declaration that we are discussing this evening.
From these Benches we endorse the Terezin principles and strongly encourage the Government to use diplomatic efforts to encourage other states to sign up to and honour what the declaration called for. As we have heard in today’s debate, there is particular concern that Poland has yet to become a signatory to Terezin. I believe that Poland has a moral duty to sign up to the declaration and to honour it. As we have heard, poor survivors of the genocide need and deserve restitution.
It is important that efforts to secure just and fair solutions regarding cultural property such as those outlined in the Terezin declaration are sustained. This evening’s debate will encourage the Government to keep up the pressure. My party favours a power of permission, not compulsion. We feel that there is a moral imperative behind restitution but acknowledge difficulties in forcing current trustees to return looted goods. In acknowledging the need for permissive legislation to facilitate restitution, my Government gave our full support to the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, in 2009; and, like the noble Baroness, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Janner for what he did in securing that legislation. As a result of the legislation, the boards of trustees of the British Museum, the British Library, the Natural History Museum, the Tate galleries and many more may transfer an object from their collections if so advised.
The Terezin declaration goes further than calling for the restitution of cultural objects and wrongfully seized personal property. It calls for Holocaust education, remembrance and the preservation of memorials. We fought hard for multilateral support to educate, research and remember such a terrible event, and signed the Stockholm declaration in 2000. The first Holocaust Memorial Day took place soon afterwards in 2001. Our support has never wavered, and neither has the support of Members of this House.
It is important that measures are taken to remember, restore and respect, and I welcome the opportunity in this House to do just that today. I urge the Government to do whatever they can to ensure that Poland signs up to the Terezin declaration.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for this debate and the opportunity to discuss this delicate and deeply emotional subject. I thank her for her kind words about the efforts that the British Government have been making and continue to make in this area.
The 46 states that signed the Terezin declaration in 2009 made a landmark moral commitment to address some of the injustices related to the Holocaust, including the wrongful seizure of property from families and individuals across our continent, particularly in the eastern part. The declaration set out the principles and measures for the signatories to implement not just in the field of immovable property, which we are focusing on today, but also looted art, Judaica, social welfare for Holocaust survivors, open archives and Holocaust remembrance and research. The guidelines on best practice for property restitution that were adopted by individual signatories were intended to be turned into law and practice.
Like many noble Lords gathered in the House today, the Government are frustrated with the lack of real progress since that declaration was signed. The Government, the noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Janner, played a significant role in the original discussions, and we will again be one of the main actors in the review conference later this year to move its implementation forward. The review conference can provide much needed renewed momentum for property and art restitution across Europe. We are actively involved in preparatory meetings, pressing for practical and meaningful outcomes at the conference. We have suggested case studies from those states that have made good progress and practical seminars with lawyers and financing experts, designed to help member states tackle some of the commonly raised issues.
In researching this speech, I was fascinated and moved by the history of the recovery by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of some of her family silver. One gets a sense of the importance of history, identity and continuity that that can provide, and the difficulty of being able to re-establish it. It is a wonderful story and I recommend to others that they look into it. Some of the family silver had been hurriedly given to a Polish neighbour who had buried it in their garden, and who discovered only when he read the story of the noble Baroness’s search for the remains of her family property that there was a link and he could at last find someone to whom he could restore it.
We are all conscious of the complexities and, I should say, the agonies of Polish history. Two summers ago I read Timothy Snyder’s book Bloodlands on what happened to all the peoples between Germany and Russia—all the many Jews who lived in that area but also Ukrainians, Poles, Belarusians and others. I note that the family of the wife of Norman Davies, who assisted in the recovery and return of the noble Baroness’s silver, lost their property in what is now Ukraine and were forced to move into other vacant property in what is now Poland—everyone has been forced to push west, of course—that for all they knew might well have been confiscated from Jewish Poles.
The status of Polish property records compared with the Austrian ones, which the noble Baroness rightly holds up as a model, are rather less good than they should be, for fairly obvious reasons—the amount of destruction that Poland suffered during the war. The Polish archives are gradually being digitised but there is still a long way to go. In many parts of Poland, with the boundaries having been shifted so sharply, the layers of claims to ownership are extremely complex and contested.
I also recommend the memoir written by the current Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, about his family’s attempt to buy and restore a house in western Poland. As they began to restore it, there were occasions when others came and looked at it and expressed an interest in re-establishing their property ownership—quite often people from Germany or elsewhere. We all understand that Poland has enormous difficulty in establishing who owned what and when; and the years of Nazi, then communist, ownership have made this extremely difficult.
We are focusing on Poland, but Ukraine, whether or not you regard it as a post-communist country, is another case in point. It failed to attend the conference or sign the declaration, as did Russia. Without naming names, it is fair to say that other states that signed up to the declaration have a patchy record in implementing it.
Several Peers touched on the question of what restitution is intended to restore. The noble Baroness said that Holocaust restitution was not about money but victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that we were talking about moral accounting. As some noble Lords may know, the Austrian central fund has restored a small percentage of the estimated value of the property. In the Polish case, part of our concern we have is that the Polish Government are extremely worried about how large the bill would be once the claims were presented—not only by Jewish former owners but by the much larger number of Polish former owners, many of them no longer living in Poland.
I note from a story in the Jewish Chronicle in summer 2009 that the estimate of the total value of property lost in Poland during the war was around £15.5 billion. It is thought that 80 per cent of it came not from Jews but from Poles who lost land. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggested, it is quite clear that such large sums simply could not be restored. There is a conversation to be had with the Polish Government about levels of financial restitution, as well as about moral closure, which is what we are all most interested in.
I was asked what activities Sir Andrew Burns, the UK Government’s special representative, is currently engaged in. I found him extremely helpful on several occasions in briefing me on this. He is actively involved in working with the other parties to the Terezin declaration to ensure that this November’s review conference produces some concrete deliverables. He will participate in two preparatory meetings in Prague before November’s conference, and co-hosted a meeting with his American opposite number in London two weeks ago to discuss the November review conference. He is also active in recruiting a new director for the International Tracing Service, which the noble Baroness spoke about, and will lead the British delegation to the 2012 review conference, which will also include members of NGOs and other UK experts.
The noble Lord, Lord Gold, asked whether Poland still had a programme for the restitution of communal property. It does not have legislation for the restitution of private immovable property, but the draft legislation on private property has not been passed because of the EU’s public debt rule. Again, the issue is how far the Polish Government, under their somewhat constrained circumstances, are willing to take on substantial financial obligations to people who, largely, live outside Poland under their somewhat constrained circumstances. The forecast for economic growth in 2012 is 2.5 per cent, after last year’s satisfactory growth of 4 per cent. If Poland adopted the draft legislation on private property, it would breach current EU rules on financial discipline.
We very much welcome this debate, and we clearly need to continue working on this issue. We will be doing our utmost actively to make sure that the November review conference is a great success. I certainly commit, on behalf of the Government, to report back in the most suitable fashion on the developments at the review conference.
Perhaps I might add briefly that Lodz has often been described to me as the Polish Bradford, that it is very much the same sort of city. When I heard that the city was still derelict in some places, I was thinking about some parts of Bradford, in which I was delivering leaflets on Saturday, which need a little bit of restoration still. All of us who know Poland know there are some very beautiful parts that have escaped the rigours of the war. Warsaw, where I am going on Friday, did not escape the rigours of the war and was largely destroyed. Of course, part of the emotional intensity of this on both sides is that the Poles feel that they suffered a great deal in the war and that the rest of the world does not always understand how much they suffered.
I thank everyone for their participation in this debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for the vigour with which she continues to pursue this set of issues. Her Majesty’s Government remain actively engaged in this and we will be taking a very active part in November’s review conference.